The Instigator
FlowerCrownedBitch
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DawsonBruno
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Are Cats better than Dogs?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
DawsonBruno
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2017 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 527 times Debate No: 101012
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

FlowerCrownedBitch

Pro

This is all opinions, but I think cats are better since theyre cuddly and cute. Their purrs can relieve stress due to their sound and the vibration it makes.
DawsonBruno

Con

I would like to start this debate by thanking you for bringing such a controversial question to DDO. This question has been debated for thousands of years, and still goes through the mind of many pet-lovers.
I would also like to say that you show no evidence of your statement, "Purrs can relive stress due to their sound and the vibration it makes." I believe this is a load of crap, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Those who say cats are better than a typical Nazi. That right there is the cold hard fact.
Dogs are loyal, vigilant watchman who can protect in numerous amounts of ways. These creatures are man's Best-Friend for a reason.
Thanks and Vote Meh
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Kylie.Cunningham// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources), 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: I love cats

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, merely a statement of the voter"s own affections.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: FuzzyCatPotato// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded that cats have numerous benefits to their owner. Con also failed to provide any substantial benefits to dogs other than "security", which Con failed to explain why was more important than Pro's benefits.
[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. The voter assesses Con"s arguments, but never assesses Pro"s.
************************************************************************
Posted by SmartNigga 1 year ago
SmartNigga
Pro is so much better than con number one hes not a cunt number 2 he has better argument
Posted by DawsonBruno 1 year ago
DawsonBruno
The part where I said "Those who say cats are better than a typical Nazi." is a typo.
Posted by SmartNigga 1 year ago
SmartNigga
Hey can you help me win "Was the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?" if you do so I will vote for you in your debate, who ever does it first
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
FlowerCrownedBitchDawsonBrunoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither debater really makes much of a case for their side. Both sides function solely based on assertion with Pro providing 2 arguments in support of his position and Con providing 1. I don't know how to weigh "cuddly and cute" because I don't get a means to do so, but there's some value there. Stress reduction is more substantial and has clearer links to impacts, though those are never stated clearly. Most of Con's round is wasted space where he questions Pro's latter point, but grants him the benefit of the doubt, and then does little else beyond arguing that dogs can be protectors. Again, the impacts are somewhat obvious, though they're never explained. So, I essentially have stress reduction vs. protection, and since both sides arguments are essentially granted, I simply vote the direction that has what I perceive to be the closest link to the highest impact, and that's Con. Protection may save lives. Reduced stress may, too, but that requires explanation.