I ought to be allowed to kill the man who molested my son

Argument I - Animals stay away from cubs knowing a dangerous adult bear is nearby. This works the same way with humans. If humans were allowed to kill threats to their family, no one would threaten others. Rebuttal I: Humans aren't as simple as other species of animal. As I have pointed out earlier that you have not addressed, fathers have killed their child's rapist time and time again, yet rapists continue their acts. Child molesters may not be able to resist their urges enough to consider the dangers of raping a child. This principle will not stop molesters from acting out their desires. Many humans don't keep up with the news enough to be aware that fathers are murdering their child's rapist in the first place. Some humans don't even fear death. This principle does not work at all with humans. Statement I - "Why would my opponent protect a deranged man who took a job at an infant school in order to prey upon the vulnerable and innocent?" In no way did I implicate that I am defending the molester. In this debate, I am defending the stance that revenge murdering should not be allowed as it is morally and logically flawed. I am in favor of the molester being punished to the fullest extent of our current laws. Argument II - Inmates are expensive and the offender will eventually be free to commit more criminal acts. I ought to be allowed to kill him as he is evil and wastes our nation's resources. Rebuttal III: Evil exists only in the eye of the beholder. Killing even a single animal can become objectively evil in the eyes of many. If anyone who was viewed as evil and wasted more of our nation's resources than they gave, many people would die that would be innocent in your eyes, but guilty and evil in others. Hypothetical scenario - An adult who has never moved out of his mother's residence and refuses to apply for a job. The single mother believes that her son has wasted the life given to them, that her son is evil because she has given him everything and the child hasn't shown any gratitude. The mother kills her own son as he has wasted so much of her money and resources his entire life, and refuses to get a job to contribute to society. Would you agree that this mother was morally right in murdering her own son as in her eyes, her son was evil and wasted more resources than contributed? Perhaps you'd answer that with a yes, but not everyone would agree with the mother. This line of logic is flawed and won't work in human society, as what's viewed as evil is entirely subjective. If you are afraid that the pedophile will reoffend, then murdering him is not the solution. Argument IV - My son would be happy his rapist is dead. Rebuttal IV: That was not my main point. Your son won't care if the molester is dead or not. I don't believe your son is old enough to comprehend death and justice. Your son will care about you. As I have previously stated, you risk dying by the molester from self defense. You also risk dying by the friends and family of the molester if you succeed. They may kill you out of revenge for murdering one of their own. Risking your own also puts a risk on your child. Statement II - "My opponent attempts to refute my arguments by telling us that child molesters will get beaten and killed in prison anyway. He uses this as an argument in favour of the current justice system. This tells us that my opponent concedes to child molesters deserving death." I do not concede that molesters deserve death, nor do I believe that it is morally right to revenge murder a molester. My argument supports my reasoning that molesters will be too afraid of prison to want to "bum a child" to go back to prison. My argument refutes the notion that tax is paying for pedophiles to live happily. They are not living happily if they are being beaten regularly. My argument opposes the notion that molesters will reoffend, as the majority of molesters will be too afraid to go back to prison; therefore, they won't molest another child. Nowhere in my argument did I state that I agree with the inmates who kill rapists. I was simply stating the facts. Argument VI - As my brain is already broken, revenge murdering a rapist won't damage my brain any more than it already is. This is evident as I have killed boars without empathy. Rebuttal VI - The notion that Pro is "crazy" because he has killed boars simply does not make sense. Even teens and children hunt animals for sport and food. [1] The ability to kill boars without empathy is not abnormal in any way. Even smashing a boar's head with a rock is not abnormal, as children have skinned animals themselves. If killing boars is the most morally questionable thing Pro has ever done in his life, then he is nothing less than perfectly sane. My original argument still stands. Conclusion:Pro argues that he should be allowed to kill his child's rapist out of revenge. There are a myriad of flaws with murdering out of revenge, both morally and logically. Pro argues that he is obligated the right to murder his child’s rapist because the rapist is evil and will only continue to molest more children. What is evil is not finely defined in any way. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. I have shown this to be evident with my hypothetical scenario of the mother killing her son. Pro does not have the right to choose what is evil on behalf of all of humanity. They are not God. Morals are decided by the individual, or by a God(s) if you are a person of faith. There is no such thing as absolute evil. Even the most controversial human that ever existed, Adolf Hitler, is not seen as evil by all people. The notion that the molester will continue to offend. A person should not be killed simply because of a chance for them to commit a felony in the future. This is not at all fair, as this ruling is based in bias and guesses. Under this ruling, almost every felon in the world would receive the death penalty as they all have the chance to commit more crimes once they are let out of jail. This includes those that are innocent of their crimes and were wrongfully placed in jail. Not only is murdering out of revenge morally flawed, as killing will always be morally wrong in the eyes of most people, this is also logically flawed. If Pro succeeds in murdering the child molester, he risks being killed out of revenge by the molester’s family. If Pro is allowed to kill out of revenge, so is everyone else who feel they’ve been wronged. If Pro allowed to murder the molester, and does so, under Pro’s reasoning the molester’s parents are allowed to murder Pro’s son out of revenge. [2] As Gandhi has famously stated, “An eye for an eye will make the world go blind.” Pro wants to kill only to satiate their self-serving desires for revenge, they don’t actually care about retribution. If Pro didn’t perceive an emotional high out of revenge, they would never contemplate carrying it out. Retribution, evil, recidivism, taxes, these are nothing more than excuses to commit an act Pro already knows is morally flawed. The need for revenge is nothing more than instinct leading you around like a pig on a carrot stick. [3] No one should be allowed to kill out of revenge, as it incites a cycle of killing out of revenge that won’t end. Pro murdering out of revenge will directly put everyone’s lives that are related to him at risk. Revenge murders don’t solve anything at all and instead lead to more problems. If Pro and the rest of the world was allowed to kill out of revenge, Pro’s son would eventually become a victim of the same revenge murders that Pro himself started. Pro will indirectly lead to his own son’s death. There is nothing logically or morally sound about Pro murdering a felon out of revenge. Pro in no way shape or form should be allowed to physically harm the felon out of revenge. Sources: [1] https://goo.gl... [1] https://goo.gl... [1] https://goo.gl... [2] https://goo.gl... [2] https://goo.gl... [3] https://goo.gl...