Instigator / Pro
0
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Topic
#5063

In the matter of self defense, it is sound to avoid death as justifiably necessary.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
0
1300
rating
221
debates
44.8%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Questions on topic, drop a comment.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Here's the scenario.

I'm encountering an attack from my attacker .

If all I have to do is restrain them, perhaps push them into a closet with a door that has a lock, then call the police, why would it be justified to kill them?

Why would it be necessary?

Can the opposing side address this in this scenario?

The police that arrive on scene will ask me why did I kill the person if I successfully removed myself from the aggression?

This is why self defense is a crucial thing to prove in circumstances of somebody's death. Somebody that is dead, you better have a rock solid case and or defense to avoid homicidal charges.

Now I encourage the opposing side to put their best foot forward and challenge all that was said in attempt to disprove and find invalidities or kindly concede .

Con
#2
Well, its not because if you spare someone who wants to kill you, what you are doing is giving him another chance to kill you.

According to Draconian, the more you punish crime, the better.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"Well, its not because if you spare someone who wants to kill you, what you are doing is giving him another chance to kill you."

Is this your answer to my non rhetorical questions below?

"If all I have to do is restrain them, perhaps push them into a closet with a door that has a lock, then call the police, why would it be justified to kill them?

Why would it be necessary?"

If the person has been successfully restrained, contained, disabled and or incapacitated, you've stopped the attack. When the police arrive to apprehend the person into their custody, do you think they'll permit you justified to kill the person for a chance that the person may escape their custody?

The person is contained and will only be released upon law enforcement reception. Why would it still be necessary to kill the person?

There would be no chance for the person to attack me. It's not self defense at that point. It's actually murder if I move to kill the person.

"According to Draconian, the more you punish crime, the better."

I don't get the point here. If you could just elaborate your points like I do that will help.
Con
#4
As I said, 

If person attempts to kill you once, he will do so again. Or his friends will.

However, if you kill the one trying to kill you, you are not only preventing him from trying to kill you again, you are also sending a message to everyone else to think twice before trying.
Round 3
Pro
#5
This debate cannot progress along just reiterating points into circles. That's not debating. That's just saying "I said what I said, I put my foot down, I don't care what you say". You don't refute anything like that . I throw you counters with questions and you just regurgitate. The point here is to counter back and forth. You just repeating the same attack move and I blocking it every time isn't a warring battle.

Please answer these questions.

If the person has been successfully restrained, contained, disabled and or incapacitated, you've stopped the attack. When the police arrive to apprehend the person into their custody, do you think they'll permit you justified to kill the person for a chance that the person may escape their custody?

The person is contained and will only be released upon law enforcement reception. Why would it still be necessary to kill the person?



Con
#6
If the person has been successfully restrained, contained, disabled and or incapacitated, you've stopped the attack. When the police arrive to apprehend the person into their custody, do you think they'll permit you justified to kill the person for a chance that the person may escape their custody?
No.

The person is contained and will only be released upon law enforcement reception. Why would it still be necessary to kill the person?
To prevent the person from killing you in the future.


Round 4
Pro
#7
"To prevent the person from killing you in the future."

What's the proof indicative they will?

How do we know the prison sentence the person gets would not already prevent them?

Plus this is a contradiction with your previous response to the other question.

Do you think they'll permit you justified to kill the person for a chance that the person may escape their custody?

You say no it's not permissibly justified. Then I asked why would it still be necessary to kill the person that'll be released in police custody.

You're saying it's necessary which is justification to kill someone whom you do not know, do not know will actually attack you. That's actually murder. It's not justified, totally unnecessary.

That's why the police or law would not permit justification. It's not self defense at that point. It was self defense when they were trying to attack you.

Be very careful with the law. You get locked up easily on these fine line technicalities.
Con
#8
What's the proof indicative they will?
They might and they tried once.

How do we know the prison sentence the person gets would not already prevent them?
Do we really wanna gamble like that? Draconian laws of death penalty are the only ones that guarantee that offense wont happen again.

Do you think they'll permit you justified to kill the person for a chance that the person may escape their custody?
No.

Round 5
Pro
#9
"They might and they tried once."

I see . Well it is not justified going around killing people for what they "might" do. That's not accepted in the criminal justice system. 

I was pushed down by someone and 20 minutes later I kill them. The police question me . Why did I kill the person?

When they pushed me down I felt they were going to kill me . I was in fear of my life so to prevent that I didn't report it. I didn't call the police. I didn't just separate from the person. I didn't do all these other things that could of been done to protect myself. All of these things available prove death unnecessary. To prevent the person doing what I suspect or believe by chance will do was to kill them.

Yes that is murder. Actually require evidence that somebody is plotting to kill you . Then that somebody will get booked for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit. Even then you don't deliberately kill somebody. Only when , that is only when they're in the midst of attacking you, if there is no way to restrain or remove yourself from the attacker, killing someone is all that is left on the table in counter response. It's always counter response. 

That counter response is taken off the table once other options arise and obviously when some time has passed to execute these justified alternatives.

"Do we really wanna gamble like that? Draconian laws of death penalty are the only ones that guarantee that offense wont happen again."

What's the gamble? The person gets off or gets a light sentence. Is that it? Still not justified to kill a person outside of self defense and that is when in the midst of attack. Anything else is vengeance onto murder .

"Do you think they'll permit you justified to kill the person for a chance that the person may escape their custody?
No."

Exactly. Case closed.
Con
#10
I stand by my mighty arguments.