CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
9
Yes No
Debate Score:23
Arguments:39
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (13)
 
 No (8)

Debate Creator

bacasta1(22) pic



Is war a form of murder?

Yes

Side Score: 14
VS.

No

Side Score: 9
2 points

Technically, I would say no, as the definition of murder is 'The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.' Since the military's job is to kill I'm pretty sure it's not illegal for them to kill enemies (unless they are surrendering or unarmed).

Morally though, I would say yes, as a lot of wars are caused by a disagreement about something, be it religion, culture, etc. If an ordinary citizen killed someone because they disagreed with them, it would be murder. If someone killed someone to gain access to their resources it would be murder.

I'm not against the military, as it is essential in some circumstances, but I do think the west has made the Middle East a worse place, but then doesn't understand why terrorist organisations thrive there. If a foreign army bombed your country, killing thousands of civilians and then just leaving once they had 'won', it's no surprise some people there have a hatred of the people who took everything from them.

I'm not justifying the actions of terrorist groups, but we have more to do with it than we care to admit.

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

You answered on the Yes side of the debate and then as all you Leftist do you go into some long rant that means nothing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yes
Dermot(5736) Disputed
1 point

He answered on the ....... left side of the debate 🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀

Side: No
John_C_1812(277) Disputed
1 point

We stand righteous in our belief so that no man dies in darkness for freedom is the light for which many have been given by vote to darkness. The job of the United States Military is as representation of the President of the United State. Preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Side: No
1 point

Thanks for sharing and if all criminals are unarmed why do cops in the US keepshooting them 🙀

No a keyboard doesn't but the person behind it is all knowing

Side: Yes
John_C_1812(277) Clarified
1 point

maybe not all criminals need only a fire-arm to be lethal?

Side: Yes
Dermot(5736) Clarified
1 point

Yes one can be lethal without a fire -arm , and ?......................

Side: Yes

It depends which side you are on. Usually one side is defending itself. *

Side: No
1 point

No , murder is the unlawful taking of life , there is lawful taking of life as in war ,

Side: No
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Darwin says there is lawful taking of life in war but why is the Left gets all in knots when a criminal is shot by the police !

Side: Yes
Hornet(34) Disputed
1 point

When it's an unarmed criminal.

A police officer cannot be the judge, jury and executioner.

Side: Yes
Dermot(5736) Disputed
1 point

Why do you assume I'm a representative for the left ?

Why don't you ask the left why they get in a knot over a cop shooting a criminal ?

Side: Yes
1 point

Didn't know American criminals had three arms 🤔 Interesting 😳

Side: No
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

You didn't know criminals had three arms now that is interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yes

War is a means of self-defense to the general welfare, it can be proved as murder inside a Court of law. War itself is not murder and does not self-incriminate as murder in any way, shape, or form. War by Constitutional definition are never won only served, survived, and represented.

The question you ask is the very reason the United States of America is a union by state, as one nation giving creation to the title President of the United States described by Served, Survived and Represented. It is part of the legal argument that would describe a woman in executive office as anything but, President of the United States under oath before the United States Constitutional separation.

Side: No
1 point

I agree with Dermot's explanation, but I'll add that both sides have to agree they're in a war or else it still might be considered murder. For example, if a man blows up a bus as some sort of sociopolitical statement then he and his group of followers might consider that an act of war, but the families of the victims as well as the government which didn't take that group of dissidents seriously enough might argue no actual war is going on, so therefore it's murder.

Side: No
John_C_1812(277) Disputed
1 point

The issue here by legal precedent is that terrorism is in fact sabotage. Both sides do not have to agree they are at war as this leaves room for simple self-denial as an excuse.

Side: Yes