Brutus and Cassius are in the wrong for assasinating Julius Caesar.

Thank you for taking the debate, But I don"t agree with the premise of your short statement that only reviewed part of my basis for my argument. Before I go to my rebuttal points, I am wondering what you meant by that short sentence. Did you mean, 1. "Julius Caesar performed immoral acts but it was okay because of the Roman Society" Or 2. "It was immoral for Brutus and Cassius to kill Julius Caesar, Though the Roman Society was ruthless. I know that the second reasoning behind your short statement response would not be the position you were supposed to take, Because I am the con against the title of the argument, Not you. II would appreciate it if in the future rounds you clarify your points with names, So it is easy to understand, Because I don"t know exactly what your short statement means. (Back to point 1) Roman society was ruthless ever since Tiberius Gracchus used a mob of people to harass his political opposers, And like Caesar, He paid his life for his ambitions. I agree with you on the premise that what Julius Caesar did in violence was similar to what Marius and Sulla had done before him. There was a difference in what Julius Caesar did through the laws of the government compared to those two ambitious political rivals. Why did you not address my points of what Caesar did in office was a slap to the face of the republic. That is where I get my reasoning for my title, And I think he should have been assasinated because during that time, It was acceptable for Romans to kill fellow government positioned Romans. Marius had many of Sulla"s most trusted men slaughtered because of a civil war that he caused, But that is another argument that is not this. Brutus and Cassius grew up with the stories of the civil war Rome had, So they knew that in dire situations it would be acceptable to kill a ruthless man who was tearing the republic apart. Julius Caesar did not have to cut the hands up of the Germanic tribes civilians after a defeat, Though he did so to "put a message through". I understand that during the time it was understandable to punish the civilians, But he also slaughtered countless civilians who begged Caesar to not kill them. Julius Caesar did it for a message, Not for unity. The only time Julius Caesar didn"t kill a rival was when it was rich senators who lost the war with Pompey. Instead of being naturally angry at people who wanted to kill you, Julius Caesar saw past this and saw these senators as people who can help him through alliances. Julius Caesar was a typical manipulator, Which is obvious through his treatment of other people compared to harmless civilians. Julius Caesar put an image out to portray himself as a military hero who forgave all these politicians, Though in reality, He did it for them to obey him while in the senate. "To survive you often had to do the wrong thing, Which was the necessary thing. " I disagree with that statement as you did not need to do the "wrong thing" to survive, Though it is easier to do the wrong thing. Once again, It is odd for you to say that "doing the wrong thing was the necessary thing, ", Because you are basing necessity on life, Not on moral integrity. Julius Caesar did not have to declare war on Gaul, And that was in no case necessary for him to do. It would benefit Julius Caesar to gain more popularity through a large scale war against the fierce Germanic tribes, Though it was not beneficial to his popularity with the senators. I would appreciate it if you read the whole argument I stated, And deliver an understanding of the topic, Instead of saying a couple short sentences that don"t reference names, And reasoning for all my points before. In what ways were Brutus and Cassius in the wrong for assasinating Julius Caesar? You picked the side of the debate that supports that statement, Though I didn"t find much reasoning to that in your short response.