Instigator / Pro

In the world where everyone can revive their most loved one, murder should be a misdemeanor


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 5 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

everyone is given a button that can revive their loved one at their physical and mental best before they died (memories intact).

murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Assume that murder is still illegal in this universe

misdemeanor: a nonindictable offense, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony.

Round 1
my argument is simple. Because you can revive someone, murder's permanence is now reduced to the same level of violence. Therefore, it should now only be a misdemeanor. I rest my case.
Case: A World Where Everyone Can Revive their Most Loved One.

  • How will they revive their most loved one?

My opponent needs to make this clear. In the comments he barely specified, “at the touch of a button”. Where will this button be? Let’s assume this button “spawns” at the location the person has died, and it has a time limit, say one month.

  • Where will this be put in place?

Once again, my opponent does not specify. Let’s assume for this case we are in the United States in an alternate universe. 

Problems with this world:

  1. Not Everyone is the Most Loved.

Let’s take an example of a normal, nuclear family. It has a husband and wife, and let’s just say three children. The husband is killed. Let us just suppose that the children loved their mom more, and the wife loved the children more. The husband is left with still great love, but not the most loved.

Hopefully, this conveys that you don’t have to be the most loved to be loved. Not everyone is the most loved for anybody, but they are still loved by them. These people will still die, and not be able to be revived causing the permanence of death to still be there. And still, we haven’t covered the fact that even after they were brutally murdered, the offender got off with a short prison sentence.

  1. Murders can go unfound

Assuming we follow the definition on how the beings are revived, some murder victims can go unfound. These people won’t have the option to be revived as even if they’re most loved, they cannot find the button correlating to their revival. 


The main problem with how this world acts, is that there is still permanence, there is still death, and there are still problems. The value of a life doesn’t decrease if you can revive it. There are things barring people from reviving their loved ones, and those things are what makes a misdemeanor a felony. Sure there are some lucky cases where people are able to revive their loved ones, BUT since it does not cover a huge portion of cases where the person CANNOT be revived, it should still be a felony.

So far, I have only covered the impact to the relating people, not the impact to the actual victims. Murder, if not done correctly can be painful and traumatizing. Simply put, if I kill a man brutally, in a painful way, they will be traumatized for life. And I will only be sent to prison for a few months at most. Making it this way will increase the amount of murders and the amount of pain, victims will be experiencing 

In conclusion, I have successfully fulfilled my burden of proof. I have proved that murder should remain a felony. 

  • P1: Revival is lucky at best. Not everyone can revive people they love.
  • P2: The pain the victim will be experiencing is worse than the actual ethical flaws of the murder itself.
  • P3: Murder should remain a felony because of the ethical flaws and the amount of pain the victim will be experiencing 

Round 2
With the specification of I can I BB, everyone is just given a button that can revive their most loved one at a press.

Firstly pro tries to argue some people are not most loved by anyone. But consider that love changes over time. If a person truly was desperate they could change emotions to revive that person. Secondly if someone even after death has no one who loved them most, this implies a lack of social impact and I say they most likely died for real since nobody truly remembers them in their heart (a true death). Pro says that murdering is an unnecessary amount of suffering, but consider that a large number were done on impulse or in emotion, hardly premeditated. The fact that those who aren’t found for murder are most likely professionals who carefully crafted out their plan further supports my case that the murder would just be an accident easily remedied by the button. Consider how fast a knife stab or gunshot is. What is the big difference if I shoot you in the heart or the leg, if you return back to normal afterwards?

I rest my case.
Case: A World Where Everyone Can Revive their Most Loved One.

  • How will they revive their most loved one?

My opponent has specified, but it is not within the description of the debate. This makes it hard for me and unfair for both of us. Apparently, the button is given to the most loved one, by special magic. Assuming the size of the button is a regular keyboard button size. It will be easy to lose, meaning that a person cannot be revived if you lose the button.

Moreover, if it is with the loved one and they die in a destructive accident, the button will be destroyed and the power of it will be assumed to have lost.

Problems with this world:

  1. Not Everyone is the Most Loved.

Pro thinks that you can change your most loved very easily, which is false. We cannot forcibly change love or command or demand it to go one way.[1] He simply states that if you want someone to live, you better start making them the most loved or they will die permanently. Once again, PRO’s demands are factually impossible. 

Pro ignores the fact that we have defined the button as disappearing after one month. Since he hasn’t commented on it, I will continue with that fact.

PRO also states that the people who nobody loves deserve to die a true death, which is morally flawed as nobody deserves to die even if they are a social outcast. 

Once again, not everybody is most love, the PERMANENCE OF DEATH IS STILL IN THIS WORLD.

  1. Murders can go unfound

CON drops this point. PRO has specified about the button placement.

  1. Murders are painful

Pro assumes that upon revival they will be fully healed. He has never specified this and is only assuming. The definition of “revive” is to return to life.[2] Nothing in this states that every single one of their wounds will be healed, it merely states that they will be alive again. Meaning they will still have to endure the pain.

Any murder victim will be in extreme pain.  He never refutes this and simply blows it off saying that most murders are not done by professionals which does not prove a single thing.

Let me make this clear, having your life taken away from you is both traumatic and painful. Being shot by a gun is hardly comfortable at all. Being stabbed in the stomach or being shanked aren’t the most comfortable experiences. 

Most murders are not instantaneous if they are not done well. Consider the fact that most murders are not done by professionals like PRO has so gallantly brought up. Therefore they will not be clean and will leave the person screaming in agony. Imagine being a victim, being stabbed in the stomach in extreme pain, and then hearing that your murderer will be sentenced to a short prison stay. 

Pro claims that most murders are done by emotion which backs up my point. If the murder was spited by anger, they will try to harm the person as much as possible. 

I have not even covered the traumatics of being murdered. From the pain you will have experienced, you will have mental problems for your entire life, and while you are suffering, And your murderer will probably be chuckling as they got such a short sentence.


Even if there is an ability to be revived, there are tons of cases where there aren’t. These cases will be the determining factor of whether murder should be converted to a misdemeanor or stay as a felony. 

Murder is painful, even simply reviving someone won’t cure the toils of pain they have been through and the traumatic experiences they have trudged through. Giving a person a short sentence for this much pain caused to their victim’s lives is cruel and laughable in the current justice system. Murdering someone is also a huge health detriment. Reviving only means to bring back to life, not heal all their wounds. If someone was shot in a place with extreme pain, they would probably choose not to live as the pain they will be experiencing is too great when they revived. Still yet causing a true death.

In conclusion, I have fulfilled my burden of proof. Murder should still be a felony, for the likely causes of true death, the amount of pain and toil the victim will go through, even if they are still revived. 

  • Not everyone can be revived. Permanence of death in this world still exists in many cases.
  • Murder is painful. Murder if not done instantaneously is painful. Most murders aren’t instantaneous, and leave their victim in pain.
  • Murder causes mental trauma. Having your life taken away from you will definitely spite mental problems you will have to suffer for for your entire life.
  • Reviving isn’t perfect. You don’t get transferred back to normal. You will simply only have your life back. You will still be in extreme pain.




Round 3
I concede. Perhaps one of the other worlds I can I BB presents is better for resolving the problem of murder...
PRO has conceded.

Vote Con