Murder is evil.

Rebuttal 1"Even so, the man is a criminal, and therefore it is not the taking of an INNOCENT human life."Whether or not he is innocent is irrelevant. You claim that murder must be necessary. I have shown how someone can take his life without needing to, and it still be considered fair. Your original stance was thisBecause the man is forcing someone to take his life, it is not murder. Anyone reading this can clearly see that. You claimed it as an act of self defense. I have shown, how someone can "chose" to murder the man, when it is not necessary and it still be moral. This obliterates your stance on this.you completely straw-manned that and avoided your original statement, which was this"I stated in the opening what the definition of murder is (for the purposes of this debate). It was "the UNNECESSARY taking of an INNOCENT human life". My opponent is talking about the NECESSARY taking of a CRIMINAL human life-almost the direct opposite."In this situation the man is innocent , this is because you claim that is has to be a necessity to kill him for him not be innocent. Therefore since he as just in the persons house, he was not forcing the person to commit murder. With your statements and R1 stance you are saying that if murder is committed without necessity it is objectively wrong. I have shown this not to be the case, because it was not a necessity to take his life. Yet it is still considered morally acceptable or not evil. If you want to play semantics on what innocent is go ahead. You can justify anyone is not innocent while I can justify they are innocent. Rebuttal 2He says this in response to me saying he worded the definition of evil horribly. "Too bad. My challenge, my rules, including definitions."It can be your definition, but your hurting yourself. It is actually helping me because it is so limited. Rebuttal 3"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."You completely either do not understand, or just chose not to answer the point I made. Murder can be committed and be acceptable without saving another life. I have explained how and why. Your definition of evil is harmful vs non harmful. This is directly stated in your R1 stance. I have shown abundantly how someone can commit murder, and it have a positive impact based on culture and locationChosing not to address a point I made will not make the point go away. Therefore extend argument. Rebuttal 4"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."This is reference to my society question that I brought up. Again he is failing to realize or just not accepting the point I am making. He is judging harmful by his definition of harmful, not what is in fact harmful to the society in questionWhile the person dying may be a negative effect. The repercussions of the death, could outweigh the negative effect of him dying. From his death money could be earned, the person whom killed him could gain a wife, or even the tribe could gain a new chief. Depending on whom you ask the negative effect of the death may outweigh the good that I just stated. That is irrelevant, because we are looking at the overall good it can bring to the society in question. If they see it as a positive effect. The murder has occurred without necessity and brought more good than bad, or more non harmful effects than harmful effects. Thus making my adversaries stance wrong. In ClosingI am not quite sure if my adversary is not grasping the arguments that I am making or just choosing to derail facts. Either way murder can be committed without necessity and not be evilHis resolution is not upheld.