The Instigator
Teemo
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
CatsRSuperior
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A dog is a superior pet to have then a cat.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Teemo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,123 times Debate No: 51712
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Teemo

Pro

I am challenging con to this debate. This is a debate about which animal is better for a pet. If my opponent chooses to accept this debate, they also accept the rules that are about to be explained.

RULES:

1. first round you must write your opening statements, and last round you write "no argument this round"

2. No plagiarism

3. No full capital words. (example: CATS FOR THE WIN!!!!)

4. No forfeiting

5. concessions can only be made after the 3rd round.

If any rules above are broken, my opponent will experience a 7 point deduction.
CatsRSuperior

Con

I accept, though as pets, I acctually do not know, I just know that cats are a better animal period... not so much as a pet, but i will try my best! and what is 7 deduction points have to do with it?
Debate Round No. 1
Teemo

Pro

Flaws in my opponent's arguments

I wonder if my opponent noticed these. There are many flaws in his arguments.
  • He is playing the semantics card, and either way it isn't working
  • Definitions don't always need a source, sometimes they are created personally but are still acceptable
  • Just because something is bad, doesn't make it not art
  • My opponent proved absolutely nothing thus far, and won't be able to since next round he is not allowed to make any arguments whatsoever.
So I would like to quickly point these out before I begin with my rebuttals.

Rebuttals

" have no idea what my opponent is saying in the first two sentences. However, for the rest of the statement, according to the definition of graffiti, it must be on a public surface to be considered graffiti. a piece of paper is not a public surface and therefore a drawing on a piece of paper is not, by definition, graffiti."

This is comepletly irrelevant. Graffiti according to your definition is a public surface, however this is not true. You cannot use your definition to protect all your arguments, because it is false. Graffiti can be drawn on paper. It is a style of art, or writing, not just a form of vandalism. So because of such, it can be written on paper, and therefore an art.

"This first paragraph has no basis behind it and should be considered solely an attempt by my opponent to increase the broadness of this debate more in his/her favor. Since there is a definition, this debate should follow by this definition. "

Once again, my opponent fails to understand that he can't hide behind his definitions, this is playing by semantics, one of the lamest ways possible to debate, unless of course you are trolling. Art is subjective, so anything and everything can be art. You definition is just how someone percieves it, however it is completley subjective. Because of such, anything can be art, and graffiti is just one fo those things.

"My opponent does not have the right to change the resolution of the debate by trying to claim that art can't be defined."

Actually, I can, considering art is subjective. You can't rely on 1 definition, considering there are thousands of definitions out there, so we are to go along with the fact that art is subjective, therefore anything can be art. Here is a simple explanation to prove it. War does not fit into your definition of art, however Sun Tzu wrote a book entitled "the art of war", implying there is art in war. So as you can see, the definition is not important, because art is seen in many ways. So if someone were to see graffiti as an art, which I do, it automatically proves my point that graffiti can be an art.

"That picture provided is nice. However, my opponent has not proven that this picture is "graffiti". I went to the site provided and it doesn't mention it being unauthorized. This could be an authorized mural. The following website is a building in the Mission District of San Francisco that is a mural, not graffiti. These types of works can be found all over the bay area and are considered art.T"

What my opponent fails to notice is that graffiti isn't only vandalism. Graffiti is actually a art style. [1] This style includes interresting fonts. Sometimes it is on streets, but sometimes it is on paper. Even if this were a mural, it is drawn in graffiti style, making it graffiti.

"I accept this definition for vandalism because it was reliably sourced. This definition of vandalism is almost the exact same as graffiti. Because graffiti is unauthorized drawings, it is therefore malicious destruction of public property. Therefore, my opponent's contention is false because according to the definitions, graffiti is always vandalism even though vandalism might not always be graffiti."

As shown above, I have already proven that graffiti isn't always vandalism, but actually a art style.

"Once again, since this does not fit the definition of graffiti, this should be disregarded. Drawing on a poster for an art class is not an unauthorized drawing on public property."

Once again, your definition is false, and should not be used. I have already proven graffiti is a style, so if drawn on paper, it is still graffiti, but not illegal.

"It is unreasonable for me to explain every piece of graffiti ever made. Since it is more reasonable for my opponent to simply show one piece of graffiti that could be art to disprove me, the burden of proof falls on my opponent. Because my opponent did not provide a single example of a piece of art that actually fit the definition of graffiti, my opponent has failed to prove that "graffiti can be art".

I have already proven various graffiti painting are art. Also, even if illegal and wrong, it is still art, because everything is art. I have already proven that graffiti can possibly be art. Because of such, my point is proven.

"I have proven that graffiti cannot be art, but is rather a selfish act of vandalism that will only have negative results on the community. It forces the community to clean up after others rather than spending the money on community centers, or other services that could improve the lives of its residents."

Did you really now? You did not prove anything, you stated personal opinion. You dropped so many of my arguments, just because they didn't match the definitions that we did not agree upon. You have forgotten to rebuttal the fact that just because something is wrong does not render it no longer art. Even if something is wrong, it can still be art. Because of such, this points is irrelevant.

CONCLUSION

What did I prove? I proved everything can be art, regardless of the biased definitions my opponent presented. Anything can be art, since art is subjective. Regardless of the ethics behind it, it is still art. Furthermore, if someone were to draw graffiti on paper, it is acceptable, yet still graffiti. So in the end, this all proves that graffiti can be an art.

What did my opponent try to prove? He tried to prove it is not art because it is wrong. I have already explained how even if it is right or wrong, it can still be art. Sun Tzu was my main example of such. He didn't prove anything, and he hid solely behind the definitions he presented, even though they were unfair. I did not agree with those definitions, and so I created mroe resonable ones, backed up by proof.

In the end, I proved that graffiti is an art style. So it is already art. It can be illegal, but that does not shread away the fact that it is artisitic. Anything can be art, and so graffiti can be art, so the resolution is upheld.

I would like to remind voters and my opponent that he is not permitted to rebuttal, or create any arguments any longer. He is only permitted to write "Thanks for the debate". If he does not do so, or even slightly creates a slight way to counter or make any new arguments, he must endure the full point forfeit.

Source:
1.http://weburbanist.com...


CatsRSuperior

Con

uuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I think you posted that argument on the wrong debate...
Debate Round No. 2
Teemo

Pro

Indeed, I sincerely apologize. Now to begin the debate. I would first like to remind the voters that my opponent already forfeited all 7 points, since he didn't begin with his starting statements. Because of such, I have basically already won. Regardless of such however, I will now continue the debate.

Contention 1: Man's best friend, and health's best friend

Dogs are commonly known as man's best friend. But did you know they are also very helpful for your health? Obviously, owning a dog, you must walk it and play with it. This presents more excersice to dog owners. Cat's do not require such, and because of that, do not present much excersice. With all this movement, you improve you cardovascular health.

Dogs also aid in anxiety. They are great friends to help cope with anxiety.

"For people with all forms of anxiety, having a dog may be an important coping mechanism. This is especially true in times of crisis. A study out of the Medical College of Virginia found that for hospitalized patients with mental health issues, therapy with animals significantly reduced anxiety levels more than conventional recreational therapy sessions." [1]

Though this is kind of complicated, dogs also boost your immune system. The reason for this is because they bring in dirt to the house. This dirt contains small bacteria which helps stregthen the immune system. Cats do not have the same features. [2]

There are many more things that dogs aid in when it comes to health that cats are just unable to do. If I explained all of them, there wouldn't be enough space.

Contention 2: Responsibility

The title is self-explanitory. Dogs require many things, such as food, water, training, walking etc. Because of such, owners need to cleanse all of these needs. This helps a lot in responsibility. Having a dog teaches you to be responsible, and able to take care of. Cats need only cat litter food and water. Because of such, the amount of responsibility required is much less. This is great, because children will learn the imporance of responsibility. With a cat, this would not be as effective

Contention 3: Genius!

A dog has a much more advanced brain than a cat. Basically, in order to understand how a creature has a more develloped brain than another, you would look at how many wrinkles there are on the brain. So now let's look at both their brains.

Dog's brain [3]

Specimen image

Cat's brain [4]


As you can see, much less wrinkles are presented. So a dog is obviously more develloped than a cat.

Conclusion

In conclusion, dogs are undisputably superior pets to own. They are smarter, improve your health, and incourage responsibility, things that cats simply can't do as effectively.

REMINDER
MY OPPONENT FORFEITED ALL THEIR POINTS SINCE HE/SHE DID NOT BEGIN WITH THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS.

sources:

1.http://abcnews.go.com...
2.http://drdavidhamilton.com...
3.http://vanat.cvm.umn.edu...
4.http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...;
CatsRSuperior

Con

Ok... Its obvious we need to go over some things:

First of all, a cat can also do everything you said in "Condition 1"

Second of all, taking care of a dog is only one way one can learn responsibllites. A cat takes responsibility too, but because they are easier to take care of, people appreciate them more. Because, face it, people are busy, and should not always have to take care of their dog every second of their lives.

Third of all, Just because a dog's brain has more wrinkles, does not mean it is a better pet. That has nothing to do with it. If you are going with dogs being able to be a seeing eye animal, then that's different, but if you are just going to come out and say "dogs are smarter" then you have another thing coming, for you see; "The key to understanding differences between cats and dogs comes down to understanding their ecology." Becuase of this, "Dogs have a more evolved social communication repertoire than cats, and that leads them to do things humans equate with being smarter," when in fact, it is just human preference.
Source: http://parade.condenast.com...

Fourth of all, some dogs are just nuisances: Some are too hyper, are more resistant to house breaking, are more prone to chew on things, have more health issues, bark or whine too much and keep people up at night, need to be walked every day, you have to clean up after them much more oftern, can bite and attack owners and others as well as other animals, and when walking, a dog can pull on a leash and might severely injure their owner.

Last of all, I do not understand what you mean by "forfeting points". Is that something you came up with, because I am gonna answer your arguments in any way I like, as long as it isn't mean or rude. Also, for the opening statement thing, I did not put one becuase 1. I was just answering back your challenge and 2. you put on the wrong argument, so I thought I would wait until you put one on. (P.S. You already broke your own rule when you put "Reminder- My Opponent Forfeited All Their Points Since He/She Did Not Begin With Their Opening Statements" in caps... so you kind of 'forfeited' yourself)

Conclusion: Cats are a more peaceful animal to have around the house and are just as smart, if not smarter, than a dog.
Debate Round No. 3
Teemo

Pro

Rebuttals

"First of all, a cat can also do everything you said in "Condition 1"

Complely false. Since cats are less active, and don't require any physical activity, all of these possibilities are discarded. Because of such, all the things that a dog can help with health cannot be done by cats.

"Second of all, taking care of a dog is only one way one can learn responsibllites. A cat takes responsibility too, but because they are easier to take care of, people appreciate them more. Because, face it, people are busy, and should not always have to take care of their dog every second of their lives."

Opininated, no proof supporting such. I for one have many things to do, however it is still simple for me to care for my dog. Cats can actually be harder to care for than a dog in some cases. For example, take a border collie the easiest dog to train comepared to any cat. A border collie is so obdient, and easy to train, whereas a cat doesn't listen. In this case, the dog is easier to care for, and still improves your health and responsibility, whereas a cat aids in neither areas.

"Third of all, Just because a dog's brain has more wrinkles, does not mean it is a better pet. That has nothing to do with it. If you are going with dogs being able to be a seeing eye animal, then that's different, but if you are just going to come out and say "dogs are smarter" then you have another thing coming, for you see; "The key to understanding differences between cats and dogs comes down to understanding their ecology." Becuase of this, "Dogs have a more evolved social communication repertoire than cats, and that leads them to do things humans equate with being smarter," when in fact, it is just human preference.
Source:http://parade.condenast.com...;

I would like you to look at the source voters. It comes from a huge cat lover, who even pretends to be a cat. This is very unreliable, and there is no proof our sources leading to his conclusion. My source however were precise, backed up by proof, and proved that the dogs brain is more develloped than a cat's making it smarter.

"Fourth of all, some dogs are just nuisances: Some are too hyper, are more resistant to house breaking, are more prone to chew on things, have more health issues, bark or whine too much and keep people up at night, need to be walked every day, you have to clean up after them much more oftern, can bite and attack owners and others as well as other animals, and when walking, a dog can pull on a leash and might severely injure their owner."

Once again, no proof at all. Some cats can also be very very hyper, and dangerous. Cats tend to commonly destroy houses, and even kill children.

Here are various forums showing how cats are breaking peoples houses:
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...
https://answers.yahoo.com...
http://petoftheday.com...!
http://ask.metafilter.com...

And here are some pictures of houses cats destroyed.

2. We absolutely know what lies waiting for us when we return home!

As you can see, cats are just as bad as dogs in your case. In fact, cats tend to do more damage than dogs, because good owners train their dogs. Cats are very difficult to train, thus destroying houses, and even killing children. One cat was napping a 3 year old boy, and suffocated him in the process. [2].

"Last of all, I do not understand what you mean by "forfeting points". Is that something you came up with, because I am gonna answer your arguments in any way I like, as long as it isn't mean or rude. Also, for the opening statement thing, I did not put one becuase 1. I was just answering back your challenge and 2. you put on the wrong argument, so I thought I would wait until you put one on. (P.S. You already broke your own rule when you put "Reminder- My Opponent Forfeited All Their Points Since He/She Did Not Begin With Their Opening Statements" in caps... so you kind of 'forfeited' yourself)"

In the first round, you were required to write your opening statements. You wrote "I accept". So you forfeited all your points. Those rules only applied to you if you read them properly. In the end, I specifically wrote "If any rules above are broken, my opponent will experience a 7 point deduction.". So I will not experiance the deduction, only my opponent. He should of checked this before accepting the debate. So, my opponent has already forfeited all her points.

"Conclusion: Cats are a more peaceful animal to have around the house and are just as smart, if not smarter, than a dog."

I have proved this false. Cats are not always peacefull, as they destroy homes, and even kill children. They are not smarter, or even equal, since dogs have more develloped brains.

In conclusion, I have rendered all my opponent's arguments false and irrelevant. They pretty much dropped my argument's because they didn't have any proof supporting their rebuttals. My opponent has already taken the 7 point deduction, and has no valid arguments thus far. Because of such, there is no reason for me to create an argument, since my previous ones are uncontended. So for now, arguments extended.

sources:
http://pets.webmd.com...
http://www.thelocal.se...
CatsRSuperior

Con

...You are very opinionated aren't you?

For the first argument, I was mainly talking about how a cat can help deal with anxiety.It has been proven that even petting a cat can lower one's blood pressure and help calm them, but in the case of being active, you are the one who is not correct.If you ask any veterinarian, they would tell you that it's imperative for a cat to stay active and have regular movement. Not all cats are "less active".Some cats leave their homes for a while, go hunting, or take a stroll around the neiborhood before they return home. When you think about that, you can imagine that the cat would actually be more active than the dog lying on the groung at home! Also, cats are much more active at dawn, dusk, and night. In the case that "walking a dog can make you more active" that is true, but it is not like you need a dog to walk, they just happen to be an excuse for walking, so I do not think that "being active" should even concern pets. In fact, you are wrong when you say that a person can not be active when they own a cat because some cats, like my own, will take walks with you too. They just do it on their own time.

Let me ask you a question concerning argument 2: Do you even own a cat? You say that it is easy taking care of your dog, but can you really compare anything when you only own a dog? I happen to have 3 cats and one dog and let me tell you, all three cats are easier to take care of than my one dog!!! If anyone is the opinionated one, it is you! As for training, it is true that you can train a dog to do certain things, but you can just as well do that with a cat too! You keep saying that "it is easier to train a dog but hard to train a cat" but that is not true! The truth is that cats are just as good at learning as dogs are, so it is possible to train them, even though only few people do. This is partly because the cat"s traditional function, hunting and killing vermin, comes naturally to them, and they are actually more successful at this when left to their own instincts. Untrained dogs, on the other hand, are more of a hindrance than a help. Source: http://www.scienceaddict.com...
Don't have any real proof you say? Take a look at these videos and prove me wrong! http://www.catchow.com... http://video.nationalgeographic.com...
P.S. Why are you comparing all domestic cats in the world to a border collie? You yourself do not have the proof to say that a cat can not be trained as easily as a dog!

For the third argument, why does it matter that the article was made by someone who pretended she was a cat? If anything, it proves that the person knows what she is talking about even more! She was not completly one sided either! And do not ignore the fact that Dogs have a more evolved social communication repertoire than cats, and that leads them to do things humans equate with being smarter," when in fact, it is just human preference. Do you understand? Humans just think the dog is smarter because they do things that we consider smart, not if it really is smart! For example, scientists at Kyoto University in Japan pitted a chimp against humans in the task of remembering strings of random numbers flashed on a screen. The chimp won. Does that mean chimps are smarter than humans? Another example; we think that when we tell the dog to sit, it is smarter than the cat who stands, but how on earth does this help the dog in any way? All it does is please us! In that case, when it comes to survival, the cat is smarter becuase it does not take orders from anyone, and instead follows its own instincts! Furthermore, if you told a obedient dog to jump off a bridge, it would most likly do it, why? Because of it's supposed "intellegence" to follow human commands. Well that's nice, exept that it died!!! You can not argue that in this case, the cat is the smarter animal. In the end however, I"m left to conclude that comparing dogs with cats is like asking who's smarter, musicians or mathematicians. Each does things the other can"t. It's a poorly conceived question, so it's incorrect to say dogs are smarter than cats, no matter how much developed the brain is.

For the fourth argument... All I can say is I don't need proof. I mean, come on! You could ask anyone who has a dog about these issues and I guarantee that 90% of the people you ask will have at least one of these problems!!! If cats are hyper, then that means that they are bored, and want to play or they feel the need to mark their territory. They don't do it to piss us off, they do it because it is in their nature! All of your sources are from people who are experiencing that, but do you not think that the same thing is happening to people with dogs?
If so, you are sadly mistaken: https://answers.yahoo.com...
https://in.answers.yahoo.com...
https://answers.yahoo.com...
https://answers.yahoo.com...
https://sg.answers.yahoo.com...
Another thing: unlike cats, dogs destroy stuff not only because they might be bored, but because they, in fact, ENJOY destroying furniture and other household items. At least when cats destroy stuff, they are doing it because they feel it is necessary for their health, like a cat sharpening its claws on a couch.
And really...KILL CHILDREN??? I think you are going a little too far when you start talking about that! That article you posted was a once in a life time event with two flaws you fail to recognize: 1. It was not 100% proven that it was the cat's fault and 2. If it was the cat's fault, then it was a mere ascendent! The cat did not purposly try to kill the kid, unlike some dogs who, GUESS WHAT? Bite and tear off the flesh of infants, children, and even full grown adults!!! Those attempts are no accindent.
Another thing, that photo is most likely photo shopped; there is no way the cat could have gotten to all that paper by itself, someone must have littered it so it merily looked it the cat did it.
If you want real pictures of destruction and harm, just take a look at these (CAUTION: veiw at your own risk, very violent):
http://www.dog-bones.com...
http://www.shezadmalik.com...
http://www.dogsbite.org...
http://abclocal.go.com...
I promise you that those photos and videos were NOT photo shopped, they actually happened.

For the conclusion, I have proved once again that cats are indeed (most of the time) a more peaceful animal than a dog because of their inability to harm a house or a human in the way a dog can. I have also proved that a more developed brain does not mean a smarter animal.

In my conclusion, you have, in fact, NOT rendered my arguments: you merely gave me time to come up with better answers to counter attack yours with even more proof. I do not follow the deduction rules because I do not see how they affect the debate in any way. I also see no reason to create a new argument, since my opponent has yet to prove me wrong.

And to sum up with the "forfeiting and deduction" thing, I am sorry, but I did not understand your rules. I did not think they mattered, since I figuered we could just debate in any way we wanted. (In other words, I am going to ignore them)
Debate Round No. 4
Teemo

Pro

Though I am opininated, I at least have reliable proof and sources that back up my perspectives. You on the other hand don't.

Refutations

"For the first argument, I was mainly talking about how a cat can help deal with anxiety.It has been proven that even petting a cat can lower one's blood pressure and help calm them, but in the case of being active, you are the one who is not correct."

There is no proof supporting this. Furthermore, even if they can calm people down, I have already demonstrated that dogs are more effective in doing so.

"If you ask any veterinarian, they would tell you that it's imperative for a cat to stay active and have regular movement. "

Interresting remark, however false, and no proof. Because of my interrest in this topic, I actually took the time to visit my local vet. He explained how though a cat does need excersice, it is not required to be active regulary. He explained how cats need much less activity than dogs, so it is not very important to keep them active daily.

"Not all cats are "less active".Some cats leave their homes for a while, go hunting, or take a stroll around the neiborhood before they return home. "

Did I say cats are less active? No I didn't. I explained how with a dog, they keep themselves and their owners active. Notice how my cats said some cats. For dogs, they all require physical activity, so this help both them and their owners healthy, since an owner is required to walk their dog.

"When you think about that, you can imagine that the cat would actually be more active than the dog lying on the groung at home! Also, cats are much more active at dawn, dusk, and night. In the case that "walking a dog can make you more active" that is true, but it is not like you need a dog to walk, they just happen to be an excuse for walking, so I do not think that "being active" should even concern pets."

My opponent obviously has no understanding whatsoever of what a dog needs. Dogs need activity, and are required to walk. Why? It is a dogs instinct. Like a fish needs to swim, and a bird needs to fly, dogs need to walk. [1] It provides social activity with other dogs, excerise and potty time. As your walking your dog, he gets the important chance to mark his territory, and observe how it has changed. Not walking your dog will make him unhealthy, and possibly lead to illness, and death.

Even if the cat is more active, it doesn't matter (cats aren't more active either way, as I have already proven). With a dog, you are constantly being active alongside him. With a cat, the majority of the time they walk in the neighbourhood alone without you, I knowing this since I have both a dog, a cat and a parakeet. I always walk with my dog, because it is essential. My cat usually leaves me, and goes around and comes back later, leaving dead animals on my hard wood floor. Though I love my cat, my dog provides mroe benefits, and is a superior pet.

"Let me ask you a question concerning argument 2: Do you even own a cat?"

Yes.

" You say that it is easy taking care of your dog, but can you really compare anything when you only own a dog? I happen to have 3 cats and one dog and let me tell you, all three cats are easier to take care of than my one dog!!! "

I for one have a dog, a cat and a parakeet. You only have cats, so you have no idea how to take care of a dog. Sure, a cat is easier, but a dog requires more time, more responsibility. This helped me a lot in my small life. Dogs require mroe work, and therefore building more character. So as you can see, having a dog would help much more than an easy to care for cat.

"If anyone is the opinionated one, it is you! "

Yes, however I have proof with my arguments, you don't. Your sources are unreliable.

" As for training, it is true that you can train a dog to do certain things, but you can just as well do that with a cat too!"

Yes, but tricks are specialised for dogs. Cats don't need tricks, dogs do, to keep active while they aren't walking. And let me ask you this, have you ever seen a cat role over, play dead, and do a back flip? I think not. My dog can do all of these things. My parakeet can try, but he isn't very good.

"You keep saying that "it is easier to train a dog but hard to train a cat" but that is not true! The truth is that cats are just as good at learning as dogs are, so it is possible to train them, even though only few people do. This is partly because the cat"s traditional function, hunting and killing vermin, comes naturally to them, and they are actually more successful at this when left to their own instincts. Untrained dogs, on the other hand, are more of a hindrance than a help. Source: http://www.scienceaddict.com...;

Having dead vermin in your house is much worst than having to train a dog. Training a dog, you improve character, and remain healthy. Voters, please notice my opponent's source. It is unreliable, if you look at the source he used. If you search up his source, it has nothing to do with cats, nor dogs, making the source my opponent used unreliable, and possibly completly false.

I am running out of space, so I will no longer quote my opponent's arguments. For her next argument, I have already proven a dog's brain is more developped, thus smarter. Her refutation is another way of copy pasting from this source, with barely any difference: http://parade.condenast.com...


What the website said: " scientists at Kyoto University in Japan pitted a chimp named Ayumu against humans in the task of remembering strings of random numbers flashed on a screen. The chimp won."

What my opponent said: " scientists at Kyoto University in Japan pitted a chimp against humans in the task of remembering strings of random numbers flashed on a screen. The chimp won."

Exactly the same! Not only has my opponent commited an act of plagarism, something that is also against the rules, thus the 7 point deduction, but I have already proved this source is unreliable.



For her last argument, there is an obvious answer. You see, sure a dog can ruin a house, and so can a cat. But a dog is naturally more obedieny, thus capable of being trained in order not to do that. A cat is incapable of being trained, thus making it very difficult to get it to stop destroying the house.

For her conclusion, I have proved all my points, wheareas she proved absolutly nothing. She has no proof supporting that a cat is more calm, she only states a hasty generilization. That's like me saying taller people are better at basketball because they're tall. I have proved my points, and backed them up by sources, my opponent backed theirs up by personal opinion.

And even if she ignores the deductions, she will still experiance them, weather she likes it or not. So it doesn't matter. Read the rules before you accept a debate.

In conclusion, I have proved dogs help with health, have more develloped brains, and improve responsibility. Furthermore, a cat can be just as dangerous as a dog. My opponent presented no valid argument, and onbly used personal opinion, with no valid sources, as I have proved. She was unable to prove any valid argument to which why having a cat is supeior.

Voting tips

I saw the user "otakujordan" do this, so I wanted to try to. These are tips on why it is obvious who you should vote for.

First of all, my opponent brok 2 rules, she commited an act of plagarism, and did not start with her opening statements. This is an automatic 7 point deduction, as she has agreed upon. The rules only applied to her, in order to make the debate fair.

Even without the deduction, it is still obvious that I should get full 7 points.

Conduct: My opponent accused me of not having a pet, and commited an act of plagiarism. Obvious points to pro.

S&G: My opponent over uses punctuation, as you can see when the end of her sentances are "!!!!!". Obvious points to pro.

Arguments: My opponent presented to valid arguments, whereas I have presented over 3. I have used eveidence, she has used personal opinion. Obvious points to pro.

Sources: My sources come from actual pet experts, whereas hers come from biased sources. These sources also had no evidence, as you can see when you see the sources the bloggers used. Obvious points to pro.

Please remember the 7 point deduction voters, because she broke not 1, but 2 rules. And even without the rules, it was still a clear win on my part. The resolution is upheld

Source:
http://www.pedigree.com...

s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />
CatsRSuperior

Con

That's it, I'm done with your attitude. You have taken it as far as saying that "I have no proof" or that my sources are "unreliable", which is a plain flat out LIE. You say that your sources are "reliable" when you yourself obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Here are some examples (I do not know how to italicize):

"There is no proof supporting this. Furthermore, even if they can calm people down, I have already demonstrated that dogs are more effective in doing so."
My mistake, here you go: http://pets1.knoji.com...
Notice how the cite also says that dogs do not help with decreasing the percentage of heart attack like a cat can. This is because cats have the ability to purr and, according to the cite, can decrease chances of heart attack by 40%.
Also, take in realization that your source: http://abcnews.go.com... or http://drdavidhamilton.com... never in one hint applies that a dog is better at curing anxiety than a cat.
Also take into consideration that a cat's love is a precious thing, a dog can be happy and friendly to anyone, but you have to EARN a cats trust and love, it is not a right.

"Because of my interrest in this topic, I actually took the time to visit my local vet. He explained how though a cat does need excessive, it is not required to be active regularly. He explained how cats need much less activity than dogs, so it is not very important to keep them active daily."
Not to be mean, but that was either made up or the vet obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Cats need movement, or they will get fat and unhealthy. So yes, they do require movement and also an appropriate amount of food or else they will be obese. http://www.catnutrition.org...

Round 3: "Since cats are less active,"
This round: "Did I say cats are less active? No I didn't."
Here is solid proof that my opponent has no idea what he is saying. He claims that cats are less active, but when I proved him wrong, he tries to make it seem that that was not what he said at all, furthermore, trying to make me look bad, and even worse, he lied about what he said. I do not like accusing people of lying, it could have very well been an accident, but what if he wasn't lying, and did it straight on purpose?
And ok, you are required to walk the dog and be active, but admit it, IT'S A CHORE! No one wants to do chores. Also, I never said that a dog did not require walking, I only said that a person does not require a dog to walk, nothing else.

I told you that I owned 3 cats and A DOG, and what do you say? "You only have cats, so you have no idea how to take care of a dog. " You even quoted what I said, yet you did not even read it properly? This is another example of completely ignoring what I have typed and just saying stuff to make me look bad in my argument.

"Cats don't need tricks, dogs do, to keep active while they aren't walking." Ok... have you ever seen a dog do a trick on its own, without any commands from anyone, in your entire life? That answer will be no.

"have you ever seen a cat role over, play dead, and do a back flip?" Yes, yes I have actually, and even more a dog couldn't do: https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

"Having dead vermin in your house is much worst than having to train a dog. Training a dog, you improve character, and remain healthy. " I never said dead vermin in a house was nice, (even though a dog would never bring you something they thought was generous!). I have proof that cats actually do teach us to take better care of ourselves: "Research shows that being able to care for a pet improves our morale, helps validate us and encourages us to take care of ourselves," says the director of the University of Missouri's Research Center for Human-Animal Interaction." http://healthypets.mercola.com...

"Voters, please notice my opponent's source. It is unreliable, if you search up his source, it has nothing to do with cats, nor dogs, making the source my opponent used unreliable, and possibly completely false."
What on earth are you talking about? My source is completely reliable! It has everything to do with cats and dogs, so what you said is a lie!

"Her refutation is another way of copy pasting from this source, with barely any difference" You completely ignored my entire argument about it being incorrect to say dogs are smarter than cats, no matter how much developed the brain is. For that, you are trying to avoid being incorrect, which I have proved. As for the plagiarism thing, I did not do it on purpose, I accidentally did not put in quotes. Also I had already used the source, so I did not need to put it again.

"But a dog is naturally more obedieny, thus capable of being trained in order not to do that. A cat is incapable of being trained, thus making it very difficult to get it to stop destroying the house."
That is completely false and one sided, as I have proved that cats can be trained. In fact, cats are much less capable in destroying a house because of its size, and because dogs are prone to chewing.

Now for my arguments. Voters, pay very close attention at how my opponent does not say one word about dogs harming furniture or people as I have proved. Honestly, I think he was so desperate, that he even posted a cat killing one, just one baby when he knows very well that dogs all over the world have brutally harmed and even killed humans.
"It is estimated that two percent of the US population, from 4.5"4.7 million people, are bitten by dogs each year. In the 1980s and 1990s the US averaged 17 fatalities per year, while in the 2000s this has increased to 26. 77% of dog bites are from the pet of family or friends, and 50% of attacks occur on the dog owner's property." http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.dogsbite.org...
"a cat can be just as dangerous as a dog." yes, and I suppose a goldfish is just as dangerous as a piranha too.
Also, I would like to bring up the argument that a dog is actually much more expensive to take care of than a cat:
http://www.dailyfinance.com...
Notice that the dog cost more just about every round if it was not a tie, and that not once did the cat cost more than the dog. So for people who are concerned about saving money, a cat is a much better animal to choose.
More people own cats in the world: http://www.psychologytoday.com...
You may argue that the reason there are so many cats is because that more people own more than one cat, but I would like to say that if people like a certain animal or feel that they are better to take care of over another, then they will have more of that animal. So this proves that more people like cats more than dogs, and would like to keep more cats in their family.
A can cat live in more secluded places, like an apartment that does not have a backyard.
Dogs stink, literally. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cats do not get food allergies nearly as much as a dog: http://moderndogmagazine.com...
Dogs smell butts, eat poop, and other gross stuff , while cats take pride in being clean and well groomed.
Another thing; ANIMAL PLANET, one of the most famous and world wide show specifically about animals and nature, even agrees with me: http://www.animalplanet.com...

"My opponent presented no valid argument, and only used personal opinion, with no valid sources, as I have proved. She was unable to prove any valid argument to which why having a cat is supeior."
See, my opponent is so desperate to win, that he will try to make it "obvious" that I did not use any proof or use any good sources when clearly, I did. Please do not be fooled by his unjust persuasion.
"The rules only applied to her, in order to make the debate fair."
How in anyway does this make the debate fair? People can not just come up with their own rules, and expect not to follow them themselves. This is wrong.
"My opponent accused me of not having a pet,"
When on earth did I do that? You never talked about your cat in the first argument, so I assumed that you did not have one. I did not mean any offense, but I can not read your mind you know.
"My opponent over uses punctuation, as you can see when the end of her sentances are "!!!!!". "
I use this for extra expressiveness! It is my right to use this and doesn't have to do with the content of the debate.
"Obvious points to pro."
Okay, I have a real problem with this. You can not tell the voters how they should vote. I find that offensive in many ways: 1. you are making voters sound like they are "unintelligent children" when you start telling them how they should vote. 2. You make it seem that I did nothing progressive in this debate and that all my valuable points and statements are nothing. 3. If I were to come across this debate and I read that, well I'd say that that is bullying and being a bad sport because you feel that the voters can not decide on their own.
Voters: I will not tell you how to vote. I know I tried my best in this debate, and I will admit, I made mistakes, but please do not put me down just because my opponent told you to.
P.S. I question why my opponent put pictures of puppies at the end of his argument. Though it is cute, all I see is a desperate attempt to win and propaganda at it's cutest. Here are some REAL cute pictures: https://www.youtube.com...
I do want to thank the readers for taking their time to assess fairly and judge according to the strenghths of the arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
The rules only applied to my opponent. We did this in order to give an equal amount of rounds to debate. Accepting the debate, they accepted the rules established, and broke them. Because of such, they are required to take the 7 point deduction. They did not check the rules before accepting, and that is their fault, so they should experiance the deduction. Do not ignore it.
Posted by CatsRSuperior 3 years ago
CatsRSuperior
People who are interested in voting on this debate: Please ignore the "7 deduction points rule" that my opponent put up, I did not understand it at the time, and I feel that it is unfair that only I am applied to those rules when he had broken at least 2 of them; he himself did not start of with an opening statement and caps his letters and the bottom of Round 3. Also, I do not feel that it is right for people to come up with their own rules, even if people agree to it. I believe that people should debate in any way they like as long as they are doing it properly and with out being mean or rude. Thank you
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
And I realised the full caps rule should be abolished, because in order to make a decent title, you need full caps. My opponent has agreed on this abolishment, so please ignore that rule.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
And I realised the full caps rule should be abolished, because in order to make a decent title, you need full caps. My opponent has agreed on this abolishment, so please ignore that rule.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
I messages airmax, I would very much like to restart this debate. He is capable of restarting the debate, however you must agree to such occurring. So please allow this debate to reset, so I can make a proper argument.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
I would like to apologize for this error, however I would still like to continue the debate.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
NO i messed up. My second round argument was meant for another debate. I sincerely apologize.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
Most cats don't even catch mice, this is a stereotype.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
For that, you would have to prove one is more useful then the other, which I would agree with pro. Cats catch mice and that's about it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
TeemoCatsRSuperiorTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's opening round violates rule one, in addition Con's closing round violates round one. Therefore this debate is a 7-point deduction in favor of Pro. *edit* Con please don't harass me because you don't lik my vote based upon the rules you agreed upon when you accepted the debate and later broke you face a 7-point deduction and this shouldn't be ignored.