The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Dressing up cat as pumpkin is morally justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 64275
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Dressing up cat as pumpkin is morally justified by religion and philosophy

Proposition - I believe that dressing up a cat as a pumpkin is morally justified on the following grounds:

1. God gave us dominion over cats, according to Genesis 1:28 "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
2. Or, if you are a Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, the cat probably deserves it because a sin it did in a past life.
3. If you are an atheist, the cat would probably dress you up as a pumpkin, too, if given the chance. Therefore, the law of "Survival of the Fittest" necessitates that we either dress up an animal as a pumpkin, or be dressed up by an animal as a pumpkin ourselves (or some equivalent action).
4. It was done on Seinfeld, if I remember right.
5. The cat will be let out of the pumpkin costume every two hours for a 30 minute interval to stretch, use the restroom and eat no more than four but no less than two cans of Fancy Feast (tm), depending upon the size of said cat.
6. It is also justified to take photos of the cat in pumpkin uniform and take them to work as a conversation piece.
7. The cat doesn't know any different because it is a stupid beast and only thinks of selfish motives.
8. The cat only wears the pumpkin for a day or two. Then it is placed in leotard.


First, I would like to thank my opposition for the novel debate topic; however, I must disagree with the proposition proffered by my opponent.

The preliminary challenge I wish to issue against the proposition is a concise definition of what constitutes 'morally justified'. It seems the opposition has given a litany of examples of possible appeals to proximate religico-philosophical domains, but no coherent argument has been presented. In the case that the opposition believes mere listing of examples that purportedly share the same conclusion as s/he, I will respond briefly to each with brevity.

1. Genesis also talks of the stewardship obligations of human animals towards non-human animals. 'Stewardship' is understood as a form of management and care extended towards a living being. 'Dominion' is not to be understood as an unbounded right to exert power over, but a dutifully-bounded position.

2. The Indian traditions of thought you make reference to emphasize reciprocity and the fundamental shared condition between all sentient creatures. Unless you believe you would like to be coerced into an outfit and paraded about for a camera, not understanding why, I think it would be considered unconscionable in these traditions.

3. 'Survival of the fittest' is not a principle within evolutionary theory. Indeed, it remains a principle advanced by social Darwinism which also supported proto-eugenic movements. It seems questionable to invoke such a contentious tradition as morally exemplary.

4. George Costanza also had prominent gynecomastia, i.e. male breast tissue. Is it, therefore, morally justified to state the new expectation of men is to have breasts?

6. Just because you insist it is so, does not make it is so.

7. Theorist Singer does not define moral worthiness in relation to 'rationality', but the ability to suffer pain. A cat can suffer pain and it holds this interest.

8. Your future feline sartorial choices (or exploits) are irrelevant.

Debate Round No. 1


The def. for morality in this case is "conformity to the rules of right conduct". What constitutes "right conduct" always presupposes an over-arching context. The proposition is in the context of these contexts.

1. The Con is easily refuted here when we refer to the Hebrew words "kabash" and "radah":

As Hebrews killed animals routinely, the idea that Biblical values would be oppose the proposition is unfounded.

2. As to the Dharmic traditions, the compassion of Hinduism and Buddhism does not extend to not dressing the animal up for ornamental purposes. Cows are decorated in India as part of religious festivals / used in farming:

Buddhists also use them for farming. It is true that the Dharmic traditions are more pro-animal, but Con's argument insufficient to rebut the proposition.

3. That a tradition is "contentious" in some circles in no way impugnes its veracity. The question of atheistic morality deserves its own debate, but there is at least one form of purely atheistic morality in which my proposition is sound.

4. This is false equivalency.

6. Statement 6 is based upon the ethical conclusions as found in 1-3.

7. This sounds like an argument from authority and is insufficient.


Voci forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Yep. Cat pumpkins are ok.


Voci forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Dressing up cat as pumpkin is lawful for one and all. Dressing the cat as large tomato is also reasonable among reasonable people.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
I shouldn't have restricted the character count on this debate. Dangit
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.