Puppies should be tortured and killed.

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