The Instigator
Lepricon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Killing puppies is justifiable

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,001 times Debate No: 9573
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Lepricon

Pro

Killing puppies, namely throwing them off cliffs, is justifiable under the premise that a puppy is useless to humanity, and that a puppy has no ability to reason.

I await a rebuttal.
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

For something to be justified, one must "prove or show [it] to be just, right, or reasonable[1]", in which this case we would be referring to just (namely that it is morally justifiable for killing puppies).

My main argument is that it's not justifiable because there is no such thing as "morally just" - in essence, I argue that moral facts do not exist.

---References---
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Lepricon

Pro

This is not a joke debate at all, I just know how you "online debaters" work. You out-write your opponent, rather than out-debate him. And furthermore, I am looking for something more rewarding than typical debate, so I think of this as an extended cross examination.

I did not include morality in my claim because.. well.. I wished to stray from it. Justification does not necessitate a moral requirement.

Killing puppies has no negative bearing on humanity, and is thus just.
TheSkeptic

Con

You failed to designate whether or not your argument was one derived from morality or from a pragmatic basis. I, however, did so this discussion has to inevitably focus on it.

We should doubt the existence of moral facts is because there is currently no good reason for believing in the existence of these awkward, universally prescriptive facts exist.

Moral values are aspects OF OUR PERCEPTIONS of the world, not aspects INHERENT TO the world.
Debate Round No. 2
Lepricon

Pro

Lepricon forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

Extend my arguments here.

To reiterate: my opponent failed to define in what context is it justifiable - since this mostly refers to moral reasons, I defined it as so. If he intended otherwise, he should've stated in the beginning.

That said, my argument from queerness stands as opposition against the existence of moral facts, and thus against the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
Lepricon

Pro

Lepricon forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

"Lepricon's account has been closed."

Arg...
Debate Round No. 4
Lepricon

Pro

Lepricon forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

Hm...VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
1. It's called moral nihilism.
2. If you bothered to read on, you'll find my argument.
3. Ever heard of the idea called "devil's advocate"?
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"My main argument is that it's not justifiable because there is no such thing as "morally just" - in essence, I argue that moral facts do not exist."

1) What?
2) You didn't even make a contention to back up your "main argument".
3) You have used "morally justfied" in the resolution of your own debate (http://www.Debate.org...) and "morally permissible" (http://www.Debate.org...).
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Yeah, I saw that after his last round.
Posted by Harlan 7 years ago
Harlan
How can something with no sensical purpose or reason behind it be justified?
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
I was wondering whether or not this debate was a joke - seeing as how the characters are only 500 per round, it's pretty confirming :).

OH well.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
3 rounds and i am in
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
LepriconTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
LepriconTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
LepriconTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07