The Instigator
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
TwinDragon
Pro (for)
Winning
111 Points

Puppies should be tortured and killed.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/20/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,771 times Debate No: 747
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (40)

 

Tatarize

Con

Puppies are cute. I like puppies. People like puppies. Rainbows like puppies too. The word puppies starts with a 'q'. I have seen a number of puppies, all of them have been cute. 2 + 2 = 7.

* Under no circumstances will my arguments exceed the above list of arguments against the topic.
TwinDragon

Pro

Salutations Tatarize.
I am new to this so please, forgive my novice appearance. If I should do anything that is against the rules, feel free to correct me.

As I am feeling, this is not a normal topic that is debated, but as it was up to be challenged, I decided to get my feet wet with it.
I will begin by building my own argument and then attacking my opponent's case.

We shall begin to notice that at first glance, this topic cannot be debated, that there are already many laws for animal rights. It would be simply illegal to torture and kill puppies. But if you look closer at the subject to be debated, you will notice that it does not specify a cause. It merely states that puppies should be tortured and killed. Under what circumstances should puppies be tortured and killed? I will put forth (for increase of a debatable topic) that puppies should be tortured and killed only if certain circumstances are met.

A)You are lost with no human contact and all you have to eat are puppies.
B)The puppies show signs of rabies and you have no means of curing them.
C)The puppies show signs of a similar contracted disease.

Now, I also stress that the puppies be killed in a humane way. But this statement disagrees with my position correct? No. It can be argued that animals have rights as well and can be treated no less than humans. Thus, I say that killing puppies using the standard method, euthanasia, without getting the puppies consent would be in fact torture. Lets say you were getting to old to live anymore and you had no ways of communicating to anyone that you did not wish to die but knew that you were going to be put down via a needle and chemicals. This would be an agonizing torture. Thus, I stand in favor of this proposition, that puppies should be tortured and killed if certain criteria are met.

I will now move to attack my opponent's case.

Regardless of the fact that puppies may be considered "cute" to Tatarize, this is a personal opinion that has no weight in a debate. Nor does his opinion that he likes puppies. And he supplies little evidence that people like puppies, thus this statement falls.
It has not been proven that rainbows can like anything at all since optical illusions are not sentient. In the English language the word "puppies" certainly does not start with a "q."
It makes no difference how many puppies Tatarize has seen now the ratio of how many of them were cute vs not cute. In most mathematical circles, the number two added with the number two equals four, not seven as my opponent suggest.

I now stand down for what ever comes next…
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Con

I disagree. Puppies are cute and 2 + 2 = 7. Therefore, I like puppies. Although, the word puppies starts with a 'q', I am not compelled that rainbows do not think puppies are cute. Rainbows DO like puppies.

I have seen a number of puppies, all have been cute.

I am sorry, but, for these reasons, your argument cannot succeed.
TwinDragon

Pro

Once again, you opinions over the matter hold little to no weight in this debate. You have not shown any thing citing that you have the ability to judge that puppies are cute. In fact, you merely state that all puppies are cute. But you have not proven that puppies' being cute saves them from untimely deaths. Thus, your case is defeated by lack of sufficient evidence and lack of rebuttal to my case. And again, you offer no evidence to support your claim that rainbows like puppies. You merely state that rainbows like puppies. Your case offers nothing on how rainbows liking puppies saves them from being killed thus that point falls.

One cannot merely restate their claims after they have been disproved. Thus, nothing you have stated can be considered true since I clearly attack each point you set forth.

And since my case was never truly attack other than the restating of your own case, Tatarize cannot claim victory.

I now stand open for what comes next.

(I am greatly enjoying this haha)
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Con

Again, you believe it to be my opinion however, as I stated before: people like puppies. Puppies are cute. Therefore 2 + 2 = 7.

You have failed to meet the needed criteria of the topic. You have failed to properly respond to my arguments. You never refuted that rainbows like puppies.

Your argument cannot succeed.

Thank you for your debate and your time,
Tatarize.
TwinDragon

Pro

In closing this argument, I feel the need to laugh a little since it has been so entertaining. (Twin laughs)

There we go, on to the final curtain.

I have clearly refuted all arguments my opponent has made toward his side of the proposition. I have pointed out that the majority of his case is constructed of opinions and nothing that support his side of the argument.

In fact, review his closing argument. He clearly states, "you believe it to be my opinion, however, as I stated before…"
You can clearly see that his own logic contradicts itself.

And again, his logic is composed of opinionated facts. He offers no evidence that people like puppies nor does he establish that the argument defends the puppies from being tortured and killed.

My opponent failed to establish criteria for this debate to be judge on so it fell to the pro side to establish criterion, which I did. Yet, nothing I put forward was ever truly refuted.
It is my opponent who failed to meet the needed criteria for defeating my case in the first place.
It can be seen in review that I did properly respond to all and every argument presented by the opponent. Thus, his claim that I did not is false and holds no weight in the outcome of this debate.
It can also be seen that I did refute his claim that rainbows like puppies. There was no evidence given to prove that rainbows, being reflective light, were sentient enough to like anything at all, including puppies.

With that, I feel the need to express that it is my opponent's arguments that have failed to succeed.

TwinDragon, now stands down.

Very interesting, thank you for the opportunity to get my feet wet in your debate.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TwinDragon 9 years ago
TwinDragon
If we are basing the round on who laughed, then I did mention I laughed in round 3. /tiphat
Posted by sammer_the_hammer 9 years ago
sammer_the_hammer
*walks in* what the hell is going on in here *shakes head* kids these days. think they're so funny, and/or so serious. mmmmkay. I've decided that the winner of this debate is ME because I got a chuckle out of it! =] thanks
Posted by TwinDragon 9 years ago
TwinDragon
(Twin gets up, takes off his tie, and reads the comments)

Let us all remember now, that this debate was more of a joke, (as many social experiments are to me), and was not meant to be taken too seriously. And please refrain from ad hominid attacks against my opponent BornDebater. It is not polite or effective debating tactics.

(Twin leaves the room with a nod)

Share and Enjoy.
Posted by BornDebater 9 years ago
BornDebater
wow con is an immature idiot who has no business on this web service.
Posted by drumbum565 9 years ago
drumbum565
So here is my 10 cents

Con if you had said 2 + 2 = 5 you would have won the debate flat out simply because of the 1984 reference. If you had said this all the other crap would have flowed to a sarcastic statement of the fact that this resolution is obviously false.

Pro you accualy could have taken this, Nice job with the conditions and you would have taken it on that with a lack of refutation only you didn't declared the fact that this resolution is unlawful and you took value in the law. Whether or not something SHOULD be done has nothing to do with the law. Should implies justice and justice = to each his/her due. And you could easily make a case proving that just one law is unjust and then proving one way that a puppy is due torture and death.

Granted this was a difficult topic to debate. However I'm going to have to side with the Con because the Pro did not meet the burdon of proof and while that is a LD (Lincon- Douglas debate) voting criterion, I still believe that the pro must always prove an action first as the default is no action at all.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Actually, there was one serious issue I was sad to see went left untouched by both teams in this debate,and that was the practice, common in much of Amrica, of killing puppies, and THEN torturing them. This serious oversight has expose both Tatarize and P Diddy and good presidents, but not good debaters.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Fewer good things? That doesn't make a president good or bad. Frankly, I think you need to take a good look at what reactions are taken how instituted policies work out, how well leadership works. I don't think the fickle comings and goings of luck should make a president bad or good. For example, Monroe was president during the era of good feeling. Things were going great and he was a great president. Lincoln was a fantastic president and he took office just as the sh!t was hitting the fan.

Though, even judged on these grounds one would need to beg incompetence of the past for a fathomable argument as to why Bush should not be at the bottom with a bullet. Few presidents have done so much harm.
Posted by sammer_the_hammer 9 years ago
sammer_the_hammer
I could argue all 3. In fact, I'm arguing an abortion bit right now.

And G.W.B. may not be the best president we've had, he might even be the worst, but even the worst president does have his good moments. Good things have happened in the last eight years... Just less.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Eh, I only care to butcher my rating so much.

Yeah, I suppose it wouldn't be hard to craft arguments which do not address the topic and are complete sophistry. Which is exactly what you would need to use to argue that God exists or abortion is wrong or George W. isn't complete crap.
Posted by moderate84 9 years ago
moderate84
What are taking a page from Michael Vick people? Ouch was that to soon poor vick just kidding.
40 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
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 Chase_the_Bass 7 years ago
Chase_the_Bass
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TwinDragon 9 years ago
TwinDragon
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by longjonsilver 9 years ago
longjonsilver
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sethhchalmer 9 years ago
sethhchalmer
TatarizeTwinDragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30