The Instigator
Lencie
Pro (for)
Losing
41 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

Cats are better than dogs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 23,968 times Debate No: 5474
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (15)

 

Lencie

Pro

The world goes to the dogs. Maybe now is the right time to decide what is more beneficial for us - as the citizens: To own a dog or to own a cat? The answer is quite simple ladies and gentlemen: Of course that we should own a cat since it is more beneficial for us! Are you wondering why am I claiming so? Read more.

Definitions:

"are better" = "their possession is more beneficial for their owners"

Arguments:

1. Cats are better than dogs because it is much more likely to be killed by an average cat than by an average dog

Imagine how many people are seriously injured or killed annually by the dogs. Children, owners of the dogs, random bystanders. On the other hand, I personally have never heard of anyone SERIOUSLY injured or killed by a cat.
If keeping a cat as a pet is safer not only for you but for other people as well, it definitely means that it is more beneficial for you to keep a cat as a pet. Therefore, cats are (at least from this point of view) better than dogs.

2. Cats are better than dogs because owning an average cat doesn't cost as much as owning an average dog

Firstly, we have to realize that cats usually live for a shorter time period. The oldest cat I have ever met in my life was 16, the oldest dog I have ever met was 25. Keeping a pet for a shorter time period means less money spent on food, vaccination etc.
Secondly, average cats eat smaller amount of food than average dogs. Smaller amount of food means buying less pet food which means less money spent.
Therefore, keeping a cat as a pet cost you less money than keeping a dog as a pet, therefore it is more beneficial for you to keep a cat than to keep a dog.

3. Cats are better than dogs because cats don't need that much care

Everybody knows that dogs need to be washed. Need to be walked. That takes up time. Do you need to wash a cat? No. Do you need to walk a cat? Definitely not. Dozens of cats live just indoors, have never been outside and their life still can be regarded as "very good". Could a dog live just indoors? I don't think so.
What is more, dogs are more social animals than cats. Than means that they want you - as their owner - to play with them. To talk to them. They are happy to go somewhere with you. The cats can sort of "live lives on their own". They can invent games themselves. They don't bother you when you obviously do not want to play with them.
Therefore, cats as pets do not take up that much time. Therefore, owning a cat is more beneficial.

Therefore, cats are better than dogs.
Mangani

Con

Thanks for presenting this debate, and good luck.

My opponent claims that Cats are better than dogs because "their possession is more beneficial for their owners". My opponent claims that you are more likely to be killed by the average cat than by the average dog, but I will assume by the context that what my opponent meant to say was that you are more likely to be killed by the average dog than by the average cat. Even if this is what my opponent meant, this does not make cats "more beneficial". Indeed a rifle is more beneficial to a hunter than a knife may be, yet more hunters are killed by the average rifle than by the average knife (though statistics are not specifically available for hunters, I will provide death rates by cause: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...). Risk is not a detriment to benefit, and in fact this debate is based on my opponent's assessment that "the possession of cats is more beneficial to their owners". If not being attacked by a pet is a measurement of benefit, then it can be argued that specific breeds, like cocker spaniels, are better to own than cats because in 25 years there has only been one reported dog bite by cocker spaniels, and no deaths. This applies to other breeds as well (http://www.dogsbite.org...). Cats do bite, and 30-50% (http://www.healthatoz.com...) of cat bites cause infection (one source claimed as many as 80% become infected).

My opponent claims that the cost of ownership is greater with dogs, and therefore it is "more beneficial" to own a cat. I contend that cost of ownership is dependent on breed, extent of use, and the owner him/herself. A person living in poverty may own many dogs and spend little money to feed and care for these dogs, and these dogs may be in perfect health, while a wealthy cat owner may even adorn his/her pet with expensive jewelry like diamond studded collars. Expense is dependent on the owner, and again- though this can be a "con" to ownership of dogs it does not automatically translate as a pro for cats. I will explain after addressing all my opponent's points.

My opponent again presents a con for dog ownership that does not equal as cats being more beneficial for their owners. My opponent contends that because cats need less care than dogs, they are more beneficial. I contend that cars need more care than cats, but are much more beneficial for their owners than cats are. They are also more expensive to own!

Now, I will provide some comparisons given the benefits offered by the ownership of dogs, and try to translate this into the ownership of cats as an equal benefit.

1. Dogs can be trained to perform services, tasks, and have even earned medals of valor and ranks within the US Military (http://www.qmfound.com...). There are no documented cases of cats performing courageously or serving the US Government or Military in any way.

2. Dogs have a keen sense of smell, and combined with #1 provide an irreplaceable method of detecting drugs, explosives, and other contraband. Dogs are even being trained to detect diseases (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). There are no (or none that I could find) documented instances of cats detecting contraband or diseases.

3. Dogs form a familial bond with humans that may cause them to react in a life saving manner (http://www.cbsnews.com...; http://news.bbc.co.uk...; http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). Dogs will save your life even if they don't know you. There are no documented instances of a cat saving someone's life.

Dogs can be trained to serve the blind or otherwise disabled. They provide a familial presence for those who would otherwise be lonely. Dogs have been documented as dialing 911 to save their owners (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...; http://www.foxnews.com...). Dogs can save your life, fill a void, protect your family from terrorists, find your missing loved ones, alert your doctor to an unsensed disease, etc. Cats can do none of this.

My opponent has provided no examples of how a cat is more beneficial to it's owner than a dog, and I have provided many reasons why a dog is more beneficial.
Debate Round No. 1
Lencie

Pro

Thank you for posting such brilliant points, I will be happy to answer them.

Firstly - yes, I have to admit that I made a mistake when writing the title of my first argument - it really should had been "Cats are better than dogs because it is much more likely to be killed by an average DOG than by an average CAT."

Let's move to my first argument that "Cats are better than dogs because it is much more likely to be killed by an average dog than by an average cat".

Ladies and gentlemen, think about it: Is it better for you to have a pet that can - it something goes wrong - deliberately or not - kill or seriously injure you or someone else, or is it more beneficial for you (and the people around) to own a pet that maybe can injure someone but CAN'T kill (since it's body constitution, weight and gripe of its jaws can't endanger life of any human)? We don't need to look at statistics - using out wit should be enough.
I didn't want this debate to become a debate about breeds. There are far too many breeds of cats and dogs and arguing about few specific ones wouldn't really prove or disprove our thesis. What is more, some breeds chosen could be really difficult to defend either for me or for my opponent. And I want this debate to be fair. Therefore, I am asking my opponent to debate this thesis without using arguments considering just some breeds.
Yes, cats do bite. So do dogs. Both bites can cause infection (we can never know what had the animal been doing before it bit us), so this argument of my opponent seems more like a doughnut. It looks good but the hole in it is quite obvious. What is more, as I stated therein before, the gripe of dog's jaw is much stronger and therefore it can injure more seriously.
If your pet can't hurt or kill you or other citizens then the possession of it should be regarded as "more beneficial". Therefore, cats should be considered better than dogs. Therefore, the motion stands.

Moving to my second argument that "Cats are better than dogs because owning an average cat doesn't cost as much as owning an average dog": My opponent claims that the cost of ownership is dependent on breed, extent of use and the owner him/herself. That is very true - unfortunately for my opponent, this argument is like a gun. It can also backfire. There are MANY breeds of dogs that definitely need more food than cats (e.g. bandogs, shepherd dogs etc.) but as I said before I don't want this debate to be about specific breeds because then it would be unfair.
Extent of use: Yes! Of course that feeding 6 cats cost more than feeding 1 dog. And vice versa. That's why I don't consider this as a really important argument - it's more of a mini skirt. (It may look good but it covers nothing.) Still, you must agree with me that feeding 1 cat cost USUALLY less than feeding one dog. (What is more, cats can hunt for themselves.)
The owner her/himself: Definitely. Expensive jewellery and collars? Yes - the owners buy them. But how many "normal" people can afford it? Ordinary people buy collars that don't cost much. Just by the way - does a cat need a collar? Certainly not. Does a dog need a collar? Of course - since it needs to be walked. That means less amount of money needed to be spent on a cat.
Less money necessarily needed to be spent is definitely good for us as the citizens. Therefore, cats are more beneficial for us as their owners.

To my third argument that "Cats are better than dogs because cats don't need that much care" my opponent said only that less care doesn't necessarily mean "more beneficial". He used the example of owning a car. Car isn't a dog. Therefore, the motion still stands.
People say: "Time is money." Precisely. How much of your time does a cat need? 5 minutes in the morning (feeding), 5 minutes when you come home from work (greeting, playing maybe), 5 minutes in the evening (feeding). That's 15 minutes per day. How much of your time does a dog need? 5 minutes in the morning (feeding), 15-30 minutes afterwards (a short walk), 15 minutes when you come home from work (greeting, playing - since dogs are never tired of their owners an are always willing to lick their hands etc.), 5 minutes in the evening (feeding), 15-30 minutes afterwards (a short walk). That means at least (!) 55 minutes per day. Imagine, how much work can you do in those extra 40 minutes! Extra work usually means extra money. Extra money - means definitely some benefit for the owner.
Cats do not need you to spend that much time with them, therefore you can spend the time differently and perhaps earn more money or go somewhere with your friends - which is clearly beneficial for you. Therefore, cats are better than dogs.

Now I am going to look at the arguments that my opponent brought.
1. Yes, dogs can be trained to perform services, tasks and serve the military. Do we really want animals to serve the military? Do we have the right to decide for them? Isn't it a bit unfair for those poor animals? Doesn't this also means that these animals can be exploit for something bad? In a war, for example? Can that be really considered good for the people? Civilians that have done nothing? I don't think so.
Animals performing services and tasks. As we all know, we are in the 21st century. Sooner or later it will be robots doing the tasks we now use dogs for. Therefore, sooner or later this argument will fall its own accord.
2. The fact that dogs can detect drugs, explosives etc. doesn't necessarily mean that they are better than cats. Cats have other abilities. For example - they can predict earthquakes. I have never heard of a dog that could do something like that. Some people are good at maths, some are good at chemistry. None of these abilities make them "better".
3. Yes, dogs are animals saving lives. Unfortunately, they are also animals that kill. Everyone has to decide for himself - whether to risk that someday the dog may go mad and kill but as well as that one day the dog can save someone's life - or whether to have a cat and know that you won't be killed nor saved at any case.
4. Both cats and dogs can provide a familiar presence for lonely people. What is more, some cats are used to help ill people in some hospitals since it is known that just staying with the cat helps people to recover. Dogs can never be allowed to go into any kind of hospital since there's always the risk of serious injuries.

Ladies and gentlemen, I brought you logical reasons why cats are better than dogs - why owning a cat is more beneficial for you as the owner. I hope that you now realize why purchasing a cat is a good idea;)
Mangani

Con

My opponent continues to insist that the ability to kill represents a lack of benefit, and not only completely ignored the statistics, but urges the readers to ignore the statistics because somehow they will not be fair to my side of the argument. I will point out to my opponent that I am a breeder, trainer, and advocate of UKC registered American Pitbull Terriers cross registered with the AKC as American Staffordshire Terriers. In other words, I raise "real" Pitbulls as opposed to pit bulls which can be any mix of Mastiff, Bull terrier, and/or Pitbull- but the point is they are mixes. The reason I bring up pit bulls is because my statistics specifically identified pit bulls as being responsible for 70% of reported bites, as well as 70% of bites resulting in death. Even with the most dangerous breed, someone like me can find much more benefit in owning this supposedly dangerous dog as opposed to cats. I have also owned cats, and contrary to my dog, they dug up plants around my house and defecated wherever they perceived was a spot as good as the litter box, they stunk up the litter box, one of them left hair balls everywhere, they always fought, etc. There was no benefit in owning these cats. I always had to clean up after them, always had to bathe them (contrary to what my opponent states about not needing to wash cats... that is very unsanitary!), and they never did a thing for me. My dogs, on the other hand, besides the fact that each trained two year old dog can earn me $2,000 or more depending on the extent of training, my dogs can protect your family, your home, can perform in dog shows, impress your friends, keep you company, fetch things like your shoes, newspaper, ANYTHING, and can do a myriad of other tasks they are trained to perform. My dogs can be trained as guards that will not attack unless ordered to, and when ordered to will only go as far as they owner will order them to- in other words they can hold someone captive without hurting them, rather they can hold an intruder down until the police arrive. I have access to some of the best trainers, and have never met one that can train a cat.

My opponent misunderstood my point about owning a car, and dismissed it because of this misunderstanding. In comparing a cat to a dog, my opponent compares two completely different classes of pets. I will bring up owning a car, and will compare it to owning an alternative form of transportation. A bike is as comparable to a cat as a car is to a dog. A bike requires much less care than a dog, cannot kill you as easily as a car accident, and doesn't require much attention. Even so, it does not benefit the owner in as many ways as owning a car does. Hundreds of millions of people would rather pay $300 or so per month for their car payment, $50 or so for their insurance, plus the high price of gas rather than riding a bike to work. When the benefits outweigh the risks, the lack of risk cannot be considered a benefit when looking at the alternative.

My opponent completely disregarded some points I made about the cost of ownership of a dog. Again- poor people have dogs and can feed them without buying dog food, and often care for them without a vet and many of these dogs are in perfect health. Even if they had a vet the cost is the same as it would be for a cat (especially if you have pet health insurance which costs about $20 per month or more depending on your plan). Even if I've made the point that costs can be comparable depending on the owner, again, the risks do not outweigh the benefits, and what my opponent is pointing out is the risk of owning a dog, not the benefit of owning a cat.

My opponent rebuts my claims of the benefits dogs provide by appealing to pets rights arguments. I can assure you that training a pet to complete a task is no more harmful to the pet, and actually may be more beneficial to the pet itself, than simply owning a pet and letting it sit around your house. My animals are healthy. They are not lethargic good for nothings that sit around the house doing absolutely nothing beneficial to anyone. The fact that dogs perform according to their training does not stop just there- I pointed out instances in which dogs performed beyond their training. They saved lives in two World Wars and in Vietnam and earned medals of valor- not for performing as trained but for performing beyond their training. They have done this of their own volition, and how strong is the argument that you are exploiting a pet when you don't believe the pet is intelligent enough to know it is being trained to perform a task? These pets are paid well, have rank... this is their job. If anyone is exploiting pets it is the people who own them to look at them.

My opponent claims that the fact that dogs can detect drugs, explosives, and other contraband does not mean they are better than cats, read- they are not more beneficial to their owners than cats. Cats cannot detect drugs, explosives, and contraband, and if it was my job as the owner of a pet to train my pet to do so how would owning a cat be more beneficial if it cannot be trained to do what I am paid to train animals to do??? My opponent claims cats can predict earthquakes but gives no examples. My opponent leaves it to be interpreted that cats can speak out and say an earthquake is about to occur. Why isn't the National Earthquake Information Center not privy to this information? Why don't they employ cats to perform these predictions??? The fact of the matter is that MANY animals, including dogs, are believed to be able to sense magnetic shifts in the earth, and react in a particular manner which is often followed by the occurrence of an earthquake http://www.sheldrake.org.... The owners, in retrospect, claim that the animal "knew" an earthquake was coming. Though this may be true, it has never been proven, and this ability cannot be tapped as a benefit. In other words you can't train a team of cats to predict earthquakes for the National Earthquake Center.

My opponent points out that though dogs can save lives, they can also kill. Police provide the same risks and benefit. So do guns, vehicles, and even drugs. Again- pointing out a risk for dogs does not point out a benefit for cats, because they are still unequal. Cats cannot save lives at all. And I will again appeal to the breed contradiction in your argument- a cocker spaniel, which there has been only one reported bite in the past 25 years, can still save your life (http://www.nationaldogday.com...). We can argue all day that breeds do not matter in this argument, but a wolf is also a dog, and accounts for some of the reported dog bites and fatalities (as evidenced in my previous statistics) while tigers, lions, mountain lions, and other large cats which are also owned as pets are not considered in the statistics. It would be ridiculous for me to argue this based on tigers or lions, but my point is that not all breeds of dogs are equally dangerous, though they may be equally beneficial. In any case cats do not compare to either.

My opponent again makes a claim not supported by any evidence. She also claims that dogs are not allowed in hospitals, but the Cincinnati Children's Hospital (one of the top American Children's Hospitals according to US News) has a dog visitation program to help children heal (http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org...). Your argument is moot. My opponent has yet to provide one argument as to why cats are more beneficial to their owners than dogs. I have provided many arguments and counterarguments. It is a personal choice which type of pet you will own. Cat lovers will own cats, dog lover will own dogs. However this debate is not about which pet you love best, rather which one is more beneficial. With all appeals to emotion aside, and all things considered objectively, a dog is definitely more beneficial to it's owners, and others!
Debate Round No. 2
Lencie

Pro

This has turned out to be a very interesting debate. Thank you for that, Sir.

Now I am going to go through all our arguments and points and sort of summarize the arguments and logical facts as well. Furthermore, I will explain everything in more detail and finally prove that cats are better than dogs.

The first argument in this debate was that "Cats are better than dogs because it is much more likely to be killed by an average dog than by an average cat".

Yes, I insist on saying that the ability to kill represents a lack of benefit. My opponent ignores the fact, that not only the owner but OTHER people as well can be attacked and killed by the dogs. Imagine that your dog runs away from your garden. (That is possible. No fence is 100% "dog-proof".) If a dog run away from your garden (or your house etc.), there is a possibility that it will meet people. Kids, for example. Imagine that those kids would be like "Oh, what a lovely dog!" and they will try to touch it. Since they are complete strangers to the dog, it won't like what they are doing. Therefore, there is a possibility that the dog will attack the kids. There is a chance that it will bite their necks and therefore the lives of the kids will be endangered. And you as the owner are responsible for that. Not only that their parents may want some financial compensation from you, but if your dog really kills someone - then you will be regretting it all your life. ("Could I had done anything to prevent that accident to happen?")
Therefore, if you own a pet that can never kill, there is no chance of you regretting something like the situation I stated therein before. Waking up every day with a thought "Because I wasn't careful enough, my dog killed an innocent person," clearly isn't good for your psychical health. Therefore, owning a cat is more beneficial.
My opponent insists on saying that cats can hurt you as well. However, he ignores the fact that dogs can hurt you more seriously. That should be also taken into account when deciding which pet is better for you.
My opponent claims, that cats dig up plants (yes, cats do things like that - when they are bored or frustrated (!)). That cats defecated almost everywhere. That's funny. It's usually the dogs who defecate almost anywhere (and if their owner don't clean up after them, then the city looks like a big mess). That cats leave their hair balls everywhere. If your cats leave hair balls in your flat/garden etc., that means that they have some problems with their hair and that you need to comb them. (Meaning - if cats leave hair balls, then YOU as their owner made a mistake somewhere.)
My opponent also claims that cats need to be washed. I can think of one breed - sphinx - where bathing may be needed. Other cats don't need washing. They lick themselves pretty well.
My opponent also says that dogs can do dozens of things that cats can't do. (Fetching the newspaper, for example.) Right. But cats can also do some things that dogs can't. E.g. - mouse.
The argument that cats can't be trained does not necessarily make them worse. Cats are individuals - which is something that some people should definitely learn from them.

To sum this whole big argument up - I think that cats are more beneficial for their owner because they can't kill neither the owner nor any other citizens. They may be doing some annoying things, but many more dogs do them as well. Since usually more dogs do those annoying things, cats can be regarded as "more beneficial".

Let's move to the second point that "Cats are better than dogs because owning an average cat doesn't cost as much as owning an average dog".

My opponent compares cats to bicycles and dogs to cars. He says that although bike have some benefits, car is still better. However, since we have global warming, one day we all may "return to the bikes". Who knows.
Still, what I am saying is that the basic amount of money you simply NEED to spend on a cat is lower than the basic amount NEEDED for a dog. (Of course that poor people don't feed their pets - both dogs AND cats, but that is quite a different case.)
Therefore, cats are better than dogs.

Let's continue with the third argument that "Cats are better than dogs because cats don't need that much care"

My opponent ignores my point that "time is money". Since he hasn't posted anything 'con', I presume that he agrees with me on this very point. Therefore, this arguments stands.
Therefore, cats are more beneficial for their owners.

Now I am going to look at the arguments that my opponent brought:

1. Dogs can be trained (therefore cats are not better)
Firstly, my opponent says that cats are not intelligent because they refuse to be trained. Wonderful. Would anyone of you, ladies and gentlemen, be willing to obey some (maybe stupid) commands of your owner? "Sit down, bring me the newspaper, fetch the ball I've just thrown away." Obeying commands doesn't really measure the IQ of these animals.
Secondly, my opponent says that dogs save lives, serve in military etc. Yes, why not? But: Some states in the WWII. trained the dogs to run with explosives on their backs under tanks of their opponents...then the dogs were killing. They may have saved some people, but blew up some tanks with people as well! As we already stated - cats can't be trained to do this, therefore, they can't kill.
Therefore, I still think that cats are more beneficial.

2. Detecting drugs etc.
I agree that cats can't detect drugs, explosives etc. They can't be trained to predict earthquakes. Since you can't train your cats, you don't ever try it. That means that you don't spend money on it and can use it differently. That is good, isn't it? You don't need to wait whether the animal can make money or not (and don't forget the situation of an accident when your pet dies before it can make you some money after the expensive training). When you are a pet trainer, then of course you have to make a living somehow. There are plenty animals you can actually train. The thing that you can't train cats may make them less beneficial for you - but we are debating globally, aren't we?
No money spent on training means more money for you - which is beneficial.
Therefore, cats are better than dogs.

3. Saving lives
There can be a situation when a cat saves your life. Imagine that you are sleeping and your house is on fire. Your cat jumps on your stomach/head/... That wakes you up. You can escape. It is as simple as that.
Still, there can't be a situation when a cat kills you.
Therefore, talking globally about all breeds altogether - cats are better than dogs.

4. Animals in hospitals
Still, it is much more common that cats help people to recover in hospitals. Why? Right - because they CAN'T kill.
Therefore, when they are more commonly used, they help more people. Therefore, they are more beneficial.

I totally agree with my opponent saying that it is a personal choice which type of pet you will own. Both cats and dogs have positives and negatives. It's just our choice.

Thank you for this debate, I really enjoyed it, you were a wonderful opponent.
Mangani

Con

Let me thank my opponent for her generous compliments, and for her participation and effort in this debate. I, too, have enjoyed this debate, and hope people will judge according to the arguments, and not their personal choice for pets as many people will be inclined to do. My arguments are based on objectivity, and I hope they can be judged as such.

My opponent states that cats are better than dogs. She elaborates by stating that cats are more benificial to their owners than dogs are. My opponent has failed to provide more than one benefit of cat ownership- companionship- and has argued that the cons for dog ownership amount to pro's for cat ownership, but completely disregards and discredits my own cons for cat ownership. If my cons for cat ownership are ignored, as well as her cons for dog ownership, and we weigh the arguments based on pros for ownership of either I believe this debate is completely one sided as I have provided many pros for dog ownership.

"Yes, I insist on saying that the ability to kill represents a lack of benefit"

-The ability to kill does not represent a desire and/or inevitability of killing. There are millions of dogs in this country, and there have been less than one hundred deaths attributed to dogs in 25 years. 70% of these deaths can be attributed to less than 1% of breeds. Most breeds, like cocker spaniels, have never been blamed for killing. This argument is moot if the dog owner owns a cocker spaniel.

"Imagine...imagine...imagine.." -My opponent attempts to paint scenarios completely irrelevant to this debate. In order to argue this debate we must assume equally responsible owners. Not all owners are as irresponsible as the hypothetical "imaginary" owner my opponent paints with the killer dog. Lets hypothetically assume, however, that the dog belonging to this "imaginary" owner is a 20 year old cocker spaniel who has never bit a soul. Lets assume this dog has lost all it's teeth, and can't even bite, let alone kill. The dog may still have escaped, but in fact poses no danger to the owner, kids, or the rest of the community. The "can kill" argument is purely hypothetical, and the only statistics were provided by me- not my opponent.

"financial compensation...lawsuit"- Cats attack, and you can be sued if you are the owner (http://www.local6.com..., http://www.connpost.com..., http://www.boston.com...). This argument is moot.

"That should be also taken into account when deciding which pet is better for you." -This argument isn't about personal choice, it's about whether or not cats or dogs "are more beneficial for the owner". I have already established that the ability to kill is not a measurement of benefit, rather a measure of risk. We are not debating risk, we are debating benefit. The presence of risk in one pet is not an argument for benefit in another.

"They lick themselves pretty well."- With their toungues. My opponent seems to be one of the only people in the world who believe cats don't need to be bathed (http://www.drsfostersmith.com..., http://www.petplace.com...). Not knowing how to care for your pet is not an argument of added benefit.

"But cats can also do some things that dogs can't. E.g. - mouse."- My opponent ignores the fact that her main argument is dogs can kill. Does this "killing" ability not apply to mice? Yes- dogs can kill mice, and will if they see them. Cats do the same thing- they don't necessarily go hunting for them. BUT I don't have any mice, neither does our perfect hypothetical pet owner.

"The argument that cats can't be trained does not necessarily make them worse."- This debate is not about which animal is worse, rather which one is better- "more beneficial to it's owner", remember? The ability does not make cats worse, but makes dogs "more beneficial to the owner".

"However, since we have global warming, one day we all may "return to the bikes". Who knows"- This argument is, again, hypothetical and my opponent admits it with the line "who knows". We are speaking about now, and our hypothetical perfect owner drives a hybrid *winks*.

"Still, what I am saying is that the basic amount of money you simply NEED to spend on a cat is lower than the basic amount NEEDED for a dog."- That's not true. I owned a cat that was hyperactive, and agoraphobic. She would tear up the carpet, couches, curtains, etc. We had to buy her a play gym, and new toys all the time so she wouldn't tear up our home. At the time we also owned a UKC/AKC registered Pitbull who costed about $100 per month (about $25 per 20lb bag of Eukanuba, one of the best for Pits, about 4 times a month) in dog food, they were both on the same health plan so I won't even mention the cost, and I really didn't spend much money on her besides food after the initial collar, leash, toys purchase. My cat was a lot more expensive to own, and caused massive amounts of damage to our home.

"My opponent ignores my point that "time is money"."- My opponent ignores the fact that dogs can produce money. Some owners have hunting dogs, others have herders, some have police dogs, service dogs, etc. People who spend time with their dogs do so because it is emotionally beneficial to them. They spend their free time with their dogs, not time they would otherwise be spending to be productive. If this argument were to hold any water, then even a cat owner is wasting money when sitting to read a book with a cat on her lap! Pets don't take up time you wouldn't otherwise invest in either pet, or time that wouldn't be leisure time, unless the pet is a working pet and in that case MAKES money. The argument is moot, and that is why I didn't address it earlier.

"Firstly, my opponent says that cats are not intelligent because they refuse to be trained."- Strawman. I never commented on the intelligence of cats.

"Wonderful. Would anyone of you, ladies and gentlemen, be willing to obey some (maybe stupid) commands of your owner?"- A hypothetical question that is completely moot. By this same logic it can be argued that cats don't want to live in your house, period- they would rather be outside FREE. We are talking about PETS here, not people who feel enslaved.

"Obeying commands doesn't really measure the IQ of these animals"- IQ is an intelligence quotient comparing actual age to mental age (ie. actual age 20, mental age 30, IQ= 1.5X 100= 150). How can we measure this for cats OR dogs??? Moot point.

"Yes, why not? But: Some states in the WWII. trained the dogs to run with explosives on their backs under tanks of their opponents...then the dogs were killing."- What? Reference please... no reference? No. That isn't what dogs who have earned rank and medals did in the Wars. You are misinformed, assuming, and/or trying to manipulate the argument to suit you.

"No money spent on training means more money for you - which is beneficial."- The hypothetical owner is a trainer. Doesn't spend money on training. If the hypothetical owner ISN't a trainer and spends money on training dogs to detect drugs- they will earn the money back by working in airports, etc. actually DETECTING drugs. Point moot.

"There can be a situation when a cat saves your life. Imagine..."- I provided facts, not imaginary stories.

"Still, it is much more common that cats help people to recover in hospitals. Why? Right - because they CAN'T kill."- Again, I provided facts, not imaginary stories. Cats are not allowed in many hospitals because of the amount of allergens they carry.

I don't underestimate the intelligence of my audience, and will trust they are smart enough to see this has been a debate of facts vs. personal opinion. With that I will rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Bruce1212 5 years ago
Bruce1212
BTW if anyone is interested, http://www.svpeds.net... is a great place to go if your interested in Veterinary Compounding Pharmacies.
Posted by Bruce1212 5 years ago
Bruce1212
I have a dog and a cat. They seem to get along just fine together. I just wish i could see what goes on while I'm not at home. I asked my veterinary compounding pharmacy if it was a good idea to have both a cat and a dog, and she said it was fine.
Posted by theitalianstallion 7 years ago
theitalianstallion
I really don't like Pro's argument that cats are less likely to harm you than dogs. Almost every cat I have personally come into contact with has, without reason, slashed me. The only dog that has ever truly attacked me, was my own, and that was my fault; tied a dog bone to my leg so I could see if I could out run him. I couldn't and he got my leg. The reason dogs are so called "more dangerous" is because their attacks are reported, while cats' attacks are not because people don't want to sound stupid. "My cat scratched me and it hurts really, really bad."
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
The main different between cats and dogs is their respective attitudes.

"Dogs look up to people. Cats look down on people. Pigs look at people eye-to-eye, as equals." -Winston Churchill
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
*reads CON's R1*
Clappity clap clap clap. I tip my hat to you good sir.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
I hate cats...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
LencieManganiTied
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 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 6 years ago
TxsRngr
LencieManganiTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
LencieManganiTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 6 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
LencieManganiTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 6 years ago
NYCDiesel
LencieManganiTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
LencieManganiTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 7 years ago
theitalianstallion
LencieManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 7 years ago
Julius_Caesar
LencieManganiTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
LencieManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Riddick 8 years ago
Riddick
LencieManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70