murder is wrong

My many questions about the meaning of this ridiculous assertion were cross-examination. It is up to the Pro to define the proposition or else nobody will and it will remain meaningless. ""Murder Is Wrong" Is Wrong." I say. It is up to me to prove that my criteria and values are superior to yours if that is the language you want to use. In any case to insist that your interpretation, or even you paradigm is correct or even valid simply because it is the proposition we are debating is false. It is precisely LD format that has the flexibility to propose alternate criteria and values. If I feel that it would be of greater value, according to my criteria, to discuss the sun and the moon and the tides than to discuss this abstraction, and that my criteria and values are superior to yours, then it is spurious to cry "irrelevant" when it is very relevant. Quoting now from http://wiki.idebate.org... The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement. My opponent has taken the position that Murder Is Wrong, ie that The unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought) is wrong. I take a position contrary to that, namely Any killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought) is wrong. Based on the criteria of uniformity, truth, goodness, morality, honesty, universality, common sense and forthrightness. These have value greater than the unstated value used in declaring that Murder is Wrong, namely to win a debate. It's not like he couldn't see this coming. Any disagreement with "Murder is wrong" then supports my view. I don't have to take the position that "Murder is right" since these do not exhaust all possibilities, especially without proving or stipulating the Law of the Excluded Middle http://en.wikipedia.org... which states that either a proposotion or its negation is true. My opponent is pretending to not understand the basic difference between "unlawful" and "unjust." 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 is pretending to not understand the rules of debate: ok i accept your definition of murder: 'unlawful killing of another human being with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought".' It's not "my" definition. It is the responsibility of the person proposing the debate to define the proposition. first of all the statement wasn'e what i was putting up as fact. it was a standing opinion on whether or not someone would choose that side. so when you say i "might want to re-think that" i am a little confused as to what you are trying to say seeing as i haven't even posted an argument for starters. the resolution in itself is not me stating a point, but putting forth a topic in which to debate. You certainly are confused. Referring to debating rules with which I am wholly unfamiliar. The debate format does not support such a procedure. I have already explained the debating rules. You are using some other rules. In a real world debate, it is as if my opponent, in his opening argument, asked me to meet him backstage to discuss switching roles. When you click "Start This Debate" the terms of the debate are set, and lo and behold the "Edit your debate" screen comes up. This must have been added as an afterthought. When I accepted your challenge I quite rightly ignored your suggestion to arrange things in the back room. The debate should all be up front. If you are not sure then start two debates. Why debate with someone who pretends not to be able to comprehend the basic issues? This seems to be a contest of debating styles I'm like, let's talk about murder and some of its causes and philosphical (sic) is like no no no you can't do that communication and worldviews are not relevant to me winning this debate without actually discussing the issues. Are we here to win debates or to discuss issues? Is the whole purpose of debating to pick unlosable topics so you don't have to do anything but keep repeating the same thing without adding any new insights? If that is true then vote for philosphical (sic). If you want real discussion, conversely, then vote for the kind of debate you want. It's time to decide what kind of debates we want, and what kind of a debating community we want. There should be voting after each round. You shouldn't have to have a brainless phone to vote. There should be forums for discussing these issues. Ignore the first two items on the ballot about who you agree with.and vote for the kind of debate you want to see in the future. Remember I'm doing this for fun and not as part of my argument. If everyone would commit murder once in a while the world would be a better place. Politicians would be more careful since one negative vote would really be a bummer. Don't worry about aforethought anyway. "Just do it" would take on a whole new meaning. It would provide lots of good entertainment and we wouldn't have to watch those terrible violent TV shows. Returning veterans would be right at home and wouldn't have such problems adjusting. It would provide good training for military and law enforcement. It would sharpen our survival skills. I think there's someone following you right now. It would get rid of a lot of people who deserve to die anyway. Do your part to end the overpopulation problem. People would be a whole lot more polite. Think of the commercial possibilities. Imagine the satisfaction. We break all the other laws with no problem. Unemployment will drop. Dead people vote anyway so you will still have that. Country and Western songs will have a new theme Live murders on confrontation TV shows. Court system backlog will be eased. Long lines no longer a problem. Now hiring law enforcement and Body Removal Providers.