The Instigator
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
ZMowlcher
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Do you Support Sochi's Mass Stray Dog Killings

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 3 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 819 times Debate No: 45247
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Jifpop09

Con

The Sochi dog killings are probably the most inhumane event to animals this year. Olympics or not, I do not support it. I think that Russia should use the money it's paying exterminators to build shelters.

1rst round is acceptance and statement of stance.
ZMowlcher

Pro

I accept your challenge. While it may be a little inhumane to cull all these strange canines, people need to be protected. Russia and it's former states have a massive stray dog problem, something needs to be done.
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Con

While I have no problem with clearing the streets of dogs, I do have a problem with how Sochi is handling it. Right now, an estimated 5000-7000 dogs have been exterminated by Basya Services. These dogs are dying in inhumane ways, and some could consider this a massacre. Basya Services poisons the dog, letting them roam until they drop, and later picks up the bodies. This is not how dogs should be treated. They should be using the money they're paying the exterminators to make shelters, and encourage people to take in the strays. The sochi government is using the olympics as a cover to exterminate the dogs, which activists prevented the previous year. People should not stand for this kind of inhumane treatment. These dogs deserve a future.

ZMowlcher

Pro

I strongly agree that the dogs shouldn't be poisoned and let them die in the street, I still think that all of them shouldn't be saved. It would cost much more man power and money to go around and catch all the dogs, provide shelter, medical treatment, and food for the tens of thousands of them. There has been 20,000 attacks in 2007 in Moscow alone, with 8,000 of them requiring medical attention, (even then a few people died), though the majority of those being the highly aggressive feral dogs. While ALL the dogs shouldn't be killed their numbers need thinning, particularly the feral ones. After all, the resourceful strays of Russia are somewhat of an icon now.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Con

I strongly agree that the dogs shouldn't be poisoned and let them die in the street, I still think that all of them shouldn't be saved.

Of course some dogs are too vicious, but the company that is killing them is not singling them out.

It would cost much more man power and money to go around and catch all the dogs, provide shelter, medical treatment, and food for the tens of thousands of them.

The Sochi olympics have 4 times the budget of Vancouver. They could ask the IOC if they could use some of there 50 billion dollar budget, to shelter the dogs. The whole reason they are being killed in the first place is because of the olympics. Regardless, Sochi has only built one shelter. They are not doing all they can to help these dogs.

There has been 20,000 attacks in 2007 in Moscow alone, with 8,000 of them requiring medical attention, (even then a few people died), though the majority of those being the highly aggressive feral dogs.

The reason there are so many strays in the first place is because the Russian Federation refuses to build shelters. Extermination is not a solution. Until they build shelters, the amount of feral dogs will keep increasing.

While ALL the dogs shouldn't be killed their numbers need thinning, particularly the feral ones. After all, the resourceful strays of Russia are somewhat of an icon now.

Which is why they need shelters. Icon or Not, they are still living creatures. Thanks for debating with me, and I wish us both luck

Sources
----------
http://edition.cnn.com...

http://www.passportmagazine.ru...
ZMowlcher

Pro

While they do have the money to provide shelter for them now, what about after the Olympics? The left over will return to the government and the shelters are left without any money to care for the dogs. Even still, they want to have the most grandiose showing of the winter Olympics they can muster up, so all that money is going towards that. Also, shelters can only go so far. A common occurrence over here is shelters becoming overcrowded and dogs getting put down regardless, meaning it could either turn into: Kill them now or kill them later, a veritable damned you do damned if you don't situation.

If the people want shelters for the strays of Russia, they'll need to reach into their own pockets.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
@ZMowicher:

You need to read your resolutions more carefully. I understand that it's frustrating to you, but you DID concede that poisoning them in the streets was wrong.

Please do not imply that you're losing because of bias when the reason for your current score is very clear--and has been pointed out to you.

The resolution was specific to *what Sochi is doing*. Since poisoning the dogs in the street is what Sochi is doing, when you conceded it was wrong you lost the debate. You weren't defending "Some killing of stray dogs is okay", you weren't defending "Sochi could, in theory, kill some of its stray dogs for a good reason". If you were, you did a fine job giving some reasons why it could be supported. But that wasn't the resolution.
Posted by ZMowlcher 3 years ago
ZMowlcher
Of course no one would vote for the guy values human lives over dogs. I don't even understand why i even bothered accepting this. You know why I couldn't use sources other than the attack rate. People say I'm conceding saying poisoning them in streets is wrong, I'm not. No matter what I suggest, I lose.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Ha
Posted by ZMowlcher 3 years ago
ZMowlcher
Please, my half-life is a hundred thousand years.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Prepare to be Shermaned.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Jifpop09ZMowlcherTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think Pro fully understood what he had to do to win this debate. It's not enough to say they don't have the money, you have to say where that money would have to come from. All Con has to do is say that this is where that money belongs, even if it's a bit too much, and since i don't know the harms of diverting that cash, I can't say that that's a sizable harm. The fact that they want to spend this on the Olympics isn't enough - I'm getting from Con that saving dogs is incredibly important, and you have to outweigh. Aside from that, all I see is that there will be many vicious dogs among this number, a point I feel was rebutted by Con since they can be rehabilitated, and an argument that, in the long term, some of them are going to have to die, which is basically just mitigation. Con is also the only one with sources, so he wins there.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Jifpop09ZMowlcherTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded that Sochis mass stray dog killings were not appropriate. While he defended the principle of culling at least some, that wasn't the resolution. "I strongly agree that the dogs shouldn't be poisoned and let them die in the street, I still think that all of them shouldn't be saved" was where Pro lost this debate. The resolution was Sochi's stray dog killings, and Pro conceded that what was happening should not be happening. Thus, Con gets argument points. He also gets sources for having some, in contrast to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
Jifpop09ZMowlcherTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins sources because he actually used them, and I didn't sense much of a distinction in views here. Several statements can be considered a concession on Pro's side, so arguments to Con.