Murder is evil.

"Actually they were quite contested" They were not contested in any way, shape or form. In fact, they were completely ignored in favor of going on about your own contentions. "Okay so take out the part where I said it was necessary. Say you had the ability to run or to kill the man. If you were to still kill the man at that point, it would still be considered moral. Note it was not necessary but it is justified. He entered your home and invaded your privacy and at that point, under some state laws if you thought he was a threat you have the right to defend yourself. This is not necessary as you are stating because I can chose to run, but if I chose to take his life and feel that I am threatened, the act of murder would still be considered moral. " Even so, the man is a criminal, and therefore it is not the taking of an INNOCENT human life. "Your definition of evil is pretty bad." Too bad. My challenge, my rules, including definitions. "What is harmful or not harmful or what is good and what is not good is completely dependent on someones elses perception." I already explained why the taking of a life is a harmful consequence that can only be outweighed by the saving of a life, which would make it necessary and therefore not murder. "I didn't feel or still not feel the need to explain the fall back from these acts because they are irrelevant." No, they are not. You claimed that "the good outweighs the bad", thereby making it not evil, but you did not explain the good, and I have explained the bad (someone died). As such, this was an unbacked assertion-a major debating sin. "There could be 0 negative effects and all positive effects within the context and perspective of that society. It is impossible to say how it would harm them because we are not a member of that society, but due to the fact of it being accepted and the benefits from committing the act, we know that there are less harmful effects and more positive effects. Remember this is considering and taking into account what they consider harmful, not us. We can not judge them based off our perspective. " I am fairly certain the person who died was harmed by it. Permanently, definitely, irrevocably harmed, in a way which makes it impossible for him to ever benefit from something again. On the other hand, the benefits my opponent states are temporary, and still allow the benefitting person to suffer. Therefore, by any objective standard, the good outweighs the bad. "When people are fighting to the death in an area like that, it would produce entertainment. It would result in someone coming out on top and gaining reverence in the village. The winner could obtain a wife or prizes. He could be promoted to chief. The negatives effects are so entirely minuscule or not even there, because the society accepts murder as normal. " I have already explained how the negative effects of murder can only be outweighed by the saving of a life (which would make it necessary). My opponent has completely ignored this. This contention in fact shows the philosophy which is at the heart of much of his arguments: the rejection of any reality (in this case, the reality that someone died) which does not fit into his (or someone else's) pre-existing worldview. Furthermore, my opponent has specified that they are fighting TO THE DEATH, and therefore the killer would be acting out of necessity to save his own life. As a result, neither of his examples even qualify as murder. "This is an objective stance with murder being objectively wrong. This is impossible to support." No it is not. Look at my definitions. "His resolution is not possible to uphold. Nor has he presented a case to even try to uphold it." Nonsense. I have presented a case. It was, and I quote: "My argument is that a life is the most valuable thing a human can have, for without a life, they cannot have anything else. As such, the harm done by taking a life can only be offset by the saving of a life. If this is the motive, then such a thing would be necessary in order to save the other life. Therefore, murder is evil." Just because you completely ignored this doesn't mean I didn't say it. As my opponent has not responded to it, I extend the above argument.