The Instigator
Mayan_D
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Areth
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Animal Cruelty should not be ok for entertainment or gaming

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 2 votes the winner is...
Areth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,389 times Debate No: 44936
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Mayan_D

Pro

Animals are used for entertainment or gaming but people dont know that the animals suffer, might die, injuries, may cause extinction, animals dont get to rest, and can make an animal reckless. I saw that hobbit (the movie) had an unprotected farm and from that they had 3 horses dead, a dozen chickens dead, and 3 sheeps. I dont think its fair! Yes or no?
Areth

Con

I accept. This is my first debate so go easy on me. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Mayan_D

Pro

This is as well my first debate. Anyways, i think that people should stop using animals for entertainment unless the animal will be safe. I don't think it would be fair for animals to suffer or even death just for our entertainment! Imagine if you were the animal. If you have seen the rodeo where there is a guy doing the bull thing they usually stab the bull with spears and sometimes they even die! And its all for entertainment. Who agrees??
Areth

Con

Before I start, I'd like to make definition of animal cruelty more clear, so everyone knows what I have to prove. The one I will be using is "the human infliction of suffering or harm upon non-human animals for purposes other than self-defense or survival [1].
Contention
People have pets for their own entertainment. They get pets for many reasons such as companionship, stress relief, etc. [2]. However people in general are just as capable of surviving without pets as with. I'd like to point out that yes sometimes animals are essential to a person's life such as seeing eye dogs, but there is still a large majority of people that take in animals for their own entertainment. Therefore, any animal cruelty to pets means that there should be no pets according to the resolution. My contention will then be that even though there is animal cruelty directed towards pets, we should not get rid of pets in general.
As humans, we don't know what an animal thinks, in other words we don't know when an animal is suffering. Even if a dog is yelping, we do not know for sure that the dog is in pain. The way we determine whether an animal is suffering or not is based on what we think is painful and the dog's physical response. For example, if you kick a dog, we assume that the dog's yelp is of pain not of joy. When the dog is not making a physical noise and when they are not in a situation that we think of as painful, we believe that the dog is not in pain. This however may not be the case. Heat stroke provides a good example of this idea. The symptoms of heat stroke do not show themselves until it is too late, so pet owners who leave their dog in a car for 30 minutes could find their dog dead when they return[3]. In cases like these the pet owner has inflicted harm upon the animal, which is therefore a form of animal cruelty, but the harm was not intentional. In Atlanta, Georgia such a case took place as a dog was locked inside a police cruiser and died of heat stroke[4]. Although in this case the dog was a police dog and not a pet, the concept is the same. By proposing that animal cruelty is an incentive to stop the use of animals as entertainment, the resolution says that people should not have pets, because accidents such as leaving dogs in a car lead to animal cruelty. I would also like to note that is unfair to punish all pet owners for the faults of a small percentage.
Rebuttal
I agree with Pro's argument that there are some sports such as bullfighting which are clear examples of animal cruelty that aren't exactly moral. However just because there are sports like these does not mean people should not have pets where animal cruelty is only a slim possibility, and the resolution needs to show that all entertainment with animal cruelty is not okay. I would also like to mention that some of the effects Pro mentions in the beginning need to be explained. How exactly does animal cruelty lead to extinction? What sport does not allow the animals to get any rest?
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://shibashake.com...
3. http://healthypets.mercola.com...
4.http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mayan_D

Pro

Mayan_D forfeited this round.
Areth

Con

Um... okay, then. Well to summarize my part in this debate, I showed that pets can be put under the category of human entertainment as we do not them to survive. Therefore any cruelty imposed by humans towards pets will mean that pets are not okay according to the resolution. As Con, I argued that animal cruelty towards pets rarely occur and are often accidental when they do occur. Weighing this small possibility against all the benefits that pets provide such as companionship leads to the conclusion that it is worth it to keep pets around. It would be unfair to impose such a ridiculous law for the few cases of animal cruelty onto those who did nothing wrong.
Pro may have brought up the fact that the resolution states that animal cruelty SHOULD NOT be okay. However as in the case of pets, we cannot know beforehand if animal cruelty is going to occur, therefore we cannot take any actions to prevent it from happening. Also, as I previously mentioned, some cases of animal cruelty occur by accident. In such cases, the person should be forgiven and animal cruelty here is okay and should be forgiven.
My opponent has not responded to any of my arguments so the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Areth 3 years ago
Areth
@Defro Can you elaborate? How was my point flimsy? I'd appreciate it of you could explain your comment more. Also, I was not arguing that pets is a form of animal cruelty. My argument was
1. Pets are animals
2. Pets are a form of entertainment.
3. Animal cruelty happens to pets.
4. According to the resolution pets are not ok.
5. Pets are okay, because the overall benefits outweigh the risk of animal cruelty.
Conclusion: Pets are okay and so the resolution is negated.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@Areth
You're very lucky you got the opponent that you got. Your argument seemed very flimsy and could go both ways, especially becase you said we dont know what pets think. However you did pretty well in getting across your point.
Posted by Areth 3 years ago
Areth
@UltimateRussian What do you mean that pets are irrelevant? My point was that pets are a form of human entertainment, therefore any cruelty directed towards pets will mean that pets should not be okay according to the resolution. If you think that's not the case, explain why pets aren't to be considered human entertainment? What do we get from them that is absolutely essential to our survival. I'd also like to point out that if you think this is the case, then you shouldn't have given me source points as they are all related to pets and definitions. If pets are irrelevant, then my sources are irrelevant as well.
Also, a sidenote, why do you give her a point in conduct? I'm new here, so I'm not sure what rule I broke.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Mayan_DArethTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won in a very devious and clever manner. By stating that owning pets is a form of animal cruelty, he twisted the debate to favor him. Pro loses points for forfeit. Although he could very easily have refuted Con's statements, he chose not to. Props to Con for being clever!
Vote Placed by UltimateRussian 3 years ago
UltimateRussian
Mayan_DArethTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Its clear as the point of con did not make any sense to me as pets were not the point of the debate.