I am the first speaker of the negative side and we oppose the innocence of Oedipus. First of all, Oedipus was the child sent away by his biological parents due to a prophecy and adopted by the royalty of Corinth and eventually became the prince. Many events happened in the story and eventually, it reached the part where he met a sphinx in which he passed the riddle. Because of this, he became so full of himself and became an imperious person. While on his way to Thebes, he met an old man, with his slaves around him. He met them in the crossroads. There, as said in the story, he was harassed and a brawl in the road happened, making him kill the man, which appeared to be King Laius, his biological father and the king's servants. Oedipus, a man consumed by his pride and anger killed them, and it does not justify the so called "self-defense". Even if he was harassed, if he was a man of virtue and morality, he could have done a wiser thing than killing because self-defense does not only fall upon the act of murder. .
According to the play, the three crossroad was where he killed his father. It was not a one-way road, but three crossroad. What is with this crossroad, will be elaborated by the second speaker. But in the play, it was not stated that Oedipus was with his servants too, he was only with himself. King Laius was with his servants and a cart. A very simple thing to do, if he was asked to move away or as said harassed, he can move and step on the other road or plead to the king and give them the way. He could have done a very simple thing. But because of his pride thinking he was a royalty and the award he received for solving the riddle, he remained there and decided not to move away. According to the Oracle, the child would kill his father, and marry his mother. It never said anything about killing his father's servants too. Where in fact, they are also human beings. Basically, he made an inhumane act.
