Purposefully Killing In Self-Defense Is Unethical
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
This debate isn’t about whether killing in self-defense is wrong. This has to do specifically with going out of one’s was to kill someone who has kidnapped you, raped you, etc. AKA, if you have the opportunity to simply escape, but you also see an opportunity to kill the person who wronged you, I am arguing that it is wrong to postpone escapeing to kill the wrongdoer.
This debate isn’t about whether killing in self-defense is wrong. This has to do specifically with going out of one’s way to kill someone who has kidnapped you, raped you, etc. AKA, if you have the opportunity to simply escape, but you also see an opportunity to kill the person who wronged you, I am arguing that it is wrong to postpone escaping to kill the wrongdoer.
Purposefully killing in self-defense is unethical simply because killing is unethical.
First of all, killing itself is illegal. Unless it is in self-defense, killing in all forms and manners is illegal.
Second, doing this is essentially the same thing as administering the death penalty by one's self. Taking the law into one's own hands is wrong.
Since 1976, there have only been 1,493 executions by the government.  That amounts to barely 3 executions per year. However, in 2017 alone, there were MORE murders in ONE state than there have been executions in the entire US for 43 years! That doesn't even include other crimes such as kidnapping! The government uses the death penalty an absurdly small amount of times, so why then would it be ok for normal people to do it?
If it is found that a victim does do this, I am arguing that they should receive the same amount of jail time the average murderer would.
Con forfeited. Arguments extended.
Kill them so they can't hurt others, kill them because they had no more right to torture you for all that time than your merciful killing of them as opposed to prolonged torture. You're relatively the good guy no matter what, end of discussion.
My opponent’s argument entirely hinges on the fact that someone who kills in self-defense purposefully. He says that you’re relatively the good person in that situation because the other person is getting what comes to them. However, crimes are not determined relatively. When we look at the bigger picture, both parties are committing a unethical act, and, therefore, should both be punished. My opponent does not respond to any of my other arguments as well.
I will also remind him not to present any new arguments since this is the last round.
I do fully believe in my arguments and would be happy to debate this again. I was going through a lot emotionally and IRL stress-wise with too many debates and voters ganging up on everyone (not just me).
I have updated my debating style severely since and you'll be observing my new style, which is brutal and sophisticated in this debate (once I post there):
I don't directly concede this debate, I really do understand if I lose though. My R2 would have been the 'framework' of a much more elaborate 2 Rounds.
Read the description, that's not what I'm talking about
What if your killing to save your own life? Who's life is more valuable, yours, or the murderers?