Murder is evil.

Actually they were quite contestedRebuttal 1"I stated in the opening what the definition of murder is (for the purposes of this debate). It was "the UNNECESSARY taking of an INNOCENT human life"Okay so take out the part where I said it was necessary. Say you had the ability to run or to kill the man. If you were to still kill the man at that point, it would still be considered moral. Note it was not necessary but it is justified. He entered your home and invaded your privacy and at that point, under some state laws if you thought he was a threat you have the right to defend yourself. This is not necessary as you are stating because I can chose to run, but if I chose to take his life and feel that I am threatened, the act of murder would still be considered moral. How does the good outweigh the bad as you chose to word this. Your definition of evil is pretty bad. Because it is essentially saying good effects vs bad effects. Even if you word it as harmful vs not harmful. What is harmful or not harmful or what is good and what is not good is completely dependent on someones elses perception. Bad: You killed a man and possibly could make his family suffer or anyone related to himGood: You saved your life. You stopped your family from suffering. You protected your home or anyone in it. You took another murder off the streets. It is very subjective but quite easy to see how there is more good than bad. Granted this is based off of perspective and we both can nitpick good vs bad but it would not matter. This is based off of perception because when you say more "good" or more "bad", the very wording of that is subjective. What is good to you may not be good to me and vise versa. So you have an impossible stance from the start. Rebuttal 2"I had expected something like that to come up. But as you said, I stated the definition of evil that will be used for the purposes of this debate in my opening, which was anything with more severe harmful consequences than positive consequences. My opponent has not explained the positive consequences of this action, instead relying on the old "different things are evil for different people", even though the definition I stated can be quantified, while the negative consequences are obvious (loss of a life)."I didn't feel or still not feel the need to explain the fall back from these acts because they are irrelevant. Murder is accepted within that society so the harmful vs non harmful effects would have to be examined within the context and perspective of that society not ours. What I may think is wrong, they may not. People fighting to the death could even be revered as heroes as we often see throughout history. There could be 0 negative effects and all positive effects within the context and perspective of that society. It is impossible to say how it would harm them because we are not a member of that society, but due to the fact of it being accepted and the benefits from committing the act, we know that there are less harmful effects and more positive effects. Remember this is considering and taking into account what they consider harmful, not us. We can not judge them based off our perspective. When people are fighting to the death in an area like that, it would produce entertainment. It would result in someone coming out on top and gaining reverence in the village. The winner could obtain a wife or prizes. He could be promoted to chief. The negatives effects are so entirely minuscule or not even there, because the society accepts murder as normal. The fatal error you are making is claiming that murder is evil. This is dependent on your worldview only and does not take into consideration different areas or time periods. Note: When you say murder is evil, you are saying every time someone has committed a murder without necessity all throughout history and the future it was and will be evil. This is an objective stance with murder being objectively wrong. This is impossible to support. If we were just simply referring to what my adversary considered harmful or wrong, he could easily support this. That is not the case however, we have to consider every factor such as why and when a murder took place. This includes the time period, was it accepted, the society, etc. He can not place an objective value on something because he thinks it is wrong. That is applying his worldview to everything across the board, and is quite wrong. In ClosingHis resolution is not possible to uphold. Nor has he presented a case to even try to uphold it.