Instigator / Pro
14
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#749

Purposefully Killing In Self-Defense Is Unethical

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.