Life is not an inalienable right

My opponent has yet to prove life is NOT alienable. And by physical I mean anything that affects your body and a mental illness is still technically a physical ailment due to the fact that their brain functions are being affected, i. e. there is only a psychological affect due to the physical problem. I will explain morals again. Morals are unique to every person and they are based on that persons perception on whether an action is right or wrong. My opponent has actually indadvertedly demonstrated this rather well. His personal perception of events in my cases is that they are wrong therefore he believes that it is morally wrong to kill. The killers had a different personal perception of the events and they concluded that it was morally correct to kill. Everyone has a different moral stance. "Pro must prove that it is morally acceptable to take life away or, in other words, kill. " I feel I have done this quite successfully. Rebuttal In most western societies it may be the case that the most popular moral stance is that killing is morally wrong but even "common morality" is subjective. For example America has the death penalty, Britain allows abortion, French soldiers are trained to kill. A collective group of people have decided that in these instances it is morally correct to take a life. Laws are not based on morality they are based on a negotiable collaboration between the government and the people. This is the social contract. We the people give the government power in order to gain protection. I agree with your points on society however laws and morality are not connected. We want our positive rights protected and our negative rights installed because we have come to a majority agreement that we have decided upon from personal perception of events. You say later, "Just because one person believes something right does not make it right. ". Just because a million people believe something does not make it right. We all make our own perceptions and we all conclude with a unique set of moral beliefs. "According to John Locke, the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. Individuals therefore, have an unalienable right to life because they must be alive in order to preserve mankind. " According to me, the most basic chicken law of nature is the preservation of chicken-kind. Chickens therefore, have an inalienable right to life because they must be alive in order to preserve chicken kind. We should all be vegetarians and anyone who has killed and eaten a chicken will be held accountable in the Supreme Chicken Court. All jokes aside, John Locke is a philosopher. This is his personal belief based on his perception of what natural rights are. John locke was never able to prove his arguments were right. "Therefore, it cannot be morally acceptable to kill another person because in doing so you are proclaiming that you are dominant over another because by taking that life, you are saying that you are above natural law and therefore, saying you are not equal to another. " People do though, that's the point. You believe that it is morally unacceptable but someone else (pick which ever killer you like) believes this is perfectly acceptable. "I interpret the right to life to mean the right to not be killed. " Then you should have added it to the definitions and I would have told you that it is rubbish. The right to life is simply the right to live. Live being defined as your brain is functioning and controlling bodily functions like breathing. "Everyone has the right to not be killed. " This is what you are meant to be proving to win this debate therefore please prove it instead of simply stating it. "This is a universal right. " Again prove it because so far this is just a positive right that most people in a democracy have agreed that they want. There is nothing natural about it, it's purely a man made concept. "they are also refuting the fact they have the right to not be killed and can be killed by anyone at anytime. " Yes I am. "Since the right to not be killed is a universal right" Prove it. "and my opponent values their own life" No I don't. "then everybody has this right to not be killed" So if I don't value my own life and the right not to be killed is not universal then nobody has the right to not be killed? Most of my rebuttal for the way you attempted to refute my cases is that this is your own personal perception of the events which differs to the personal perception of the killers. To answer your questions: "Furthermore, how is attacking those who pose no physical threat to you justifiable? " I personally don't believe that it is which is why I have never done it. The dictator I cannot answer for since I am not he and I do not know him. "Would that not just be making a martyr out of those 18 people and strengthening the resolve of those against you, giving more incentive to overthrow that government? " Yes it probably is and that is where the social contract comes in. It does not prove however that people have an inalienable right to life. "This is true because the government is tasked with creating morale laws that separate right and wrong" No this just becomes a societal influence which I explained in my first post. "People who are psychopaths and sociopaths, have no perception between right and wrong because they do not feel any emotion. " Perception of events is not based sole upon your ability to love. For example children do not have the mental capacity to make moral judgements but they still have emotions. A young child is told a story about two boys. One boy is told by his father not to touch his ink pot. The boy does it anyway but spills some making a small stain. Another boy is asked by his father to refill his ink pot. The boy does this but spills a lot of ink and makes a large stain. The child is then asked which boy was naughty and they reply with the second boy because he done more damage. Mentally ill people do still see right and wrong it just tends to be a very different picture to what "normal" people see. They think it's right to kill a puppy most people don't. "It has to be morally correct for someone to kill you for life to not be inalienable. " Yes it does and I stated that I was using my very brief example of giving up your own life to show "the subjective nature of human morals around which this debate is centred. " My point is still relevant. As Pro I bring to you in line with the definitions set out by Con that morals are unique and are formed on a personal perception of events which are influenced by three main factors: physical, environmental and societal. I have proven that peoples morals are subjective enough that we can believe we are morally right in taking a life. My opponent tried to prove that since we exist in a society we have the right to life as is given to us in the natural law. He did not prove however that natural laws actually exist and are not simple man made concepts created because we WANT to live. Society exists as part of the social contract which is negotiable and does get changed on a regular basis. For Con to have win this debate he would have had to prove that natural laws exist and prove that we have the intrinsic right not to be killed. That would have been far better suited to the previous round though as I have no opportunity to rebut his next post. Thank you for reading this debate.