Murder is evil.

Since this is going no where, let us look review some points. I am going to summarize them all into one contention because my adversary is insistent with his stance and keeps failing to address some of the issues I present. I will offer them all in one contentionContention The subjectivity brought about by a murder can not make it evil.I will also offer rebuttals briefly as well."I claimed no such thing. This is a flat-out lie. I claimed murder must be unnecessary, and that the person must be innocent, but I never connected the two."When the word innocent comes up , this is the stance you are forced to take. To say murder is evil when there is no necessity for it, and then to say murder is the act of taking an innocent human life. You are bringing that question in. It almost echos that innocence in itself is someone who whom is not forcing the act of murder. However you perceive innocent, it is not associated with only your definition of the word. I accepted the definitions of what you put down for murder and evil. What you perceive as innocence and harmful however is not objective. Other people perceive things differently, thus it is impossible to make an objective stance like thatYou claim that it is not objective, but that is just flat wrong. When you say something is evil. That is an objective stance, you even then go as far as to try and gauge how we can define evil. If you wanted to say "Murder can be evil", I would concur but that is not the topic of this debate. You are saying it is evil if it not a necessity to commit the act. I have shown why that is flawed.I'm going to tie in some of his final statements as they all link together. "I have also explained how and why these positive consequences objectively do not outweigh the loss of the life. Not that this matters, because neither of your examples is murder, and you have had to ignore arguments and flat-out lie to make them fit the definition laid out.""Neither of your examples is murder, because neither is the UNNECESSARY taking of an INNOCENT human life.""Why judge by the society? Why not judge by the individual? Certainly the individual would say his death harmed him, and besides as I already said if they are in fact "fighting to the death", then one must die for the other to live, and therefore it is necessary and not murder. I already said this, but my opponent completely ignored it. Since my opponent has not shown an example of murder, neither of his scenarios can be considered justified murders."First both of these examples are murder, and also both victims are innocent in some regards. Depending on how you perceive the word innocent. How my adversary perceives it is not objectively correct. There are multiple meanings this word can take on, and it is entirely relevant to the situation at hand. He is trying to derail the point that I am making by applying the word innocent in any way he sees fit. Seeing as how this is subjective, he can not objectively be right. So whom is innocent is not just dependent on his perception but also the perception of others and the people in the scenario. That is why I did not accept nor would not accept this debate if he was able to define innocence, he could justify anything and everything if I did. Same thing goes for what is harmful. He then claims that the positive effects do not outweigh the loss of a life. Again I disagree, because he is putting a life on a pedestal. A life should be cherished by our standards, but not to everyone in general. People whom are in that society may have a different perspective, thus the positive consequences would be greater than the value of a life. He then says this"I already said if they are in fact "fighting to the death", then one must die for the other to live, and therefore it is necessary and not murder"That is not necessary at all. They are not being forced into the fight, they are willingly committing the act. They are accepting the scenario at hand. This is not necessity but an open choice to take a life. Even if someone just walked up to someone in that society and killed the person because he wanted their wife, if this was acceptable by their standards, it can be justified. Also the positive effects that would occur, could outweigh the negative in the right time and situation. The guy could be abusive or harmful. Thus someone taking his life and committing the act of murder would help the wife escape. It is not a necessity to commit this act, but the good effects can outweigh the bad. There are thousands of different scenarios that are applicable. Key PointHe is taking his worldview and perspective and applying it objectively. This is wrong, and can not be done. Note : He states that the loss of a life, will always outweigh any good that comes of a murder if it was unnecessary This is only by his perspective. This is also a false statement to make and is just wrong because it does not take into consideration any other factors. In Closing. My adversary has tried and fail to present why murder is objectively evil. I have shown how this is a subjective act based off the time frame, and culture. What my adversary considers harmful and wrong, or whom is innocent or not innocent is not an objective fact and is completely dependent on the situation and time in which it happensTherefor it is no possible for him to uphold his resolution, and which I may that he has already failed to do so.