The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Breed-Specific bans on dogs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 249 times Debate No: 89296
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The debate is about whether there should be Breed-Specific bans or laws against dogs in the United States.

Term definition.-
Breed Specific Ban: Breed-specific legislation (BSL), also referred to as breed-discriminatory legislation (BDL), is a law or ordinance that prohibits or restricts the keeping of dogs of specific breeds, dogs presumed to be specific breeds, mixes of specific breeds, and/or dogs presumed to be mixes of one or more of those breeds. The most drastic form of BSL is a complete ban (

First round: Acceptance.
Also, please let me know what it would take for you to agree with me.
Second Round: Arguments.
Third Round: Rebuttals.
Forth Round: Conclusions.


I accept. What it would take for me to agree with you... would be to prove that the benefits outweigh the cons and prove that this actually helps people/animals.
Debate Round No. 1


mairavb forfeited this round.


Okayyyy so I guess you missed the deadline but I will post my argument anyway.

Breed specific bans are usually on dogs that are part of the pit bull class because of the stigma surrounding these dogs. The stigma comes from some dogs being used for dog fighting and being labeled as "dangerous." But the problem is not the dogs, it is the owners. Take away a pit bull? A dog fighter will train a poodle to fight. We need to focus our money and resources on educating the public and stopping dog fighting, not enacting discriminatory laws that hurt dogs and their owners. The fact is, there is no evidence that these laws work, as they are notoriously hard to enforce. They also encourage people to keep their dogs inside and deprive them of exercise and space to keep them out of sight.

And as someone who has been around many pit bulls and volunteers at an animal shelter, these animals are able to be rehabilitated and deserve to be treated kindly, not banished from their homes. Pit bulls and other breeds are not inherently dangerous, they simply are too loyal for their own good.

Banish the culprit, not the victim.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for posting your argument regardless of mine not being there.

I do agree with you that people have the fault not the dogs; however, dogs have no power on what people decide to do with them. As you said, people could decide to breed poodles to fight, but they do not have as much strength as the pit bull type does. That is why more people chose to make "pit bulls" fight.
You argue that we should put our resources elsewhere (educating people and banning fights instead); governments have tried. For example, dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states ( This does not mean that people won't breed their dogs to be mean and vicious. Many dog breeds suffer because of their looks alone, just because they look mean. Some people want them just for that and breed them to enforce that look. Yes, there is a stereotype and the breed is not actually like that, but many want them to be.
Until people are better educated and more strict rules are enforced against cruelty towards these animals and dog fighting, I think that banning them is a better option. It allows the option for them to not be engaged in this activity, therefore to not suffer the damages that come from it. As well as by not having these enraged animals, whether it be their fault or not, people do not see their bad side and stay with the stereotype.

Thank you; I look forward to your response.


Pit Bulls and other similar breeds are targeted for dog fighting for several reasons. But the reason that rules above all is their loyalty. Yes, they have powerful jaws, but a larger, stronger, breed could easily win a fight with them. Even poodles have been known to be vicious, and even attack pit bulls. Despite their strong and fierce rap, pit bulls are /not/ the strongest, fastest, most powerful, most dangerous, or even the smartest breed.

And like I said before, taking these dogs and banishing them from (often times) loving families, is not going to solve (Or even help) the problem. People will still fight dogs mercifully. They will choose a different breed, and give that breed a bad rap. The problem is not the animal, or the stigma even, it is how the people are taught.

And if people are still dog fighting even though it is illegal, what makes you think that they will listen to a ban either?

If we don't have the time or resources to effectively enforce the law already in place to stop this, I have not faith at all that making a new law on the same topic will be enforced any better.

By simply educating the public, we can stop dog fighting in youth before it starts and save countless pit bull (and other breeds) lives.

And there is also just too much confusion about these laws. What about mixes? If your dog is one fourth pit bull what happens? And what about the dogs already there? Do you simply euthanize them? Or do you send them to another state or country to become that place's problem? There is simply no obvious, easy, or clear way to enforce these laws.

And wouldn't banning these dogs just enforce the already prominent and dangerous stigma surrounding these breeds? If children are never exposed to a good example of a pit bull, and they only hear from the media about these bans, their fear will only grow.

As much as a quick fix to a large problem sounds good, it simply isn't realistic and wouldn't be effective. Breed-specific bans would do more harm than good.

This source is just something I saw that I thought was interesting. It enforces the point about whether mixed breed dogs would be banned or not. I thought the Pachbund was a really interesting example. (Also really cute and funny, just a cool article to look at even if it doesn't support my side too much.)--
Debate Round No. 3


What if the people taking care of these dogs actually had malicious intents? Many times families can seem loving towards their pets, but in reality they may not be. It is more of a risk to give the option of owning a powerful breed to people like I just described than to allow them the option. You would never hand a bat or a gun to someone who is inherently angry, though these are not necessarily a threat to others, they definitely have the ability to be so. Specific breeds of dogs are not necessarily a threat, but certainly can fall into this category.
The argument on whether or not specific breeds should be banned does not only have to deal with dog fighting, but also violent dog attacks that occur across the country. In fact, "Each year, more than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms, and approximately 850,000 victims receive medical attention." . This is a fact that is being ignored. The reality is, this situation can be fixed higher up in the stream, so to say. By not allowing certain breeds of dogs, we cut the risk of attacks and dog fights down (or at least decrease the likelihood of them). This, in turn, provides more benefits for the country as a whole, and greatly outweighs whatever drawbacks may occur. Though it might be difficult to enforce, the cost of these attacks shows that we should move forward with some type of response.
Education can not be trusted solely to change the current situation. It takes a large amount of time, more resources, and less chance of success. The discussion is not on whether these dogs have an incorrect stigma (which can be changed with education), this discussion is brought up to do something about the dangers of certain breeds that have been noted over time. Though education can help, by combining it with legislation we once again increase the chance of solving all the issues that certain breeds of dog can bring up. Education and BSL are not exclusive, and can be used together to increase protection. The fact is, incorporating some type of legislation can better outweigh any form of drawback, as has been commented before, and is what this debate is standing on.
Maybe a law banning breeds entirely (including mixes) is not the best solution either, but while educating the public (which would take a lot of time), some type of restriction is necessary.

Thank you.


mangolife23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by mangolife23 6 months ago
UGH NO. I worked on a big long speech for a super long time and then JUST as I was about to submit it time ran out!!!!! Please do not think that I forfeited because I thought I lost or anything, I simply missed the deadline by accident. (Which is totally fair considering my opponent did the same)

Consider my last argument my conclusion. My apologies.
No votes have been placed for this debate.