Pick your own debate - 1G

My opponent has vehemently declared that I "copped out", turned this debate on it's head, and in all effectuated an abusive round. Now, I'm definitely one for some rhetoric banter but it would seem quite clear to me that my opponent's strong opposition to my stance is unbecoming and unjustified - I have done nothing to make this topic something it wasn't. Let's backtrack, exactly what was my opponent's resolution? She proposed that "in regards to the situation of capital punishment, it is more moral to take the criminal's life than use them for utilitarian gains". It's a very clear and precise resolution, and I understand it perfectly. In other words, she wants a debate in which we morally evaluate whether it's more moral to take a criminal's life or use them for utilitarian gains (presumably hard labor). She takes the former position, which likely will place her in a Kantian position. Either taking a life is more moral, or using them as utilitarian gains is more moral -- either A or B can be chosen. So what did I do? I chose the third possible option, option C -- I stated that NEITHER OPTION IS MORALLY BETTER OR WORST. This "third choice" is much more rare in similar debates, but it is definitely legitimate to choose and is in no way a cop out. It is perfectly legitimate to respond to the resolution that "X is immoral" by stating that morality itself is a farce. I in no way evaded the topic. "I intended to debate ethics of reasoning for Capital punishment, not if there should be Capital Punishment or not...He completely changed it form ethical systems' takes on Capital Punishment discussion to a political debate on whether CP is right or wrong." ----> I never hinted at the claim that this resolution is about whether or not there should be CP, though I did say I was personally against it. I abide by the resolution because I was planning to argue for using the criminals for hard labor in a different aspect perhaps you did not foresee -- not so much a fault on my part. Nevertheless, I will satisfy your qualms by arguing how you want; by defending utilitarianism in this aspect. I devoted this large introduction to a response because I found it unbecoming that you accuse of me abusive actions when I took a perfectly legitimate course. Anyway, here's my argument: ===================== Kant's Categorical Imperative one major logical flaw ===================== Since this debate basically boils down to Kantian ethics vs. Utilitarianism, then inevitably it would seem that the entire issue of CP becomes sidelined and the debate then would focus on which ethical theory is correct. It doesn't seem that my opponent disagrees, stemming from her arguments and comments. So I will demonstrate the flaws of Kantian ethics, and show that at the very least it can't be shown to be a valid moral theory and thus killing a criminal to be "more moral" then using them for utilitarian gains. I will utilize one major criticism of Kantian ethics: Kant hasn't resolved the problem of when his obligations conflict. Often we see the case in which two or more obligations will clash, such as the obligation to preserve human life and the abolition against lying. These two maxims are supposed to be absolute and universal, and yet they can be found in conflict - Kant, I would argue, has no way of resolving this. If he can't do this, then his theory is logically incoherent. ===================== Conclusion ===================== I will wait for my opponent's reply to my argument against Kantian ethics, and subsequently wait for her attack on utilitarianism (presumably). Since I have no clue what attack she will use -- being that it's one of the most popular ethical theories and thus full of opponents -- I will respond to her criticisms in my last round. Remember, this debate is effectively a debate on which normative ethical theory is superior. If I show utilitarianism to be correct, then using criminals for things such as hard labor would be more moral. If you demonstrate Kantian ethics to be correct, taking a criminals life wouldn't only be more moral but in fact morally obligatory. The floor is yours, CON.