Instigator
Points: 14

Purposefully Killing In Self-Defense Is Unethical

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Speedrace
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 4
Description
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.
Round 1
Published:
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.

Illegal

First of all, killing itself is illegal. Unless it is in self-defense, killing in all forms and manners is illegal.

Death Penalty

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. [1] 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.

Sources:

Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Con forfeited. Arguments extended.
Published:
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.
Round 3
Published:
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.
Published:
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.
Added:
--> @Alec
Read the description, that's not what I'm talking about
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Speedrace
What if your killing to save your own life? Who's life is more valuable, yours, or the murderers?
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
Pros argument is lightly supported. He’s basically arguing that killing for any reason is unethical; this is not fully supported by the rest of his argument - where he primarily argues that killing is illegal and uses this as an ethical basis. The argument touched upon vigilantism a tiny amount, but the whole argument was exceptionally weak in general.
Con drops the entirety of Pros points - making both a minimal and dismissive argument that self defence will be perceived as better than the killed individual. Pro points out that relatively better does not mean that the action is ethical.
If this was part of a wider argument exchange where con argues a larger point - this may have been weighted differently, but as con offers nothing of note to the whole debate, I must accept pros argument as valid and sufficient in the face of no real argument
Arguments to pro.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro argues that intentionally killing is unethical even in self-defense if some less lethal alternative is available.
Pro's support is minimal:
Killing is mostly illegal. Pro fails to link illegal behavior to unethical behavior .
Capital Punishment is used sparingly in the US. If the govt. mostly refrains from killing US citizens, ought not we follow the govt. example?
Con's argument forwards public perception ahead of personal ethics: murder prophylactically to prevent potential future harm by the offender, murder because your murder will be perceived as less unjust.
Pro correctly points out that Con dropped Pro's point and incorrectly counters that criminal justice is not resolved relative to situation.
Con talks about himself a bit, essentially a second forfeit.
Really terrible debate on both sides. Pro asserts that 1493 executions over 43 years amounts to barely 3 execution per year. Let's check our simple division, shall we?
Con double forfeits and fails to engage Pro's argument.
Argument to Pro for offering one.
Sources to Pro for offering two.
Conduct to Pro for Con's double forfeit.