Cain was justified in his murder of Abel

Rebuttal: I'm going to speak a very common trait among novice debaters which is the tendency to believe that debates are won purely by absolute truths, and not through probability. For example, a novice debater would see video footage of a crime and mention that it could be the government in on some conspiracy theory making fake videos. While this theory is possible, it's not as probable as the opposition, which is that the person is guilty. In the context of this debate, my opponent is making huge leaps in logic as in assuming that Cain wasn't jealous of Abel pleasing God more. The evidence shows us that they both offered gifts, God preferred Abel's offering over Cain's, the text says Cain was angry. Cain then goes onto kill his brother. If this doesn't show that Cain's jealousy is the best possible explanation, then you're making a stretch and should provide a more probable explanation. As for Cain not knowing murder was bad, my opponent excuses this with speculation that this murder was actually a sacrifice. If this is the case then why did he not tell God what happened when God had asked him? He has nothing to hide. If this is the case then why didn't Cain bring it up at all? Nothing hints at this being a sacrifice. My opponents reasoning is as follows, God likes sacrificing flocks therefore he must like sacrificing human. The precedent isn't you get to sacrifice everything, the precedent is you can sacrifice sheep. My opponent made the precedent too general in order to encompass his argument. It's not blood over crops, it's flock over fruit of the soil. On the contrary to this speculation, This shows us that Cain is well aware that killing is bad things when pertaining to humans. He tells god that this punishment is too much to bear, and mentions he"s afraid to be killed. "BibleGateway." Genesis 4 - - Bible Gateway. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 June 2017. "13 Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is more than I can bear.14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." Cain is well aware of what bad, murder entails. My case: My opponent states "I assume you would argue that Cain's duty to make a pleasing sacrifice to God is of less importance then Abel's right to live a natural life. Yet we see time and time again in the bible that human life is always of less importance then duty to Gods will." There are many problems. One, this mischaracterizes the analysis because killing humans is not God's will and Cain was well ware for the reasons mentioned. Second, if this was hypothetically true, then both the sacrifice and right to live would be God's will and we enter a state of paralysis. The reason for Cain viewing the right to live as God's will, is because he's aware that God created people for living, he could of easily not created life for humans. Also, my point about how murder can never be justified wasn't refuted considering my opponent seems to not understand demonology frameworks. Deontology essentially says that acts are either good or bad on their own merit and that they aren't justified on the outcome of the act. Deonotoloy was conceded by my opponent, therefore that;s what we are using to evaluate this round. My opponent agrees that murder is bad, thus the act is bad and not justified. So, saying murder was justified, means that my opponent has used other moral evaluations aside from deontology. My opponent loses here. In conclusion, unsuccessful rebuttal towards my case considering they were misunderstandings of my case, and confusion towards God's will and duty. As for my rebuttal towards my opponent's case, it demonstrates the comparative probability between my case and my opponent's. Both are possible, but when evaluating who won this debate, the most convincing debater wins. My opponent seems to rely on things not explicitly said to make his case, however they are implied and thus, the best explanation.