The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Cats an immoral choice of pet

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 72288
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Noob debate, more for practice but I'd appreciate a challenge with feedback.

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)


To my esteemed colleague and the gentlemen who shall be reading and judging, in their own little minds, the veracity and circumspection of this most august debate topic, which is: Can an immoral choice of pet.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


To my most esteemed colleague, just to ensure we're on the same page we are talking about cats not the the circular aluminium containers which, possibly unfairly, are rarely seen as a popular choice of pet.

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!


My colleague is woefully misinformed about our dear, beloved pussycat. Pussycats can sit in your lap for hours being stroked and doctors have said pussycats relieve tension, stress, which doctors everywhere warn can kill you.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


My colleague wonderfully asserts the health benefits of cats, unfortunately that is neither the question nor is this benefit linked solely or even most strongly to cats.
"The American Heart Association has linked the ownership of pets, especially dogs, with a reduced risk for heart disease and greater longevity." --(

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.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LoveAndDebate 1 year ago
Fancy challenging (this is not a strongly held belief of mine more somthing to practice debate on),

though in response;
>>Then having one as a pet would save the wildlife.
I meant introducing a cat to your garden where on theoretically never existed before, kills the wildlife that was there before eg, birds, squirrels.
>>The cats being evil wasn't a direct comparison to dogs, more the common idea they just don't care about their owners and have a tendency to just smash stuff and scratch people.
Posted by Excalibur 1 year ago
"Cats eat the local wildlife which was there first"

Then having one as a pet would save the wildlife.

"they're just evil"

How many cat attacks vs dog attacks (pitbull or otherwise) each year support this?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
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.