Cats an immoral choice of pet
Debate Rounds (3)
Cats eat the local wildlife which was there first, also they just don't care about you, sorry, but they're just evil.
Ever heard of guide cat?
(this is just a practice debate, I'm not truly a cat hater though I think there are too many and they do have a bad effect on nature)
It was not long ago that I asked myself that very same question, "Can an immoral choice of pet?" and I said no, to myself. You see, I am three tenths part can myself. It was my great grandfather thrice removed, that was a full blooded Can. So consider myself an expert on all Can topics. This is of course the very astute Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Thank you. I quite often am a strict and apt scholar of Argumentum ad antiquitatem, and so it is that I have presented here today. No applause necessary, nor appreciated.
But let's delve deep into the topic at hand on Cans.
My colleague has erroneously concluded, without a shred of evidence, whatsoever, that Cans often prey upon wildlife and run feral through the trees. And thus he concludes that the ownership of a Can is tantamount to murder, THE most immoral act there is in all of Christendom. This of course is argumentum ad absurdum. A notion so ridiculous, that it stops my heart from beating, just pondering the depth of such intellectual dishonesty as to even dare villify our beloved Cans, in such a manner.
Let me be very clear on this point. Cans are loyal, always there for you. If you set a Can, come hell or come high water, it will be there for you. Everyone knows this. It's illogical to say anything to the contrary. It's just an exercise in futility
Why just the other day, I was over my friends house and there was this beautiful Can. I just couldn't help myself, in two seconds, I grabbed it was singing to it, dancing around his living room, which has the most excellent decor you couldn't possibly imagine. So there he was, a big side of beef of a man, fuming at me to put his Can down. I think he was jealous or something, the way he was carrying on, surprisingly great dancer, even with all of that weight on him, he could slide across a floor like he was floating.
Well, I set that Can down, right on the counter. Do you know, a week later I stopped by and there it was, sitting right in the exact same spot I had put it.
And you know, sometimes in the wee hours of the morning, when you can't sleep, you can go get your Can to keep you company. I even once had a conversation with a Can. Of course it didn't say a word, but you know, when I got up, I felt better and relaxed.
Think of all the lonely people out there that need Cans. They could do well to have one. There would probably be less violence if everyone just got a Can.
Cats are evil my friend, efficient furry murderers, stalking their prey with great abandon, often laying their latest victim at the feet of their feeder, a gift? or simply a trade for more of the food they feel they are unfairly withheld.
Cats are loyal! you feed them, I'd be interested how loyal they would be if given only board and sent into the wild to collect their own lunch!
Regarding the joys of owning a cat, undoubtedly petting or scratching a cat can give you, the petting initiator much pleasure, this is no reflection on the cats apparent morality, not the morality regarding your ownership of one.
Most people will undoubtedly enjoy having a pet there when they get home, this I do not doubt, merely that their choice is the feral uncaring kitty, the gargoyle of the garden, the hairy hunter, I say to you that gardens everywhere would be greatly improved by the increase in the beauty of birdsong, arms would undoubtedly be less scared,and front gardens would contain less smelly surprises if that evil creature were no longer the popular pet it is today!
It has been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that terminal patients have elevated their quality of life by having a little pussycat to stroke and be there for them.
Finally, pussycat purring has been shown to be for healing, happiness and to connect the pussycat to us.
"The American Heart Association has linked the ownership of pets, especially dogs, with a reduced risk for heart disease and greater longevity." --(http://www.helpguide.org...).
While I would never decry anyone their choice of pet, I merely assert that of all choices, the cat is the worst and least moral of those choices.
Kevin_Cardinale forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro, Con forfeited at the end. However, Con made some arguments that cats are loyal and how beautiful and healthy they can be. However, Con provides some evidence to support his theory, but not enough. On the other hand, Pro just talks about how cats are evil and kill animals, and how dogs were healthier and better, but that's not the topic. The topic overall is cats. The only rebuttal was to loyalty, which was vague rebuttal that needed more facts. Overall, both arguments were a little too vague, and needed more solid facts. However, Con provided some solid sources like WebMD. This supported his argument, but in my opinion, it was really a tie for arguments. Sources goes to Con because more reliable sources were chosen, and in the last round Pro's source also seems to be referring to cats as well. Overall, Con wins it, not by arguments but by sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.