CreateDebate


Debate Info

93
56
Yes No
Debate Score:149
Arguments:125
Total Votes:157
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (72)
 
 No (51)

Debate Creator

Kururai(167) pic



Is there a way killing is justified?

I think no personally.

Yes

Side Score: 93
VS.

No

Side Score: 56
8 points

In self defense. .

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

Killing is not necessary for one to protect. I understand injuring them, but to kill them is over the top.

Side: No
The Phantom(453) Disputed
2 points

Sometimes it is. There are many possibilites of life threatening situations, and some of them require killing for survival.

Side: Yes
kountakine(88) Disputed
1 point

Self defence is defined "a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack"

Of course you can try to injure them, but what if they are multiple of them,Im sure in that state you dont think to just injure them, but you think the best way to protect yourself is to exterminate them.

I clearly support that we can kill in self defence if they is no other way,and the chance to be killed is high.

Any other killing is not justified, and should be punished to death sentence!

So killing in death sentence is justified as well

What is the difference of a murderer and Saddam Hussain, both of them are same and killed, one maybe in the name off land,the other was stealing and killed....etc if you kill one person its as big than you kill the hole humanity , and therefore the accountability should be equal very every human killed the punishment should be death sentence.

Human cannot just justify the killing of 1 person a murderer in hold up and give jail sentence of 30 years, and on the other hand hanging a dictator because he killed millions.

My point is every human being which is killed is valuable, the quantity doesn't matter

Side: Yes
1 point

If you do self defense, sometimes you can't control what you actions do to the person. For example, when you kick them in the stomach just for self defense, you cant control what their body's reaction would be, to what you did.

Side: Yes
2 points

In certain circumstances like self defense, food, or for the greater good of people.

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

Killing is not necessary for one to use self defense. For food, we have animals, vegetarians, and vegans. Cannibalism is not deemed necessary for survival. Where there are places that people can be at, there are also sustained life forms. And for the greater good of people, if you could kill Hitler before he committed genocide, would you? Most would answer yes, but that means that he has not done anything wrong yet, and so you are the one committing murder.

Side: No
riahlize(1573) Disputed
1 point

Killing is not necessary for one to use self defense.

Not always, of course. But sometimes, when defending yourself of loved ones, accidentally or unfortunately a life may end.

For food, we have animals, vegetarians, and vegans. Cannibalism is not deemed necessary for survival.

Check your question. You asked “is there a way killing is justified?”. You did not specify killing humans (and we won't get into the debate that humans are animals). Thus, you have indirectly admitted killing can be justified.

Where there are places that people can be at, there are also sustained life forms. And for the greater good of people, if you could kill Hitler before he committed genocide, would you? Most would answer yes, but that means that he has not done anything wrong yet, and so you are the one committing murder.

Not necessarily. I can gather evidence to demonstrate the harm he would commit if he continued. Once he was about to conduct his plan,.yes I would kill him if I had the power to.

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes, because, let's say, and this is just a hypothetical situation, that some dude (A) was trying to kill another dude. (B) And B killed A simply because it was, in that situation, the only way to save his own life. Then I think the killing was justified, and B should not be imprisoned, since he had no intent to murder and it was simply in self defence. But killing 'just because' isn't justified. Thought out murder, or setting out with the intention of killing someone is never justified.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yeah... what that shadowy character said.

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

To kill is not needed to use self defense. To defend yourself from harms way is not the same as killing another just to protect yourself. Has their even been a case where you had to kill someone so you wouldn't get killed? If so please tell, and i will give a reason why killing the person in that "case" was not necessary.

Side: No
Hellno(17753) Disputed
1 point

Fuck that! If they're trying to kill me... I'll kill them!

Side: Yes

if someone kills my child

If someone tries to kill me, ill just be like, peace man, peace, hit this joint! jk, if someone tried to kill me i would just try to maim and cripple them and runaway

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

You said maim and cripple them then runaway. You are not killing them.

Side: No
1 point

i know i gave my case for justified killing right before that

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

If someone killed your child and you killed them, would you not be arrested? therefore by society, it is deemed murder.

Side: No
1 point

society can suck my i am not a part of society, i am, but im not, not in the least bit

Side: Yes
1 point

If someone tries to kill you and you get a chance to kill them.

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

Why would you need to kill them? In what way is it necessary to kill them. If they won't stop attacking you, then use a different way to get them to stop. A man may not attack another on his own will if he is unconscious.

Side: No
Cuaroc(8823) Disputed
1 point

A man cannot attack another man if he is dead. Also how would i knock someone unconscious if i can only attack his throat?

Side: Yes
Emperor(1348) Disputed
1 point

There is no place in this world for murderous scum.

If you are a person who is trying to murder me, a person who is normally nonviolent and a pacifist, then you are probably a very bad person. I would not feel bad killing that person if they were attacking me to try to kill me.

Side: Yes

Of course, you kill them and loot their items from their corpse to use on your adventures!

*

But alright, jokes aside, I think killing is only justifiable in the case of self defense in whence that if you did not kill them, you would be killed.

Otherwise though, I think it's totally unjustifiable.

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

However, there is never an instance where you cannot possibly live unless you kill.

Side: No
chatturgha(1631) Disputed
1 point

That would be the case, if every human being was a masterful warrior who was trained from birth how to disabled people without killing them in combat.

But that is not the case. Especially so in these days of extremely advanced weaponry.

Side: Yes

Of course, in the protection of life, killing is justified. Everyone has the right to defend their own life.

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

They have the right to defend themself, however killing the person endangering you is not necessary.

Side: No
0 points

Actually, killing is necessary because if someone approaches you with aggression, what else there is to meet that aggression with aggression, and if it death, I rather be the one still living; therefore, I am going to use whatever aggression is necessary.

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
0 points

although to protect one's life, killing is not necessary. Can you guys read the first comment in the No area? It already disproves that self defense is not a reason.

Side: No
1 point

Killing justified when it is spoken about bad things. So, God can kill bad people in order to stop the growth or because of His holiness.

Side: Yes

Self-defense would be a valid reason since it concerns a life and death situation. In that scenario, the aggressive individual is the one subject to restriction under the law since murder or any such attempts are prohibited under the law. So the act before physical contact is in itself a violation of the law. Thus the defensive person has every right to maintain its lie by any means necessary.

Another would be by mercy killing. In the event that a person is incapacitated and has no chance of surviving, it is recommended that the person is killed at once by painless means as to avoid suffering. Euthanasia is legal so it is justified.

Side: Yes
1 point

yeah sure, for example:protecting yourself OR police have the rights to kill any criminal that chose to ran

Side: Yes

If a person has caused harm to anyone else, and are most likely going to repeat the crime in the future, then they should be put on the death penalty. Yes, it would probably be worse for the criminal if they rot in prison, but wouldn't it be better for the victim knowing that the man/woman will never escape again? Killing is justified under the right circumstances.

Side: Yes
jonathangoh(1724) Clarified
1 point

a very good answer

Side: Yes
jonathangoh(1724) Clarified
1 point

Under the right circumstances

Side: Yes

Yes like self defence. That would be a VERY common answer

Side: Yes

OR when you want to stop a criminal (I do not see how a gun is needed)

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes. War.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes. Self defense. If you say no, if you are pregnant and you see a man coming to you with a knife and his * hanging out of his pants, and you happen to have a gun, would you shoot him if he doesn't stop coming towards you?

Side: Yes
1 point

There is also the Moral Imperative, in which case you would sacrifice one life to save two, etc.

Put another way, there is a pram with a baby on the railway track. There is equally a blind man. Which one do you save? Through inaction for the other one, they are being killed, by you.

Side: Yes
1 point

If someone broke into my house and was planning on seriously harming myself or my family then I will do what it takes to protect my life and families. If that means kill them, then yes but that would be the last resort. As for the death penalty I don't agree with that, because by killing that person you are answering murder with murder. I am a firm believer that peoples lives can change in prison, by killing them is not giving them the opportunity to do so. God can change their life and make them repent greatly for what they've done, furthermore giving them the opportunity to be with Jesus in the end. That is what is most important.

Side: Yes
orivatis2(34) Disputed
1 point

You are not answering murder with murder but with equal punishment. Why give them the wonderful option of fixing their life when they ended someone elses. Peoples hardworking money should not be applied to feed,house, or support a murder. Murderer deprived the victim of the ability to think,feel, and live in this wonderful world. Murder should be punished for the same

Side: No
1 point

Self-defence and retaliation (for example, against unrepentant serial killers or aggressor countries).

Side: Yes
1 point

If someone comes in my house with a gun, I'm not going to take the chance of letting them shoot me.

Side: Yes
1 point

In War and in the law.

--

Side: Yes

If you are being hunted down by enemies that will not stop until they kill you, then I would say so. Kill them bastards good. yeeehaw

Side: Yes
3 points

Personally, I believe that there is no justifiable way to kill another. The definition of murder is : to unlawfully kill another. The definition of kill is : To deprive one of life. To deprive a person of life is considered immoral. If one were to kill another in war, the person's family is sad. Many may be depressed to the point of ending their life. There is a chain reaction of death. Essentially, the man who killed the other in war has killed all of them. This is murder, since the family was not associated with war and therefore was killed unlawfully. This is mass murder, and in society, mass murder is not justifiable by any means. Another example is when you are being mugged. The mugger may attempt to kill you, however by self defense you kill them. Their reason for attempting to kill you was unjust, however many may see you killing the person to be justifiable. However, you are at fault still, because death is not necessary. It is possible to avoid death without creating death. This is proven, since many people have been mugged yet are still alive, and the mugger is in jail or simply escaped. Even if the mugger was killed by you, this may be considered unlawfully killing since the attacker may have people saddened or affected by his death. It may only be a possibility that people are saddened by his death, but it is still highly probable.

Side: No
1 point

what if someone killed your children?

If an animal kills another animals cub, that animal will get hunted down.

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
2 points

That is avenging ones precious people. It is not justifiable, since one would get arrested if one used that as a means to kill another. Human society is considered more advanced compared to the way animals think. Comparing us to animals will not work since our own logic is different.

Side: No
Empirical(14) Disputed
1 point

What are you talking about? Animals do not practice vengeance--only self defense or defense of the young.

Side: No
Cuaroc(8823) Disputed
1 point

What about self-defense?

Side: Yes
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

I explained how self defense would not be justified as a means to kill another in my comment.

Side: No
TheThinker(1697) Disputed
1 point

Before i dispute, i actually admire your determination on this side of the debate for an unknown reason. Anyway, if you find me rude, please don't. I want to be nothing but smiles when debating. :)

To deprive a person of life is considered immoral. If one were to kill another in war, the person's family is sad. Many may be depressed to the point of ending their life. There is a chain reaction of death. Essentially, the man who killed the other in war has killed all of them. This is murder, since the family was not associated with war and therefore was killed unlawfully.

I see what you are saying. I use to agree with your logic. But when i distinguished between "cause" and "responsibility" then i began to disagree with the logic.

Lets say someone in war kill a mother's son. And the mother found out and hanged herself. Well i will say in this point of view, this is not murder. This is suicide. Suicide and murder are two different things. In your logic, you see that the death of the son caused a reaction in the death of the mother. I do agree that there can be a chain of reaction when death happens. However, in the "cause" and "responsible" logic i see, the killer in war was a cause in the death of the mother, but the killer was not responsible. The way i think of the term "responsible" is a word that means "more direct." The mother was responsible for her own death because she tied the rope around her neck. The killer in war did not do that himself. In this logic, it feels appropriate to call this murder on the killer's part. The killer, however, played a major cause in her death.

You think the other way around. And i see and understand this logic. I somehow understand the contradictions in my own logic. @[email protected] And contradictions equals false as some people would say but i see your logic and agree with it on some levels. Like for example, if i shoot a bird int he air and it falls on the head of a human baby, and the baby died, i would feel responsible. I would feel linked to the death with me at the start of the link. HOWEVER, in this logic of yours, the link extends and extends and extends and it would show that maybe others are connected to the death of the baby, and, in your example, the death of the mother. What i am saying is...who drove me to the spot who shot the bird? Lets say it is my friend. Now he is in the start of the link that ultimately caused the infant's death. But, who gave his existence? Mother and father of course. So now the parents are in front of the link that made my friend's existence, that made my friend drove me, that made me shoot the bird, that made the child died. So the parents are murderers as well. In this logic with your example...who allowed the killer to be in war? Who gave power to the person to allow the future killer to be in war? And we can go on and on with infinite question possibly leading up to the scientific Big Bang Theory. And what about the trees? And the apples? And you and I? The trees and the apples inaction allowed the person to kill the mother's son. You and I should be murderers as well because either we didn't do anything or we didn't know. And yes, not knowing about a murder makes us murderers in this logic of yours because we didn't do anything to stop it.

It seems weird to blame the inactivity of trees and us, for the murder of the mother. We automatically give a nasty face to those accusers or have a disgust thought because we think "hey, i didn't tie the rope to her neck." But that is what your logic is saying. The soldier killed a son, a mother hangs herself even though the soldier didn't do with his own hands, and now the solider is a murderer. This is the chain of reaction you was talking about. But don't forget our inactivity, our non knowing of the murder, and the apples and the tree inactivity that caused a chain as well for making the death more and more possible.

....I don't think i answered your question. ahhh im such an idiot.

I guess what i said above was that i wanted to extend this logic of yours by blaming trees and apples, to make you think that maybe the soldier in war maybe isn't a killer....and making killing justified.

Sigh

:)

Side: Yes
Blindness_3(3) Disputed
1 point

You speak of the question of murder, which is not the intention of this debate. Murder (taking a life unlawfully) is wrong, yes. How is it wrong? If everyone were to murder at the same time, there would be no one left to murder, therefore no one left to make the idea of murder understandable. This makes murder morally impermissible. Killing, however, by means of self defense is rather ethical indeed. Here's how:

1. If an agent should be taken into a situation in which their life is threatened, the one who had taken this agent into the situation has the intent of causing harm

2. someone of this intent is most likely to commit this crime multiple times

3. then, leaving this person with their life will quite possibly cause the loss of others' innocent lives.

4. Ergo, defending yourself is actually the most ethical path here

It is basic utilitarianism, look at how many people this particular agent may kill if left un-checked as opposed to the life of one murderer.

Side: Yes
2 points

No one so far has found an error in my logic. I referred to society many times, however my ideals go against society. I disproved your ideals with my logic going against society, however I used society to support my ideals. If you all had realized this, I wouldn't have been arguing with you guys for the past few hours. Have fun!!

Side: No
meer(47) Disputed
2 points

WHAT? what if you are police and your order was to kill a murderer ?

Side: Yes

LOL pwned

Side: Yes
Empirical(14) Disputed
1 point

Excuse me, but you show a shocking lack of knowledge of the justice system. Police are not "ordered" to kill murderers. The only entity permitted to "kill" murderers is the state--after a conviction after a trial. And many appeals. Police are "ordered" to apprehend suspects.

I know what you meant, but really--just basic knowledge about how things work under our Constitution would be quite refreshing....

Side: No
Kururai(167) Disputed
0 points

Then society deemed that justified, since society ordered the killing.

Side: No
1 point

You can't disprove ideals, they're opinions, not facts.

Side: Yes
2 points

Justified? No. However, that is not to say I would not resort to it in a severe situation.

Side: No
andybar98(124) Disputed
1 point

Wait, so, you would resort to something you don't think can be justified? Apparently, you would do something you didn't think was right. Doesn't that go against your own argument? ChuckHades, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

Side: Yes

0.o 0.o

Side: No

I don't think so. I understand why other people do it (to an extent...) but for me personally, I would never be able to draw a blade to another human being. That's strictly a metaphor: I'm also anti death penalty, etc.

Side: No

Personally, I believe that there is no justifiable way to kill another. The definition of murder is : to unlawfully kill another. The definition of kill is : To deprive one of life. To deprive a person of life is considered immoral. If one were to kill another in war, the person's family is sad. Many may be depressed to the point of ending their life. There is a chain reaction of death. Essentially, the man who killed the other in war has killed all of them. This is murder, since the family was not associated with war and therefore was killed unlawfully. This is mass murder, and in society, mass murder is not justifiable by any means. Another example is when you are being mugged. The mugger may attempt to kill you, however by self defense you kill them. Their reason for attempting to kill you was unjust, however many may see you killing the person to be justifiable. However, you are at fault still, because death is not necessary. It is possible to avoid death without creating death. This is proven, since many people have been mugged yet are still alive, and the mugger is in jail or simply escaped. Even if the mugger was killed by you, this may be considered unlawfully killing since the attacker may have people saddened or affected by his death. It may only be a possibility that people are saddened by his death, but it is still highly probable.

Side: No

Killing is never justified. It is wrong and no excuse for it.

Side: No