murder is wrong

MY OPPONENT: "You assert therefore that Cain did not commit murder since there were no (earthly) laws. A better solution would be to remove the qualification "unlawful" from our definition of murder." unlawful meaning, unjust. unless you mean to debate against the foundation of the constitution? and the uprooting of everything this country is based on? MY OPPONENT: "Morality does not suddenly change when you cross a man-made boundary. While I do not wish to immediately claim a forfeit, it does appear worth noting that therefore there seems to exists a meaning of the predicate "is" which when applied to your statement causes your statement to be false." Morality means right or wrong. unless you can justify murder, it is still wrong. MY OPPONENT: "Another problem is that of determining state of mind. There shouldn't be any laws about what you are thinking." oh yeah? so if i thinks its alright to lie, cheat, steal, and kill, there should be no law against it? MY OPPONENT: "The people we seek to punish are the ones who can tell us how to solve the problem. But no, they must be punished." no, they are the ones who are the problem, thus the cause of the punishing. MY OPPONENT: "We need first of all a forum for discussing these issues, a more precise language for framing issues, and a better evaluation system. Not a landed gentry system where only those with brainless phones can vote. When we are finished people will still say that murder is wrong. This cannot be good for me. But how shall we communicate while we are discussing comminication?" Is that supposed to be an argument? well people will say that murder is wrong, but they wouldn't say that if it wasn't true. so far i have not been informed of a hard evidential mean to see as to why it isn't. MY OPPONENT: "I am in a debating community because it seems to address the global connectivity issue, that is connentivity within the community; but there are other issues that arise within a debating community that cannot best be solved by debating." well i am debating on how murder is wrong. i don't recall the title of this debate being 'global connectivity'... MY OPPONENT: "My examination of the meanings of the word "murder" to that end apparently vexed you since you wanted to talk about something else. Well then talk about it." well at first i didn't think i understood what you are talking about.. and i doubt anyone reading this does either... and now i am starting to think maybe you don'tt either. everything you have said has been completely random and doesn't make sense. I am soory but i issued this debate challenge out in hopes that some one would take it serious. I understand you have views, but right now we are debating the issue "murder is wrong" and you accepted knowing that. then you proceed to debate me with all this stuff about communication and global connectivity which litteraly gives me nothing to argue against seeing as how it has nothing to do with the topic! then you proceed to accuse me of saying things i am sure i have never said or implied... MY OPPONENT: " the supposition that murder is wrong in other words (and I am paraphrasing) that the legal definition of murder coincides exactly with our morality, and that I am defending a conflicting point of view" hmm... *re-reads all of opponents arguments* nope. i dont re-call seeing that anywhere. in fact i was the one defending morality if memory serves me right. OK so now you have all read the debate, i would like to ask you if you understand my opponents position? so far we have been shown all this evidence about communication, but what does that have to do with murder being right or wrong? I am arguing that murder is wrong when it is done with malice thought and unlawful intent, which murder usually is based on, else it wouldn't be defined as murder. murder is wrong, and should not be used. thankyou -philosophical