CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is murder wrong?
I was debating two people who shall remain nameless. They both denied that murder is wrong. Murder is wrong because it violates the right of the victim to live.
An "unjust killing of a human" according to US law. Frankly, I don't see why it has to be a human. I also don't see why self defense doesn't count, just because it's not "unjust." If person A starts choking person B, then if person B kills person A in defense, I think it's still murder. It's just justified. I think the definition is still murder. The only difference is it was murder in self defense.
That answers my question, but if someone just wants to use the term "murder" to describe what happened when five guys tried to jump him, what's wrong with that?
Also, what's wrong with saying someone "murdered" a dog? Animal cruelty can't come in the form of killing an animal? Alright, then I guess if someone said "I will MURDER your FUCKING DOG" then they should be politically incorrect.
But I see what you're saying, so the REAL argument should be "Is killing people wrong?"
That answers my question, but if someone just wants to use the term "murder" to describe what happened when five guys tried to jump him, what's wrong with that?
The only thing wrong with that is using the wrong word. Why not call it hugging or kissing?
Also, what's wrong with saying someone "murdered" a dog? Animal cruelty can't come in the form of killing an animal? Alright, then I guess if someone said "I will MURDER your FUCKING DOG" then they should be politically incorrect.
It isn't about political correctness. If we want to determine if murder is wrong we should probably pick a focus point that makes sense.
But I see what you're saying, so the REAL argument should be "Is killing people wrong?"
Yes, that is something to debate. Or when is it ok.
The only thing wrong with that is using the wrong word. Why not call it hugging or kissing?
Because hugging and kissing aren't synonyms for killing. You'll find "murder" in the thesaurus under "kill."
It isn't about political correctness. If we want to determine if murder is wrong we should probably pick a focus point that makes sense.
Right, and I'm saying that we shouldn't be so focused on political correctness, that killing an innocent dog shouldn't be called murder. What does it being at that extent say about the term applied to humans?
Because hugging and kissing aren't synonyms for killing. You'll find "murder" in the thesaurus under "kill."
It was an exaggeration to prove a point. If it isn't the correct word, using a synonym still makes you wrong.
Right, and I'm saying that we shouldn't be so focused on political correctness, that killing an innocent dog shouldn't be called murder. What does it being at that extent say about the term applied to humans?
Including dogs in this discussion doesn't get us anything.
As you can see in the url text (which now differs from the title), the title used to ask if a rapist being raped is karma. And, as you can see in the comment section, she fully supported rapists being raped, and (imo) still does now.
Of course, accusing Atrag and I of being supporters of rape isn't the only way that she's twisted the matter. Shit's fucked up.
EDIT Upon further inspection through the aforementioned debate, i found that, although I was arguing the same position as the two banned members, I am not one of them. That said I'm almost disappointed that I wasn't banned :(
When a person does something like this, they will always be inherently aware that they are causing extreme harm to someone, and they will always feel guilty regardless of how they try to supress it. If they do really decide to do it inspite of what inhibits it, it will be because they ignore the importance of the person they do it to, and do it anyways for what they gain. So yes, its wrong because they are knowingly causing harm to another person.
There is no argument about subjective desire vs. objective right v. wrong either. Such an argument basically says, "but maybe some people just don't understand that other people are important." Even if someone commits a wrong in ignorance (of another persons importance or of the harm in their actions), it is still a wrong. If I enslaved someone because they were black and therefore it was acceptable according to my thinking, I would be committing a wrong against that person even if I did not know that they were important. A sin in ignorance is still a sin.
Yeah it wrong, we all know its wrong, but some of us do it anyway. Some have better reasons than others. Now how about revenge killing? Say some red john loser kills your family, is it wrong to kill him?
It's wrong...... except in times of war, or in the heat of passion... or if you really think someone deserves it... or if your religion says it's okay...
I think murder is a legally defined term. But let me put it this way. What if you know someone is going to shoot you in the head. They've threatened it on YouTube. You've found the weapons in their home and an entry in their diary that talks about murdering you.
Now obviously, you shouldn't be looking in their diary, but if you think someone's going to murder you, I think do what you have to to survive.
What you've presented is a ginormous if, and it would have sufficed to just say, what if they pointed a gun at your head.
Legally you can't take any actions until actions have been taken against you. You can sue, and or have the police check them out if you've got all of these verbal threats that they plan to take action against you, but until an actual threatening action is taken against you, you would not be legally allowed to kill another person, no matter what was said, written, or shown in a video.
No, I don't think it is wrong in the objective sense. I believe it's all judged by perspective and perspective in inherently subjective. If I go and kill a man will morals strike me down? No. Only society will. Was it wrong for vikings to plunder, rape, and kill others in order to feed themselves? To me this is natural human mentality. Morality is a construct that attempts to organize order in society based off of what the common man thinks.
So you're telling me it's easier for you to believe that God; who wasn't created but simply just always was, created the universe, for no reason (besides perhaps to be eternally worshipped and praised as some form of masturbtion), life, and everything resulting from the two; than believe any other idea or theory based on some level of empirical evidence you've ever heard? I don't believe you; and if I am to, I don't think I am to trust you on the validity of your opinins of morals outright.
That is not relevent. What is relevent is that each person is as inherently important as each other person, and therefore it is wrong to for someone knowingly cause others pain for their benefit. That is why every single person is aware of what is right and wrong including those who commit evil, because even those who commit evil know they are committing evil, but they do it anyways because they are not directly effected by the evil they commit.
The person was arguing that objective morality doesnt exist. Therefore if it doesn't exist then nothing is objectively wrong. Therefore rape and murder and whatever other act isn't objectively wrong. To address his argument you have to address the nature of morality. Whether it is objective or subjective. what do you think? If you are convinced that it is entirely subjective then you must concede that nothing is objectively wrong including rape and murder.
I've been meaning to get back to that. I think your argument deserves a fully fleshed out rebuttal and I've been working a lot lately, (and if not working its been on Terraria). So it's in the pipes.
Rape is the subjective term for wrong sex act. Murder is the subjective term for wrong kill. Objectively those acts are wrong. But, you can think some things are not rape or murder that I think are.
Well, it does exist because each person is as inherently important as each other person and each person knows that. And when people do things like rape they inherently know they are wrong because of the fact, but they do it anyways.
It depends on the situation I suppose. In war some murder to protect there country. During poverty some murder to protect there family. And many other times it is necessary to survive. Those like me who live in the united states are quite lucky. We do not have to murder to keep our loved ones safe or to survive ourselves. But who are we to say that the people who have it worst than us that them doing what is necessary for survival is "wrong". So my answer is no. Murder is not always wrong.
"Without God there is no morality. Simple as that. No objective morality. Other than what society dictates, but then we get to that gut feeling. We know murder is wrong, but we can't go on feelings. For hundreds of years faggots were wrong. Evolutionary speaking they are not contributing to the gene pool. So that throws the majority argument out the window. If every person on this planet was a homo our species would succumb. If every person on this planet was a murderer our species would die out also. Alas, homos are A-Okay. Now, you say, but homos aren't harming anyone. Harming? What is harming? Why is it wrong to pain someone. Life is just a bunch of molecules. We are just stardust oozing. Why not kill and have fun? Are you really just listening to what society says like they have done with the gays in the past. You live. You die. It does not even matter if our species die out, because life is one big accident. So murder is not wrong. If you can teach your kids that and form a society where males challenge each other to the death for a female. Your species will still survive. I bet Nazi Germany thought killing Jews was okay. If no one intervened it would be okay."
I posing my best argument for if I were an atheist.
