Good morning, ladies and gentleman, my name is Matthew, the prosecutor of this case, and it is my pleasure to represent the people on this important case. Ike Larue is accused of eating the chicken pie, howling, chasing cats, and ruining Ms. Larue’s camel’s hair coats. For this reason, Ms. Larue sent Ike to the obedience school. She is very happy because she no longer has a naughty dog by her side. In contrast, Ike is unhappy, thinking the school is a prison. He wrote many letters asking Ms Larue to take him home. One day, he sent a letter saying he is sick, he claims that he needs to be taken home immediately, which is not done. The next letters Ike sent are all about his escape and his life as an “desperate outlaw”. But at the end, Ike still saved the owner that sent him to “prison”. This brings up the question “Is Ike a good dog?”. The answer is a definite NO.
Ms Larue accuses Ike for eating the chicken pie on the table without permission. She thinks Ike is stealing from the kitchen table. Ike should have asked first before eating the pie. He should have permission from Ms. Larue to eat the chicken pie. Even if our opponents argue that Ike thinks it is fine to eat the pie, Ike should still have asked for permission first because the relationship between Ms. Larue and Ike are owner and pet. He should have respected his owner first by asking to be permitted. Therefore, it is, indeed, Ike’s fault for stealing the chicken pie.
Mrs. Hibbins claim that it is Ike’s fault for chasing the cats, because of them hiding on the ladders. Ike argues that he just wants to help clear the ladder because it is for important use. However, it is never his duty to keep the path clear. All he needs to do is find Ms. Larue and let her solve the problem. Even if it is Ike’s duty to keep the path clear, there is still a huge possibility that Ike actually scared the cats, causing them not wanting to come down. If Ike had not standed there, the cats might have come down. For this reason, Ike is wrong chasing the cats around since he is the source of the problem.
The neighbors argues that Ike howled when Ms. Larue was away. In response, Ike talked about how the neighbors also disturbed him with their loud vacuuming. He claims that his the neighbors are not trustworthy and he only howled a little in the time when Ms. Larue is gone. However, we see no reason why Ike is more trustworthy than the neighbors. Besides, the impact of these two actions differ greatly. The neighbors are humans and have many things to do. Disturbing them would mean mixing up their daily schedule. In contrast, Ike has nothing to do all day. So disturbing him would only bring very little impact. Thus, it is definitely Ike’s fault for howling, even a little.
In conclusion, Ike is a bad dog because it turns out that all his excuses are actually not trustworthy. Besides, he even ruined Ms. Larue’s favorite, best coat! He claims that he saved Ms. Larue’s life by pushing her forward. However, this is not true, as there is no guarantee Ms. Larue’s life would be in danger if Ike didn’t push her. Even if Ike really saved Ms. Larue’s life, that coat really means a lot to Ms. Larue. Ruining it actually hurts Ms. Larue a lot. Therefore, Ike's excuses are proven wrong and he actually did all the bad things mentioned above, Ike is a bad dog.
Comments