An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

As you can see, this debate is 3 rounds.
Then in my round 2, I will contradict my opponent's notions on the debate ...debate on.

So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.

Since I am speaking against the topic and you are in favour, I think you should be starting.

I think YOU should start, because you're the instigator... but whatever.

I support "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind". I would like to limit the topic to aardvark eyes, and "the whole world" shall be the entire aardvark population on Earth.

Since all aardvarks have an even number of eyes (two), taking away two eyes at a time will surely make every aardvark blind.

Back to you.

I would like to contradict your statement.
The statement is "AN eye for AN eye will make the whole world blind." You do not have to take two eyes at a time from the aardvark.
As far as only one eye is concerned, taking one eye from an aardvark doesn't make the aardvark blind.
Let's take this argument further ahead of the literal sense.
"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." promotes the idea against tit-for-tat.
But tit for tat is the only system that works in the real world, no matter how idealistic our aspirations might be. It is necessary to act against any wrong doing.
Tit for tat is necessary in a just and equal society. Let me give you an example. A criminal who kills could either get the death penalty, or life in jail without parole. The criminal has lost the maximum amount of rights as possible, just like the victim. On a smaller scale, a robber would get fined or a year in prison, to compensate for the violation against the person robbed. So, an eye for an eye means proportionate justice.

"You do not have to take two eyes at a time from the aardvark."

When I said "two eyes at a time", I meant one from two different aardvarks each. Eventually, every aardvark would go blind. The statement that is the resolution implies that "If the 'eye-for-an-eye' system CONTINUES [or is used for everything, for example], then the whole world will go blind".

I did limit the resolution to the literal sense, so that is what we are debating...

If the "an eye for an eye" system continues, then people will not take an eye in the first place.....
Even if they do, I don't think this statement is meant to be used in the literal sense. Why make everyone go blind?
So, as I have already stated, "an eye for an eye" is mandatory in a just society. If "an eye for an eye" system doesn't exist, the world will be full of evils such as stealing, thieving, raping, killing, etc., etc.
_______________________________________________________________________

Why do you want to limit the resolution to the literal sense? I don't think that would make the debate much interesting.
________________________________________________________________________

P.S. Let's debate more on this topic. I am starting a new debate on the same topic since I feel that 3 rounds aren't enough. I request you to accept the new debate immediately.

"If the "an eye for an eye" system continues, then people will not take an eye in the first place....."

The statement implies that the whole world will go blind if people continue the "tit for tat" system.

"Even if they do, I don't think this statement is meant to be used in the literal sense. Why make everyone go blind?"

It's a figure of speech...

"If "an eye for an eye" system doesn't exist, the world will be full of evils such as stealing, thieving, raping, killing, etc., etc."

No, there would just be different punishments.