kill or rather get kill

Well, my opponent has violated my rules using "I would like my opponent to understand my points fully." I made this only one round to present stands on killing or rather getting kill; if I wanted it to be a thorough debate, I would have extend it beyond 1 round. I just wanted to see why I should not kill this person, but rather they should kill me from my opponent. I will forgive my opponent in violating this rule and I will break my own rule that I said no rebuttals, and I admire my opponent being such a youth debater. I really admire that, and I certainly would forgive him for "wrong at any points of my argument." Sadly since this is not a long debate, as I did not want it to be, I want nor you would be able to present fully our points. I will use "you" and "I" repeatedly to convey emotions and get an understanding of one being in such state. Anyways, since the rule have been violated, I will rebuttal. If you claim "killing is bad" than what makes it good for the person to kill you? Is it different from you killing him? Are you of less value to him? "Killing someone would mean jail, depression, and maybe guilt." "Jail": - When I was making this debate, I knew the jail part would come up. I rather kill him, go to jail, spend a little time there, and than come out. As compare to him, he's gone, indefinite. Now if he kills me, he'll go to jail, spend a little time there, and than come out, and go about his normal business. Why should I have not done that? But instead I get shot, die, and gone forever. "Depression": - Well, if he kills me, I will be leaving families behind. With my passing, it will bring sorrows to my family, and with each passing day, they'll get depressed, as I am not here no longer. On the other hand, this guy who just kills me, can still see his family and enjoy what life has to offer for as long he may life. Just like the way I'm going to be depressed, that's the same way my killer will feel. So what makes his case different? "Guilt": - Yes I will feel guilt. Same with my killer. But I rather feel guilt, than be dead and gone forever early. The guilt will go away, I have experience guilt before, but it has gone away. It's not like guilt is here to stay forever. "That is why killing is against the law": - So in this case, I can either kill, or 'he' kills me. So what will make him right, or why should he kill me, if one of us is suppose to kill the other. Despite the fact that killing is against the law, this question is simply asking, weather or not its against the law, would you kill or get kill? Knowing its against the law, and you both were in the situation, he should kill and than he goes to jail, comes out, and go about his life? Did he not just violate the law, but still lives? - This isn't about going against the law or not. And even if it was going against the law, and the guy and I both holding gun to each other face, I rather kill him, than allowing him to kill me. What will make him "righteous" if I allow him to kill me? Same way I would not be "righteous" if I do kill him. But the matter of fact is, and if it comes down to this, I would rather kill him, weather I'm good or bad. I being a good person does not mean that I should take the bullet, or that I should be the 'good guy'. I'm no good nor bad if I kill him instead of letting him kill me. "And if you are a good person you wouldn't go against the law, you wouldn't break the rules that guide society fairly,": - And if 'he's' a good guy he wouldn't go against the law; or a bad guy, because bad guys know that violating the law has consequences, knowing that they are going against the law. A guy that is bad at heart, wouldn't even agree to let the other person kill them and walk away, nevertheless a good guy doing it. If I shouldn't break the rules that guide society fairly, I should allow this person whom about to kill me do so? So you're saying its fair that he should kill me, but it isn't fair for me to kill him? Huh. Think about it. - Okay to counter my opponents last point. I'm happy to hear that my opponent is a law-abiding, truthful Samaritan of humanity, I admire such person. As a person who's going to be studying political science, that is all we ask our citizens. It is only with law-abiding citizens, can we build a productive and civilized society. Now I'm not preaching the killing of people, I'm not. But what I'm saying here is that "would you rather kill or get kill?" weather or not you're a "law-abiding, truthful Samaritan of humanity"? Once you death, you being "a law-abiding, truthful Samaritan of humanity" will someday go in vein if you not someone like MLK or Gandhi, but just a normal citizen. Now the last points I want to make: So what about your dreams. What about all the things you hope for? What about the dreams of traveling the world, or starting a family. The dreams of starting a business or serving humanism on the front-line as a doctor. What about all that? Remember, you only have this one life to live and before we or in this case I, should perish from this earth, I want to live my dream, maybe not forever, but until my days on earth is over, not when someone kills me. Now I know you may say what about that person dream? What about what they wanted? Not to sound selfish, but if 'he' had to kill me and I have to kill him, I want to see my dream. I want to see my children. I want to see the world. Instead I let someone throw it away, and who knows what than they would do for the rest of their lives. They might not even do something productive. So than was their killing of you worthy as compare to theirs, or I that wanted to do something? So if we all going to die than why can't I kill him, as you have pointed out that we all going to die. He'll die one day anyway. Same with me, if I kill him, I will die one day anyway. You insisting I or you go first? Society does not reject all criminals, not all person that does a crime are rejected. It's about how you turn you story into something passionate. Now If I had kill this guy and than don't do anything with my life later, than yes society should reject me, than yes I'm of no value than the person I kill. Take for Alfred Nobel story for example, though I may not create another peace prize, I will try do something good in life, than go about killing more people or causing more disruptions. - I'm glad you're a good human, as I am too. But there's a time and a place for everything. In the event of my life or death, when my being and existence is at risk, I ought to something to ensure its survival. That is the foundation of true life and the foundation on which human have been built on for centuries. I will not dealt into history about that, as this is not a literature, and I'm sure you'll one day learn them. To conclude though, I would like to say I love my opponent, such a young intelligent person. Your age is okay, weather or not you went somewhere wrong, as I may have went someone wrong. It's about what you bring to the table. Sadly this wasn't an extended debate into longer rounds, so the last statement you make will be the final. Good short debate.