The Instigator
Lagothedoggo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Designer Dogs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,719 times Debate No: 15478
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Lagothedoggo

Con

Designer Dogs are not better pets than purered dogs. Some say that there is a guarantee of better genetics in a designer dog, but that is not neccesarily true. Just crossing two purebred dogs doesn not guarantee the best traits of the parent dogs in the puppies. Also, the "standard" of a designer dog is extremely vague, and gives no information to anyone considering buying a dog how their pet will end up. For example, the "Cockapoo" has no standard of color or size. (1) It is impossible for anyone who is looking for a designer dog as a pet to know what they will end up with, whereas with a purebred dog, the size, temperament and color will be more or less guaranteed, with a reputable breeder.
1. http://www.cockapoos.com...
TUF

Pro

Designer Dogs are not better pets than purered dogs"

Pure red eh? I was half tempted to make this a semantics debate about Clifford the big red dog, but I decided to be nice and give her the benefit of the doubt.

Thus I will be arguing in favor of designer dogs for this debate.

First off I will define designer dog, as a cross breed between two different dogs, to provide certain genetic results within the offspring. (IE improved intelligence, looks, texture of fur, etc)

http://www.britannica.com...

First my opponent states that there is no way of knowing whether a pure bred dog will end up the way we want it.
Unfortunately however, this information is incorrect.

Simply by doing the homework on your genetics, we can literally produce any type of dog we want.
If I want a pug mix, all I have to do is find to parenting dogs with the genetics I want, and mix them together to see which traits the youth will get.

I can get practically any dog I want, all I have to do is do the research and find two parenting dogs, and I know exactly what I'm getting.

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com...

A1: Designer dogs offer and allow people to choose between a variety of different pets. When you go out looking for a bed you want a bed that fits you perfectly.

Same with the designer dogs. If there is two pets that have great qualities you want in your pet, the best way to get the best of both worlds is to get a designer dog, as they elaborate and expand your freedom to choose what exactly you want.

A2: Designer dogs are better because they offer improved results.

If I want a dog that is both loving and loyal, yet protective, I can you to cross-breed between, say, a golden retriever and a German Shepard. Only cross-bred dogs can offer the better statistics of exactly what you want.

If you have a golden retriever, and its loving, yet you don't feel it's protective enough, you really can't do anything about it seeing as its purebred.

As Charley Sheen would say, having a cross-bred dog allows you to be bi-winning. You win here, and you win there.

http://hubpages.com...

A3: Designer dogs offer a new expansion of growth and development.

By cross breeding dogs, we are expanding our growth of knowledge in the area of genetics. We are creating new separate species of dogs to grow and live with the perfect qualities.

When designer dogs re-create and re-produce, they are offering to civilizations to the do populace. People have more than, to choose from then they may have originally had. Designer dog help expansion is dog development. Also, going to loving families who put these dogs to good use in their homes, we are opening up new doors to doggy/family relationships.

For all of the reasons I have provided, I urge the viewers to vote pro.
Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 1
Lagothedoggo

Con

Is your definition of a designer dog really correct? Do designer dogs provide the certain genetic results that you want? How can you be sure you'll end up with a smarter, prettier, dog?

You say that if you want a pug mix, all you have to do is find two parenting dogs with the genetics you want, and mix them together to "see which traits the youth will get." This is the key phrase, because breeding designer dogs is a guessing game, which you seem to have implied in that last statement. I can find a Golden Retriever and a Greyhound, breed them together and hope to get a dog with the temperament of a Golden Retriever and the eyesight of a Greyhound, but I am just as likely to end up with the stubborn, independent spirit of the greyhound and plain old Golden Retriever eyesight.

A1: You said that Designer dogs offer and allow people to choose between a variety of different pets. However, have you stopped to think about all the numerous types of purebred dogs? There are sled dogs, gun dogs, herding dogs and so many more. Some, such as the Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Cocker Spaniel, and Jack Russell Terrier have friendly, affectionate personalities, and some, such as the Shiba Inu, Dalmatian and Chow are much more independent. Also the Poodle, Bichon Frise, Maltese, Schnauzer, Kerry Blue Terrier, Bedlington Terrier and Soft Coated Wheaten terrier are all hypoallergenic. So you see, purebred dogs are available that can fit anyone's lifestyle or personality.
http://www.akc.org...

A2: Designer dogs offer improved results. As I already stated earlier, the results of a designer dog are not guaranteed, and, using your example, crossing a Golden Retriever with a German Shepard does not immediately give you an affectionate dog with a more protective personality. For example, the Golden Retriever "came into prominence because of the desire for a medium-sized dog that would do well in wild-fowling, both waterfowl and upland game." (AKC 59). It goes on to say that records were kept of the breeding of the Golden Retriever from 1835 until 1890 by Lord Tweedmouth of Scotland. As you can see, the time it took to produce a dog with the abilities they wanted took 55 years, a lot more time and a lot more complicated than a first generation cross.

Also, I have to question what authority Charlie Sheen has on the subject of cross bred dogs. I could say that rocket science is the easiest science on the planet, but I would be surprised if anyone took my words seriously, since I know nothing about rocket science.

A3: You say that "When designer dogs re-create and re-produce, they are offering to civilizations to the do populace. People have more than, to choose from then they may have originally had." However, Patti Strand, a member of the board of directors on the American Kennel Club and breeder of the winning Dalmatian in the Westminster Dog show says, "Crossing two different breeds masks recessive traits during the first generation, but in the second generation of designer dogs the negative genes reappear with a vengeance." So, if we had first generation designer dogs running around, soon we'll have deaf dogs with hip displaysia, and tracheal collapse staggering around the neighborhood, which will certainly not help the problem of homeless dogs that is very prominent today in our society.

Lastly, there are only so many loving families wanting a designer dog. And it will be a sad day when all the cockapoos and schnoodles have taken over, their only purpose to be swept up and carried in designer purses, when the history of their breed will only involve a person interested in getting rich, and the legend of purebred dogs like the heroic Saint Bernard, or the loyal Bouvier des Flandres are forever lost in the Swiss Alps and the small town in Belgium. Purebred dogs have played a large part in our history, and the worst thing we can do is replace them with expensive replicas, their only claim to fame being their hypoallergenic fur.
TUF

Pro

How can you be sure you'll end up with a smarter, prettier, dog?"

Again, it's all about doing your homework on genetics. We know that combining genders with different DNA traits together, we can provide certain results. How do you know we will get some mutated weird dog by having a hybrid? Really you don't. We know that certain science provides certain results, proper genetics being a big one.

If I want a golden retriever and greyhound mix, its not really a gamble. We are advanced enough in technology to know how to find the perfect genetic results

http://www.dogdnatest.net...

Also in the video link I have provided below, you can see how state of the art technology proves how genetic testing provides perfect results thus how can it be a gamble?

http://www.dog-dna.com...

A1: My opponent basically talks about how their are alot of purebred dogs out there. This is true. And having mixed dogs really only widens our range and variety of pets, offering us almost infinite possibilities.

Really, my opponent must find a reason for us not to use hybrid dogs using that logic.
Why have to select from either of 2 species of dogs when you can have the perfect qualities you want from both?

Having hybrid dogs around, is really only logical.

A2: My opponent states that the results are not guaranteed. Quite laughably, she uses Scotland from 1835-1890 as a good card.
Hmmm... Let's think about this one.
First of all Scotland back the didn't nearly have the knowledge of proper DNA testing, nor how determine which dogs would be the gene carriers etc.
Now that all this information is available to us, how could we possibly not provide perfect results?
My opponent must prepare a big piece of modern day evidence proving such in-effective results for her rebuttal to be valid.

And again I laugh at my opponents mis-interpretation of the Charley Sheen comment.
That was a joke. Charley Sheen made a ridiculous comment in a recent interview about how he was bi-winning. He doesn't say anything about dogs.
I was basically just saying hybrid dogs offer us more possibilities.

A3: Yet again my opponent makes a rash argument.
She said that recessive genes are masked at first according to the AKC. I fail to see how are second generation "negatives", would be dogs running around with "hip displaysia and tracheal collapse" as my opponent specifically quoted.
The negative genes we are avoiding are just the genes we don't want, not diseases and bodily malfunctions.
So your saying the second generation will bring us what...? Normal dogs again?
This is harsh evidence against keeping hybrid pets present in our society!

And finally, how are we replacing purebreds with hybrids? There are people who will still want purebreds even with the designer dogs. And it is another assumption to say that all dogs will be swept away in purses.
Actually that is rather a rare occurrence, as some people just wants dogs with traits to better suit there family's environment.
Cockapoos and schnoodles won't "take over" because there will always be just as many purebreds around.

Please vote pro for all these reasons. Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 2
Lagothedoggo

Con

Well, I viewed your sources a little better than I think you did. The website and the video told me absolutely nothing about how breeding dogs will give me the exact traits I want. However, now I know where to go if I can't figure out the ancestry of my mixed breed dog. And again, we have no idea what the traits of our dog will be when we combine the, as you again stated in saying, "How do you know we will get some mutated weird dog by having a hybrid? Really you don't."

A1: You ask for a reason to not use hybrid dogs. Well here's a good one: Consider the number of homeless pets being euthanized daily or otherwise aimlessly wandering the streets? Does that make you want to keep creating more and more "breeds" of dog? I don't think this is logical at all. Also, there are a lot more than 2 species of dog.

A2: The opposite of laughable, I think using 1855 Scotland was quite a strong argument. In fact, I could've used Hungary in the 1450's and the breeding of the Kuvasz. You claim that Scotland didn't have the knowledge of DNA testing or genetics. So then my question to you is how did the Golden Retriever ever come about? And how then was it able to achieve the purposes they needed if the Scottish had no knowledge of genetics?
You ask how we could possibly not provide perfect results. The answer is because we don't need them. If we had the need for a dog to pull carts, or herd our sheep, I'm sure there would be someone willing to take the years of time it takes to create a dog to do this and breed true.
But there is no need anymore.
The reason is because of how technologically advanced we are these days, and the fact that there are enough purebred dogs out there already to do those jobs. Just because we understand how genes are passed to other dogs doesn't mean we can create the exact breed of dog we want in one generation.

And about the Charlie Sheen comment: I don't exactly understand how using a "ridiculous comment" would help to strengthen your argument.

A3: You say you're confused to see how second generation designer dogs possess negatives genes. This doesn't neccesarily mean that every second generation dog will be deathly ill, but that that the recessive genes we were able to hide in the first generation will be present in the second. You fail to see this because you haven't "done your homework on genetics." Take a look at this link.

http://webspace.cal.net...

If purebreds will always be around, then why do we need more and more dogs around to "offer more possibilities?" Really the only possibilities that are offered to us are the establishment of more animal shelters and a lot more stray dogs.
TUF

Pro

Seeing as you my, opponent, are supposed to have the BOP in this case, you must prove how designer dogs don't give us correct results. You have not offered any sources telling us how it is a gamble. Why are designer dogs so popular in the U.S., an other country if these mixed dog breed have such "negative" results? Really your arguments you make on this are un-founded.

A1: " Consider the number of homeless pets being euthanized daily or otherwise aimlessly wandering the streets? Does that make you want to keep creating more and more "breeds" of dogs?"

This is a horrible reason against designer dogs. No matter what there will be an equal number of dogs that are homeless on the the streets. Simply breeding a new species doesn't speed the development of pups, it simply just changes the species of dogs available. Also your resolution isn't about whether these crossbred dogs are immoral, just that pure-breds are "better". So this arguments can be considered irrelevant.

"Also, there are a lot more than 2 species of dog."

Yes. That was what we call an 'example'.

Designer dogs offer us alot more options of dogs to look at. Also most of these dogs are cross-bred before we order them. So basically we could go to pet store and look for the dog that already has these traits we are looking for. My opponent cannot argue results because we choose the results that have already been made by hand picking out our designer pets.

A2: " You claim that Scotland didn't have the knowledge of DNA testing or genetics. So then my question to you is how did the Golden Retriever ever come about?"

Ha, first of all your claiming golden retrievers are purebreds. Given your logic, all pure-breds are cross breeds. Given your logic we can't like purebreds either because at one point in time they were a different species. Technically, given your logic, all pure-bred dogs are cross-bed dogs as well, thus you contradict yourself.

But even giving you the benefit of the doubt, the argument still falls.
Obviously the technology of DNA testing has increased significantly over the years. From 1850 to now, we've learned so much more about DNA testing, that we know how to mix and match any parent to produce the proper offspring.

http://www.huxford.com...

"If we had the need for a dog to pull carts, or herd our sheep, I'm sure there would be someone willing to take the years of time it takes to create a dog to do this and breed true.
But there is no need anymore."

However the lack of need is subjective and relative. Some people still feel the need or want for these traits in dogs which is why we even have designer dogs in the first place!
The simple fact is we do have the technology. We do have the resources, and whether we need to or not is irrelevant, if there is out there who want a designer dog with certain traits and is willing to pay a good amount for them.
Arguments against this, are unfounded.

Please drop the Charley Sheen comment, I understand you have a hard time computing jokes. All I was saying is that cross-bred dogs offer us more possibilities, and thus win in ever aspect of this debate.

A3:
"This doesn't neccesarily mean that every second generation dog will be deathly ill, but that that the recessive genes we were able to hide in the first generation will be present in the second."

So what?
Please drop the arguments on how recessive traits deter cross-bred dogs in second generation. As I have shown, recessive traits do what? Give the dogs back their pure-bred traits? Again, so what? This arguments holds no weight because, really it doesn't show cross-breeding producing any negative results, unless my opponent considers the traits pure-breds hold negative.

Even when this situation occurs, we really solve it simply by creating the new generation of cross-bred pets. Resolution resolved! Pure-breds aren't better than cross-breds.

And really, what about the cross-breds are even in-superior to pure breds? My opponent hasn't really made any arguments saying anything about this. Relative to pure-breds, there really isn't any negative factors to compare the two with. So how can pure-breds be superior?

Really there is no logical reason for us not to cross-breed pets, given this, I urge the voters to vote pro. Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Gem 6 years ago
Gem
Every study that's been done in this area show that hybrid "Designer Dogs" (or mutts, crossbreds, mixes, if you prefer) are healthier and live longer than the average purebred. There is no published evidence that shows otherwise.
Posted by alextp7 6 years ago
alextp7
If you put a purebred and a purebred together, guess what you will get? A Mixed!!! Stupid people.
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
"WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?!?!"
Baha-Men
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
LagothedoggoTUFTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though Con was instigator, the wording of her first round makes me believe Pro had the BOP to prove designer dogs are better than purebred dogs. However, I don't feel that Con really asserted any real arguments and Con was the instigator (so should have).
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
LagothedoggoTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side really convinced me. I've had both mixed dogs and pure bred dogs; and personally everything will come down to temperament of the individual dog. I would have like to see some arguments about inbreeding from the Pro, and some constructive arguments about pure bred dogs from Con. Over-all I guess I have to say it was a good debate since my opinion was equally balanced at the debate's end. But I do give the spelling point to Pro for various mistakes by Con.