The Instigator
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
74 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Pro (for)
Winning
136 Points

Puppies should be tortured and killed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 9/29/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,953 times Debate No: 5575
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (34)

 

Tatarize

Con

Puppies did nothing wrong. We should not torture them or kill them.
burningpuppies101

Pro

Hello all. Thanks to my opponent for this debate.

Before I start, I feel compelled to say this, due to the nature of this debate.
Please don't vote for my opponent just because he is not advocating torturing and killing puppies. You should judge this debate based upon the arguments, not my username. Thank you.

*Topic Analysis*
This topic is a moral topic. It is asking of us whether or not we should torture and kill puppies. My opponent is against doing so, and I am supposed to advocate it. Let me state now that anything said now does not directly reflect the opinions of the debaters.
I will be taking this case from a moral standpoint.

I argue that puppies do have a conscience, and therefore should be punished by their actions. If the correct punishment is torture or death, then they should be tortured or killed. The puppy has a conscience, so they are bound by moral rules. For instance, if you have taught a dog that killing another dog is wrong, and you have somehow tought the dog that it will be killed if the dog kills another dog, then that dog should be killed for killing. Also, a group(no matter what the species), needs to develop some sort of moral code in order for that group to continue to exist. A group of dogs will be forced to develop a sense of morality, in order to continue to exist. For the survival of the community, dogs are forced to develop a sense of morality. They accept that killing someone within their society is wrong. Therefore, when they commit those acts, they are accepting the due punishment.

Even if we are not going to talk about groups of dogs in the wild, we can still argue that domseticated dogs should be tortured and killed. Animals devolop at a very early age a sense of morality, and they know that killing is wrong. Especially domesticated dogs, since there is no need for them to kill. Domesticated dogs are taught not to kill, or commit other horrible acts. If they do, then they should be punished. Why should we protect a dog that has commited an act so bad that if it were a human we would have killed them? If a human commits a certain act, he/she/it will be punished. If that act is so bad it warrants death, then we would kill that person. Why should it change for an animal?
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Con

Hello everybody.

I thank my opponent for taking this debate.

I feel compelled to say that due to the nature of the debate you should vote for me regardless of the arguments of my opponent. He's in favor of torturing and killing puppies and even if I offered no valid arguments on this topic that alone should produce a win.

It is not moral to torture and kill puppies. Let us look through various moral theories to establish this.

Under Utilitarianism it is immoral to torture and kill puppies unless the utility is greater than for not torturing and killing puppies. Thus, one could mount an argument under a utilitarian framework that if hypothetically a greater wrong than torturing and killing puppies were to be wrought by not torturing and killing puppies then it may provisionally be moral. No such hypothetical is posed by the topic and it is open ended. I concede that there may be moral reasons to torture and kill puppies under some limited set of circumstances. However, it is far cry than an overwhelming argument that puppies *should* be tortured and killed just that they "may be tortured and killed under some hypothetical situation".

Under Kantian ethics it is unacceptable to torture and kill puppies because it would violate a universal maxim. Kant argued that it unless a rule can be seen to apply universally it cannot be moral. The rule "Puppies should be tortured and killed" fails this maxim because under a universal application of the rule we would run out of puppies and the rule would no longer be applicable to anything.

Under Natural Law it is unacceptable to torture and kill puppies because that would be using the puppy against its own purpose. The purpose of the puppy is not to be tortured and killed. Thusly Aquinas would argue strongly against the proposition.

Under Hobbes we find that morality is based on a set of social and political contracts between individuals and groups of individuals. Within the United States and many other government it is illegal to torture and kill puppies because of animal cruelty laws. Under Hobbes ethics we cannot torture or kill puppies either.

We find that regardless of the wealth of different moral theories we check there is universal agreement that we should not torture or kill puppies. As such, it seems doubtful that a moral argument could be successfully launched in favor of it. That said, my opponent offers a moral argument.

---

My opponent wishes us to believe that puppies lack a conscience and thus must be punished. Punishment with a dog is used as training and while hurting a dog may at times be a useful training strategy (for dog-hurting bastards) there is no lesson which could be learned by killing a dog. Capital punishment for dogs doesn't exist. We can euthanize them, safely and painlessly in some cases but we don't do so lightly and we don't do so as a punishment. Secondly, torturing isn't a punishment. Many people make their dogs go outside when they misbehave or even a withering stare or a "BAD DOG!" suffices. Torture is never part of the equation.

If killing dogs is wrong for your dog is it wrong for you as well. If your dog kills another dog it shouldn't be killed as a punishment although it may be euthanize for safety reasons, which is a far cry from torturing and killing a dog. Dogs like many species have a sense of morality and do not need to be punished in order to be moral. Just as I do not bite my dog, my dog does not bite me.

My opponent asks why we should protect a dog who murders another dog, when we wouldn't do the same for a human. First, I'm against the death penalty. I categorically oppose it and thus would not support death in such a case for people. It isn't a punishment and doesn't help anybody. Next, dogs aren't people. We expect more from people because of their rational and moral understanding. We treat dogs different and often times more humanly.

However, the suggestion that we should euthanize a dog when it's a danger to others is acceptable but not applicable. First, euthanasia is not torture. Second, we are talking about puppies. Puppies not much for the killing of other puppies or dogs. Third, speculation of such a hypothetical is not part of the topic. "Puppies should be tortured and killed" is not saying that "given X this one puppy may ethically be killed."

Why should we protect a dog that has commited an act so bad that if it were a human we would have killed them? If a human commits a certain act, he/she/it will be punished. If that act is so bad it warrants death, then we would kill that person. Why should it change for an animal?
burningpuppies101

Pro


I feel compelled to say that just because I am debating you on this topic, it does not directly reflect my opinions. You do not know that I am in favor of killing and torturing puppies. Therefore, if you offer no valid arguments, I would win the debate. You cannot make an assumption about my character and expect that to win you the debate.

My opponents points:
Utilitariansim: My opponent invokes utilitarianism in that he says that if it is better to kill/torture the puppy than not, then it is ok. That is my argument. If its better to kill than not to kill, then we should kill.

Thank you.

Kant: Kant merely states that if you can do an act and wish it to be a moral law that is unbreakable, then it is ok. So you provided one example. Here is a counter example to show why this argument invoking Kant should not matter.

If a puppy does a wrong deed, and deserves torture, then you should torture it.

Also, Kant is unreliable because it can cause us to do bad things. For instance: It is 1939, and you are hiding Jews in your home. That would be a good act, under Kantian Ethics. Nazis knock on your door asking if you are hiding any Jews. If you lie, you would be doing a good and moral deed under Kant. The law that would apply would be DO NOT LIE. However, if you lie, you are commiting a horrible act and a immoral act. That doesn't make sense. Therefore, Kantianism may look good on paper, but it does not stand up very well under close scrutiny.

Natural Law: This is an opinionated statement. Just because you do not believe that a puppies' purpose is to be tortured and killed, it does not mean it is true.

Hobbes: You are saying that because a social contract says so, it is wrong. You are invoking the fact that because someone/something says so, it is so. However, we are debating whether or not when someone/something says so, it is so. You can't invoke present conditions, since they are what we are debating about.

No. I am arguing that puppies have a conscience that therefore mus be punished for any actions that deserve punishment. You misunderstand me.

Bur you are still killing it. It doesn't matter why. You are advocating killing the dog. That is what I need to prove. Killing a dog as punishment was only one way. You have just provided another way.

That's what we are basically debating about.

Since when? Why else would we want to torture them?

You are still killing the dog. It doesn't matter why. You are killing the dog. And seeing as you have done my job and justified it by saying it is for safety reasons, you just did my job.

That is my point. Dogs are moral creatures. They have a sense of morality. If they know a certain action is wrong and deserves a certain punishment, they should receive that punishment if they do that action.

Look at the above quote. You say yourself that dogs have a sense of morality. You are contradicting yourself. Enough said on that.

< First, euthanasia is not torture. > But it is killing, which is half of the debate.

So? They still have a sense of morality, so everything said above still applies.

I'm sorry, but isn't that my argument?

So throughout my opponents speech, he can be found not to be advocating his side, but mine. Seeing as he has done so, I really don't have much to say..... I'll just rehash my arguments:

Dogs have a conscience.
Dogs have a sense of morality.
Therefore they know right from wrong.
They know that a certain act warrants a certain punishment.
If they do that act, they accept the punishment.
Therefore, we would be discriminating against a species if we did not punish them.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Con

"If a puppy does a wrong deed, and deserves torture, then you should torture it."

Your argument is basically surmised in that one phrase. My argument is dogs never deserve torture. The fact that they, to some degree, know right from wrong doesn't lead in any causal direction towards a deserved torture or death. Let's look at this reasonably:

I know that X is wrong.
I do X.
Therefore, I should be tortured and killed.

That doesn't actually follow. What does follow is the fact that I know what I did was wrong. There's no part of knowingly doing something wrong which requires torture or death. Puppies are rarely guilty of anything more malicious than being in poor control of their bodily functions, however we don't torture or kill them for such infractions.

Much of your argument is applying a human character to puppies and genuflecting towards moral theories that suppose human understanding and human characteristics. There are a number of objections here.

-- Dogs may know what they did was wrong but that doesn't make them have any of the human moral characteristics we require in society.
-- We don't torture people as punishments.
-- We don't execute youths such as puppies would be.
-- Again, they are dogs and not humans.
-- Did I mention dogs.
-- And the topic doesn't require some hypothetical, under obvious interpretation it would surmise that all puppies just be outright tortured and killed and not as a punishment. You are arguing not that "puppies should be tortured and killed" but that "under some circumstances some puppies may be ethically tortured and killed."

I didn't suggest that Kantian moral theory was perfect or a great reflection of ultimate moral truths but the idea that lying to protect the lives of innocent people is on par with torturing puppies willy-nilly is simply wrong. I pointed out a wide variety of such moral theories and they were all opposed to the torture and killing of puppies. These sort of edge moral questions usually find different answers with different moral theory. Hobbes might suggest you give them up, Mills would oppose it, Aquinas would probably oppose it, but on the issue of puppies they are all crystal clear.

Any flaws in any particular moral theory probably only show up where there's a conflict between two different moral ideas, there's no conflict here and the moral theories are extremely opposed to your presentation.

The Hobbes ethic isn't that somebody says it but rather the government of which we are all members opposes it and assigns punishments and prohibitions against such actions. This alone suffices to suggest that it is wrong.

----

In none of your arguments did you actually argue for both the torture and death of a puppy. You argued for torture. You argued for death. But you never argued for torture and death of the same puppy.

You never argued that "puppies should be", just that it might be ethical "to do".

Your arguments were based on far-fetched hypotheticals based on dog crimes and attempting to find applicable moral understandings to apply to animals who may understand that you're upset they ate a cake on the table, but certainly wouldn't understand all rights from all wrongs.

All moral theories are categorically opposed to the torture and killing of puppies.

Your arguments fail logically, ethically, topically, morally and fundamentally. You have provided no good reason why all puppies should be tortured and killed. You have provided weak rational for why some hypothetical puppy could commit some hypothetical crime which hypothetically could be understood by the puppy, and hypothetically require punishment which would hypothetically need to be as strong as torture and death. -- The arguments fail at every point.

---

Puppies should not be tortured and killed.
burningpuppies101

Pro

First, I just have to say this about Tatarize's last speech; wow..... what a way to slam your opponent. especially a younger one......

Moving on.
Yes, with one change: If a puppy does a wrong deed that warrants death and/or torture, then you should kill it and/or torture it.

No where in my speech does it say that you should not kill it and/ torture it.

< The fact that they, to some degree, know right from wrong doesn't lead in any causal direction towards a deserved torture or death. Let's look at this reasonably:

I know that X is wrong.
I do X.
Therefore, I should be tortured and killed.>

Actually, you are wrong. If they know right from wrong, and know they will be punished, then they should be punished if they do something wrong. You are missing a very important part of the logic. Here is it again, with that important part.

I know that X is wrong, and warrants Y punishment.
I do X.
Therefore, Y should happen to me.

Substitute Y for torture and killing.

Tada.


It doesn't matter. If they do a certain action that warrants a certain punishment, then if they they do the certain action, they should get that certain punishment.

<-- Dogs may know what they did was wrong but that doesn't make them have any of the human moral characteristics we require in society.>
Because my opponent has not taken the chance to give any human moral characteristics, I feel compelled to give some, since the term is so vague.

Rational Thought.
Ability to make choices.

I think those are the big ones. Dogs are capable of both of those things, so therefore they should be bound by moral standards. Note, these standards are not determined by humans. These standards are there regardless of what we say.

Yes we do. We torture them if they do not tell us what we need to know. (POWs)

You have to look at this with context. The average human life is about 80 years. The average dog life is about 15. Have you ever heard of dog years? In fact, dogs mature much faster (in terms of our years) because their concept of time is different from ours.

Yes you did.

Its the same thing.


Tatarize, we are debating about torturing/ killing dogs. There is an automatic assumption that there will be some hypotheticals.

My entire argument. If a puppy does an action warranting a certain punishment, then they should receive that punishment.

So throughout this entire debate, my opponent has presented several vaild arguments, all of which I have refuted. My opponent however, has presented no valid reason as to why a puppy should not be punished for his actions. If anything, he has made several statements that would help my case. My opponent has however, provided several theories as to why torturing/ killing is wrong. However, there is one problem. They are merely theories. Theories cannot prove anything. They can voice an opinion, but until those theories have been proven true, which they have not been, we cannot assume them to be anything more than an opinion voiced by a philospher. Therefore, my opponent has lost this debate since all of his arguments were based off of theories, unprovable statements.

Thank you

VOTE PRO!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jimmy810920 8 years ago
Jimmy810920
Wow... Tatarize... how can you possibly think that you won this debate? Just because of the stance he has taken? If so, you have completely missed the point of debating. It is not to attack someone personally, instead, it is to stimulate thoughts about the pros and cons of an issue and to take the one who has given the most logical, reasonable and powerful support to his/her side as the winner. By supporting one side, one does not neccessarily have to believe in that particular side.... (Just because a black person has to provide a pro argument about why black people should not be given the right to vote does not neccessarily mean he believes so. By constantly attacking your opponent for the side of arguing he's taking, you are simply making a fool out of yourself. From the audience's point of view, I see burningpuppies101 provide justified argument for his side and you insulting his abilities (ad hominem), providing statements that contradict yourself or otherwise irrelevant to the text, and the funniest of all, believing that your opponent should lose just for the side he has taken.
Posted by pawletoe 8 years ago
pawletoe
to burningpuppies:
you shouldn't have use punishment to torture or kill a puppy
you could have said a dog is far from being saved because it was being horded
definition of horded here is being used to say that a lot of puppies are being farmed and stacked in small spaces and no one wants to adopt. therefore, a dog must be put to sleep since it will not survive in the streets and the dog pawn will not keep after 7 days...
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
You voted for yourself.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
@funnybrad-

Ditto.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
i'm sorry, but you fail to realize that this is a debate. This is a debate. i am merely taking one stance. i am not saying that it is my own opinion. just because i debate for a subjet does not mean that i support those opinions. therefore, you should not be voting against me just because of a stance i advocate. that is the exact kind of vote we were hoping NOT to have.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
Look at burningpuppies101's avatar. Look at it. Now... how could you hurt something like that?! That says more than any silly text could say.
Posted by funnybrad333 8 years ago
funnybrad333
Since when were animals valued over humanity?

Stupid pacifist hippie liberals.
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
No, he is not. He has admitted to me and several others than torutring and killing a puppy for no apparent reason is a horrible, wicked thing to do, but if you stopped being a lazy bum and took the time to actually read his arguments instead of blindly voting for what you think is right based on your personal opinions then you would realize that Pro should absolutely win this debate.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
I don't believe in animal cruelty, therefore I vote for Tatarize. burningpuppies101, you are a sorry excuse for a human being.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Good Brad. That's a fantastic stance to take. On top of that I assure you that my arguments are superior so you don't need to bother with reading anything.
34 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by iholland95 4 years ago
iholland95
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Puppies do nothing wrong. Even if they were abused earlier in their life, that doesn't mean you should kill the poor things. They're innocent and don't know any better. Be kind to the poor animals. Your choice...
Vote Placed by bamboo_lover 6 years ago
bamboo_lover
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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 mrbullfrog11 6 years ago
mrbullfrog11
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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 Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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 Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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 BellumQuodPacis 6 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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 realmadridfan 6 years ago
realmadridfan
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Alex 6 years ago
Alex
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 7 years ago
bookwormbill111
Tatarizeburningpuppies101Tied
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