The Instigator
Im_always_right
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
lorca
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Cats are not evil.

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  
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: 7/6/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,776 times Debate No: 4604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (13)

 

Im_always_right

Pro

God created everything on earth living and not. Threfor God created cats. God would not create someting evil. If he did wouldn't he kill it?
lorca

Con

Ok, to start off, prove God created everything. Prove it wasn't the aliens that did it. Prove there is a God.

Secondly, if you believe in God as Christians know him, you must also believe in Satan. Satan was an angel in heaven at one point in time; God created him and allows for his existence. In other words, God created evil. God also created the fruit which banished Adam and Eve. Was that not also evil?

Secondly, God as Christians know him does not believe in killing people or things merely for the sake of killing them. One of the 10 commandments is "thou shall not kill", mainly referring to humans. Additionally, God has killed many things he did not approve of, such as all first born Egyptians. Additionally, God allows evil to exist because he wants us to choose him over evil. Hence, evil is necessary to establish what is good and righteous.

Next, Cats spread disease. Their poor hygiene and cleaning methods make it impossible for them not to spread disease. They use their tongue to wipe everything all over their body. And then people have the audacity to pet them. EEEWWWWWWW!!!!

Cats cause billions of people around the world misery by having sharp claws and people with allergies. Cat scratches are extremely painful. Allergies to cats cause people undue suffering that other pets do not cause, nor to the same extremities.

Finally, cats are self and self centered and cannot care for humans beyond their own needs and wants. Cats will only be nice to humans when they want petted or food. Nor will they ever do tricks or anything else unless it's what they want to do. This does not make them smart, just selfish. Does that not sound like something with evil intentions?

Also, just because your username is Im_always_right, does not equal "I am always correct". In fact, I will contend that it means one of two things, possibly both. Since there is no apostrophe in your spelling of Im, I am forced to assume that this means that someone by the name of "Im" is always right, not "I am". The other possibility is that you are always right, as in opposite of left. What it could be suggesting is that "Im" is always opposite of left.
Debate Round No. 1
Im_always_right

Pro

Ok, to start off, prove God created everything. Prove it wasn't the aliens that did it. Prove there is a God."

There is no proof of God, but as a Christian, I believe in God, I know, my opponent is a Christian as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Secondly, if you believe in God as Christians know him, you must also believe in Satan. Satan was an angel in heaven at one point in time; God created him and allows for his existence. In other words, God created evil. God also created the fruit which banished Adam and Eve. Was that not also evil?"

Yes I believe in Satan, however, if you read my previous debate you will see, I clearly don't believe Satan, was created by God, but by man.
Yes God created the fruit. The fruit was not evil, man was evil, man went against God thus creating evil. If you read my other debate you will see this as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Secondly, God as Christians know him does not believe in killing people or things merely for the sake of killing them. One of the 10 commandments is "thou shall not kill", mainly referring to humans. Additionally, God has killed many things he did not approve of, such as all first born Egyptians. Additionally, God allows evil to exist because he wants us to choose him over evil. Hence, evil is necessary to establish what is good and righteous."

Yes God does not approve of killing things for fun, yet is hunting/fishing not a sport played by man? All you are proving is how evil WE are, and I think everyone can agree we are, and you are doing a very good job pointing this out.
‘Thou shall not kill' yet how many murders are there?
Although I can see you are saying that cats are evil because they kill, they aren't the only animals that kill, wolves, owls, other birds, arachnids, the list goes on to all carnivore/omnivore, animal groups, including humans. Thus cats are not more evil than anything else on this earth. Yes God killed what he did not approve of, thus if he did not approve of felines he would kill them, however he did not disprove of the firstborns of Egypt, he merely disproved of pharaoh, who refused to listen, so he punished Egypt. God allows evil, because he gives man chose to either obey, him, or go to hell. Ultimately, it cannot be evil, UNLESS, it knows good, and chooses not to.
Yes evil is necessary, but as we have clearly pointed out, man is plenty evil.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Next, Cats spread disease. Their poor hygiene and cleaning methods make it impossible for them not to spread disease. They use their tongue to wipe everything all over their body. And then people have the audacity to pet them. EEEWWWWWWW!!!!"

My response:
Fine cats may have poor hygiene methods, but if we are so clean, why can't we bathe them???
It's a simple thing to do:
Run a luke-warm shower-bathe mix, spray the cat down, put some soap on him/her rub and scratch in gently. Rinse the cat off, towel dry and/or blow dry.
Viola, clean cat. It is just like bathing a dog, and you had no problem with doing that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cats cause billions of people around the world misery by having sharp claws and people with allergies. Cat scratches are extremely painful. Allergies to cats cause people undue suffering that other pets do not cause, nor to the same extremities."

I know this is way off topic, but my opponent has brought it up, so I will refute it.

I am unable to find a case where someonr has died because of being scratched. Dogs unvoluntarily scratch more than cats because felines have retractable claws, and K9's do not. Link for how many people due to dog bites:
http://www.hsus.org...

The worst I can find about cat scratches:
http://www.dhpe.org...

"Finally, cats are self and self centered and cannot care for humans beyond their own needs and wants. Cats will only be nice to humans when they want petted or food. Nor will they ever do tricks or anything else unless it's what they want to do. This does not make them smart, just selfish. Does that not sound like something with evil intentions? "

Have you ever thought about how self centered any animal on the planet is? All any animal does is find food, mate, depending on type of animal, may or may not care for the young. Then the animal dies. Animals don't care about humans, thus as a majority, humanity thinks they would be selfish..
I know from experience, cats are normally nice, and love being on peoples laps. Derail, my pet Siamese, kitten, will jump in your lap at any time. She was a barn cat, and although she loves real food, she will come in your lap anytime you sit and will follow you around. But like a small child can get distracted by some string, or anything that moves on the ground. According to your statement, an animal must do tricks, or it is evil. So fish are evil, but captured whales aren't. Or you could be saying anything that is lazy is evil.. Cats do not know the difference between good and bad, therefore cannot be evil.

Also, just because your username is Im_always_right, does not equal "I am always correct". In fact, I will contend that it means one of two things, possibly both. Since there is no apostrophe in your spelling of Im, I am forced to assume that this means that someone by the name of "Im" is always right, not "I am". The other possibility is that you are always right, as in opposite of left. What it could be suggesting is that "Im" is always opposite of left."

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent had no good case so he spent a whole paragraph, devoted to talking about irrelevant information.
Thank you, now I will let my opponent have his turn.
lorca

Con

Ok, seeing that Im_always_right (I'm always opposite of left, for clarification) employed the assistance of her mother, Xera, I will not give equal consideration. Additionally, IAR, (IAO of L) stated in a personal comment that she desired a no holds barred debate from this point, I will proceed to give her such.

Now I will rebuild my case and to add further substantial information to negate the statement that ‘cats are not evil'.

From this point on Im always right will be referred to in this debate as I'm always opposite of left (IAO of L for short), as she did not refute the content of this argument, only it's relevance to the resolution. This point still is upheld, and it is relevant to the argument because it was a precautionary measure to prevent the use of semantics to win the debate. The Affirmative cannot use the fact that she claims that she is always right, since I have shown that she in not always correct, rather she is always opposite of left. It is a fact that she is right handed.

Previous debates are not relevant to the prior context of this debate. Furthermore, as a Christian yourself, the source of Satan is in fact from the hand of God, as God created everything on heaven and earth, (and hell, for that matter.) Please refer to the following link for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Man does kill and man can be evil. That is the divine right of free will to choose good over evil that was given to us by God. Cats are not given this divine right; they are only evil and cannot choose to be good. What you are stating is God created everything, man is evil, but cats are not evil? That does not follow logic, and syllogistically under your logic, should say God created everything, man is evil, and thus everything God created is evil. Following your logical path, this must include cats, and thus, by your logic, cats are in fact evil.

On bathing cats: IAO of L has never in bathed a cat to my knowledge. If she had EVER given a cat a bath, she would have known their evilness. Instead, IAO of L always has had either Lorca or Xera bath her cats, thus she does not know of the pure evilness that emanates from a single cat while it is being given a bath.

You've never heard of a cat killing someone? Why do you think they keep the lions, tigers, panthers, etc. behind inch thick glass at the zoo? Because these cats have been known to kill people! This debate was never clarified to the common housecat. Large game cats do in fact kill many of people, mostly people in Africa.

Cats do spread disease. One simple case in point is Cat Scratch Fever. Beyond the harm that Ted Nugent has done, cat scratch fever is listed by the CDC as a communicable disease that animals can give to humans. http://www.cdc.gov...

Furthermore, the animal kingdom is not completely self-centered. There are social animals (http://en.wikipedia.org...) in which animals form groups in other to achieve greater goals. Anything ranging from bees to elephant herds form social groups in which they give something up. Now before you think it, I know lions form prides, which make them social animals. But the only cats that form social groups will kill you, me, and any human that comes in its way if it is hungry enough, and will do it in a group! As for other cats, they are completely self centered and do not care about the welfare of others. They are the parasites of the mammalians, leeching off everything else to only serve them.

IAO of L still has not concretely proven there is a God, which is a major foundation of Christian belief. Instead, she simply stated that since I am a Christian I believe. I contend that if this was the case, only people that first believe in God can become Christians. If this was the case, why would so many missionaries be trying to "spread" the word of God if the only people that believed in God are Christians? As a Christian I do believe in God, but I do not believe that this is even the majority for people on this website. And of the people that do believe in God, I would contend that over half of them do not believe that God created everything. I reaffirm my position that IAO of L must prove God created everything, aliens didn't do it, and that there is a God.

Now for new argumentation against the statement "Cats are not evil":

In order for the negative to win this debate, I need only to prove that some cats are evil, or that cats are a little bit evil. The affirmative has locked herself into the burden to prove that all cats are not evil. I contend to anyone that has seen pet cemetery that there are evil cats in the world.

As a Christian, IAO of L also has the burden of dispelling Christian belief that cats are in fact evil. Please refer to the following link for details. http://dbhome.dk...
Additionally, cats are associated with witches, who are by Christian standards, evil.

This is not a comparison debate, meaning we're not saying that cats are better/worse than dogs, not are we saying "We dogs are worse than it than cats are" Instead, we are simple arguing the evilness of cats.

Finally, I argue that the positive utility created by cats is created purely in the minds of their owners and cat lovers. Cats absorb resources and do not give back any positive good that is not realized but in the mind of the beholder. Take for example a cat that rubs up against your leg. This cat wants you to scratch its back. It does not want to give you pleasure because it is soft and cuddly. No, it only wishes that you scratch the spot it can't reach. Cats cannot be made to serve another creature, and will not fetch, bring your slippers, nor serve as a good hunting companion. I ask the readers of this debate, when was the last time you thought that a cat would scare off someone trying to break into your house? When was the last time you saw a seeing eye cat? If you are like me and have never seen any of these things, you must vote for Lorca, as cats (at least some) are evil.
Debate Round No. 2
Im_always_right

Pro

Okay, my name has nothing to do with cats being evil.

Kizmet and Perra Amega, form a group, with another cat, they are social together, I thought you saw they were togther, but apparently you were to busy kicking them to tell, none of them has killed anyone, or to my knowlage, scratched a person.

Karma, did fetch, smaller animals cats would normally hunt. She as a cat did not know, people did not know people don't eat those things, such as small birds or gophers. She did it as a sign that she was gratefull, knew we were the "alpha", and love. My opponent cannot argue this.
Here is a link of the reasons cats would do this: http://searchwarp.com...

Definition of evil: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Meaning that in order to be evil, one must first know what is good and make a conscience decision to act in a way that is NOT good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you ladies and gentlemen
lorca

Con

In this debate, IAO of L did not conclusively prove that cats are not evil. She only showed that she does like cats. Her definition of evil is not adequate, since something can be evil without having thought of its own. I will agree about the morally objectionable part, as I find the actions and collective generalized behavior to of cats to be morally objectionable.

House cats are not social animals, as they do not require a social group for survival. They show no responsibility to a greater group, much the same way packs of dogs or elephants would.

In summary, the pro in this debate did not beyond a shadow of a doubt prove that cats are not evil, by the fact that she did not provide for the fact that some cats do display morally objectionable traits.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
lol KGohst...it is....and CATS ARE NOT ALWAYS EVIL!!!!
Some cats CAN act evily, it does not make ALL cats evil....I have seen some very nice cats, and some very mean ones. Just s I have seen with people. People are just as selfish. So if all cats are evil, all people are evil.

Meaning, no matter how good you are, how much money you donate, how nice you are, you will always be evil. Which many people agree with, the people that agree with that have a right to, and to also believe cats are evil.
So in a sense they are, but not as evil as Lorca (pops lol) says they are. The only reasons I know for him hating cats are:
1) They look like aliens
2) Egyptions worshipped them
3) He is allergic

But I remember clearly when Kizmet (our cat obviously)
invadsed our house, Lorca picked her up, and cuddled and petted her. HE is the reason we kept her. Xera is the reason we kept Karma, the second evilist cat I know, and the only one that fully matched my personality. Banshee was the evilist, you could tell she was wild (same with Karma, and Kizmet, who was wild was far nicer and always purring, to this day)
she would scratch anyone who came within 5 feet, she would hiss if she saw you, and often jumped out the window onto a tree. the only person she was nice to was Xera, because she fed her eggs every morning.

In conclusion, cats have many personality traits, and are not strictly evil or bad. Some cats may have a personality that people view as bad, but so does everyother animal, including mankind.
Posted by KGhost 8 years ago
KGhost
I must say this is not normally something that I would vote on, but it sounded like it might be amuzing and it was. I am going to have to vote for pops though because IAO of L definately didn't not prove that cats are not evil. I personally agree with Lorca because I have seen some evil cats in my lifetime.

On a different note, I am sure that dinner conversation at you guys house is very interesting.

Thank you for the entertaining debate.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I am refraining from voting in this as I do not wish either side to smear shaving cream on my head in the middle of the night.
Posted by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
Yes, I, Lorca, am debating my daughter, IAO of L.

Ragnar, it's nice to know someone's actually paying attention, reading, and ready to critique my debates. I'll be sure to be more thorough and logically accurate when I write this stuff at 4 am.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Yes lorca is my stepfather, and the one who showed me this website. However I am sick of him saying cats are evil.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Wait, is this guy arguing against his daughter?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"

IAO of L still has not concretely proven there is a God, which is a major foundation of Christian belief. Instead, she simply stated that since I am a Christian I believe. I contend that if this was the case, only people that first believe in God can become Christians. f this was the case, why would so many missionaries be trying to "spread" the word of God if the only people that believed in God are Christians?"

Two fallacies, at least. First, just because only people who believe in god are ACTUALLY Christians, does not mean only they are POTENTIALLY Christians, i.e. can become such. It may be true that starting to believe in God is a necessary condition for becoming a Christian, but that would only imply that a potential for belief in God is a necessary condition for a potential for being a Christian, not that an actual belief in God is a necessary condition for the potential for being Christian.

Second, fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because only those who believe in God are Christians does not mean that only Christians believe in God.

"As a Christian I do believe in God, but I do not believe that this is even the majority for people on this website."

That is irrelevant, because you are the one debating her. It is a performative contradiction for you to believe in God and yet argue as though you didn't have sufficient reason for believing in God. You have already conceded God's existence, therefore, either accept the consequences or repudiate the concession.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
lol, at least you admit it, unlike some people . . .
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"I know this is way off topic, but my opponent has brought it up, so I will refute it. "

No, if something is off topic, you should label it as a red herring fallacy and be done with it. No need to waste your character limit.

ps: Yes, I am a hypocrite. :D
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by B2BCHAOS 8 years ago
B2BCHAOS
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Shrieking_Ostrich 8 years ago
Shrieking_Ostrich
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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 
Vote Placed by noshinico 8 years ago
noshinico
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by That1gurl38me 8 years ago
That1gurl38me
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by 2dumb2care 8 years ago
2dumb2care
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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 
Vote Placed by slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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 
Vote Placed by KGhost 8 years ago
KGhost
Im_always_rightlorcaTied
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