The Instigator
funnycn
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
3177318
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Does Pokemon justify animal abuse?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
3177318
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,188 times Debate No: 62404
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

funnycn

Con

  • I believe it is NOT justifying animal abuse.
  • PRO must prove otherwise.
i. Forfeit once and it's automatic loss.

ii. No insulting.


iii. The bible is a limited source. If you use the bible, it must have a secondary source to back it up.


iv. This debate is to be taken seriously. No trolling, no nonsense, and I have no tolerance for it.


v. Round one is acceptance.


vi. Round five is the conclusion.


3177318

Pro

As the person who started this topic, I shall accept thee challenge!
Debate Round No. 1
funnycn

Con

Right then, let's get started shall we?

It doesn't even justify it either. People will find one thing wrong with a show or a game and turn it into something it isn't. Pokémon is one of those shows. The creatures don't even die, and the trainers love the Pokémon too. So animal abuse isn't being justified in this cute show. The Pokémon agree to live with their master's, and agree to fight. Let's define animal abuse though...

"The crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death." [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...]


So it seems that animal abuse focuses mostly on death. Now, aside from creepy pasta, when has a Pokémon ever died? In the real show, not creepy pasta, not fan-fictions. The original adorable show. Never. It also says "Neglect". Pokémon are never really neglected. Not even Team Rocket abuses their Pokémon and they're the criminals. The Pokémon are fed, given shelter, and water. They aren't "put in imminent danger of death" either. In fact, they really can't die and when they do get hurt the trainers make sure they get the best health care. Animal abuse is based on hatred. Pokémon, is based on love and trust.

The whole fighting part of the show isn't abuse either. Why? There's a mutual agreement between the trainers and Pokémon to fight and have trust in another. The Pokemon don't even disagree to fighting, they do it in the wild anyways, just like real animals. The Pokémon fight, they become famous and the Pokémon get loved and even get stronger while the Pokémon who sit in the tall grass get weaker. It is a symbiotic relationship. There is mutual gain for both parties.

What about capturing them in pokeballs? That's the whole shelter deal. The better the ball, the better the comfort. I guess some Pokemon get better treatment though. Nothing wrong with spoiling your favorite pet.

The show has a positive effect on children rather than negative. It teaches kids about trust, loyalty, friendship and generosity.

3177318

Pro

I"m just going to go ahead and grab a couple points from my other post and elaborate on that.

"Whether you've seen the show or not, the overall story of the show is basically this: A kid goes around capturing Pokemons, robbing the Pokemons of their freedom so he can use them in fights much like dog fighting to earn his glory as the best Pokemon trainer in the world. As if that isn't enough, in order to capture these Pokemons you don't simply throw the Pokeballs at them. You have to literally beat the hell out of these Pokemons, crippling them to the point where they cannot fight back or run away to capture them. If that's not animal abuse I don't know what is. "

Any implication or promoting of a certain action don"t necessary mean the performer or the media promoting the action has to do the exact actions that it is implying or promoting. Let"s look at a quick example:

http://cdn.rsvlts.com...

If you can bring up the image you can clearly see the woman, the ketchup, and the text don"t mean anything if you just read it for what it is. But when you put them all together you can see the implied meaning and what it is promoting. The woman loves the ketchup and loves the phrase but that is the image that the promoter wants the viewers to be influenced by and thus achieving their goal of promotion.

The show Pokemon indeed does portray the trainers and the pokemons as having a mutually beneficial relationship between them. But in an anime world it"s up to the artist to decide what these characters will express as their emotions. If you look at a film and the film shows a boy being beaten by his father to the point where the boy is dying and yet the boy is cheering the father on, what will your thoughts be like when viewing a film like this? Will you be saying this is clearly not domestic violence because the boy isn"t rejecting the beating but embracing it? Or how about a cartoon where African Americans are servants and the masters are consist of Caucasians, but the servants are happy serving their masters? Is that promoting racism or is it simply a lovely family cartoon? The characters are fictional, the expressions they have, the personalities they have are all dictated by how the artist or how the directors wants it. Anything they want, be it laughter, joy, or sadness.

Now let"s take a look at animal cruelty. I would greatly disagree with you that animal abuse focuses mostly on death. If that is the case, all the abusive owners can easily torture their pets all they want, however they want, as long as they don"t kill it. Your source:

"The crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one,beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholdingfood and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death." [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......]

It is stating that animal cruelty is the act of inflicting physical pain on the domesticated animal, creating suffering on the domestic animal, OR bestowing death on to the domestic animal, and that includes neglecting the animal to the point where it will die or come close to dying.

Of course fictional characters can"t really die, but then does it really need to be dead to get the message through? As with the film example with the boy and his father. The pokemon trainer did everything stated in the definition of animal cruelty except killing the pokemon. And yes the trainers DO neglect their pokemons. You might ask how? By releasing it and not caring for it any longer. The animal isn"t coming close to death, but try abandoning your pet dog and leave it in the middle of a forest and never coming back for it, tell me that"s not animal abuse.

Any sort of fighting done with animals is considered animal cruelty. The animal doesn"t know any better than to do what its owner is telling it to do. That"s why the famous American football player Michael Vick was jailed for dog fights. What animals do in the wild they do it out of necessity to survive, but what the pokemon trainer is doing is using the pokemon to fight for badges to prove that he is the best trainer. I"m pretty sure pokemons don"t have to do that in the wild. As for the health care, if the trainer doesn"t do that I"m pretty sure the pokemon is going to die/faint in the next fight. It"s a repeated abuse process. You force the pokemon to get hurt, heal it, make it fight again, heal it again, and so on. The pokemon is probably better off getting released rather than taking the repeated abuse. The trainer is doing to fights for his personal gains and not for the well being of his pokemons.

The pokeballs may look like shelters but they are actually prisons. The pokemons don"t get any exercise, no oxygen, no food, no water, no toys, and no socializing with other pokemons. What you were referring to as the favorite pet actually gets a more humane treatment as you said (I would assume that is Pikachu). That is the comparison for the abuse. Why isn"t the trainer treating all his pokemons the same way? Pikachu is clearly enjoying its time outside the pokeball and you wonder why it doesn"t want to go in the pokeball. Also from my understanding is the better the ball, the easier it is to capture the pokemon, just like a better hunting equipment would do.

The show is inducing a master and slave relationship between the trainer and his pokemons, as well as heavily promoting animal abuse. The show not only reinforces the definition of animal cruelty but displays the act in a manipulative way so the children viewers do not realize the animals are being abused in the process.
Debate Round No. 2
funnycn

Con

"Whether you've seen the show or not, the overall story of the show is basically this: A kid goes around capturing Pokemons, robbing the Pokemons of their freedom so he can use them in fights much like dog fighting to earn his glory as the best Pokemon trainer in the world. As if that isn't enough, in order to capture these Pokemons you don't simply throw the Pokeballs at them. You have to literally beat the hell out of these Pokemons, crippling them to the point where they cannot fight back or run away to capture them. If that's not animal abuse I don't know what is. "

Robbing them of their freedom so he can fight? Read my argument please, the part about the mutual agreement between pokemon and humans.

"Any implication or promoting of a certain action don"t necessary mean the performer or the media promoting the action has to do the exact actions that it is implying or promoting. Let"s look at a quick example:"

It's a picture of a woman...? That has nothing to do with the promotion of Pokemon justifying animal abuse at all. Not even figuratively.

"If you can bring up the image you can clearly see the woman, the ketchup, and the text don"t mean anything if you just read it for what it is. But when you put them all together you can see the implied meaning and what it is promoting. The woman loves the ketchup and loves the phrase but that is the image that the promoter wants the viewers to be influenced by and thus achieving their goal of promotion"

Not really. Actually, if anything it doesn't show anything at all. It's almost comical really. I am trying to understand the deeper meaning of it, but really I don't see it. If you claim the viewers are supposed to think the woman can open it, then it's already done.


"The show Pokemon indeed does portray the trainers and the pokemons as having a mutually beneficial relationship between them. But in an anime world it"s up to the artist to decide what these characters will express as their emotions. If you look at a film and the film shows a boy being beaten by his father to the point where the boy is dying and yet the boy is cheering the father on, what will your thoughts be like when viewing a film like this? Will you be saying this is clearly not domestic violence because the boy isn"t rejecting the beating but embracing it? Or how about a cartoon where African Americans are servants and the masters are consist of Caucasians, but the servants are happy serving their masters? Is that promoting racism or is it simply a lovely family cartoon? The characters are fictional, the expressions they have, the personalities they have are all dictated by how the artist or how the directors wants it. Anything they want, be it laughter, joy, or sadness."

NOT EVEN RELATED TO POKEMON!

"Any sort of fighting done with animals is considered animal cruelty. The animal doesn"t know any better than to do what its owner is telling it to do. That"s why the famous American football player Michael Vick was jailed for dog fights. What animals do in the wild they do it out of necessity to survive, but what the pokemon trainer is doing is using the pokemon to fight for badges to prove that he is the best trainer. I"m pretty sure pokemons don"t have to do that in the wild. As for the health care, if the trainer doesn"t do that I"m pretty sure the pokemon is going to die/faint in the next fight. It"s a repeated abuse process. You force the pokemon to get hurt, heal it, make it fight again, heal it again, and so on. The pokemon is probably better off getting released rather than taking the repeated abuse. The trainer is doing to fights for his personal gains and not for the well being of his pokemons."

Read my argument about the mutual agreement.

"The pokeballs may look like shelters but they are actually prisons. The pokemons don"t get any exercise, no oxygen, no food, no water, no toys, and no socializing with other pokemons. What you were referring to as the favorite pet actually gets a more humane treatment as you said (I would assume that is Pikachu). That is the comparison for the abuse. Why isn"t the trainer treating all his pokemons the same way? Pikachu is clearly enjoying its time outside the pokeball and you wonder why it doesn"t want to go in the pokeball. Also from my understanding is the better the ball, the easier it is to capture the pokemon, just like a better hunting equipment would do."

How can you prove what goes on in the pokeball? You've never been in one and the show doesn't show what's it like. Hell, it could be a paradise.


Before you post another argument PLEASE look at my argument. It already shows how your argument is false. Especially the fighting parts of your claims.

If you are trolling, please stop. If you are trolling, you have broken the rules of this argument.


Read my argument.
3177318

Pro

I did read your argument, I was responding to your points in the argument. I don't see how my argument is false in any way. You misinterpreted the definition of animal abuse, which I took the liberty of further explaining it to you instead of bashing on you. If I am wasting this much time typing all these arguments and making valid points and you find me to be trolling I don't even know what to say.

"Robbing them of their freedom so he can fight? Read my argument please, the part about the mutual agreement between pokemon and humans."

You said I missed the point on mutual agreement. But are you reading my arguments as well? I said there's mutual agreement between the pokemon and the trainer BECAUSE THE ARTIST MADE IT THAT WAY. I don't know if you're old enough to understand but when something is drawn, their on screen personality serves only to add to the story. The characters in the film could be happy and innocent while doing horrible things. You get me?

"It's a picture of a woman...? That has nothing to do with the promotion of Pokemon justifying animal abuse at all. Not even figuratively."

"Not really. Actually, if anything it doesn't show anything at all. It's almost comical really. I am trying to understand the deeper meaning of it, but really I don't see it. If you claim the viewers are supposed to think the woman can open it, then it's already done. "

I brought up that picture with the woman with the intention of showing you what an indirect promotion or implication would be like. I guess if you don't understand that part it's hard for the rest of the argument to carry on.

You said my examples weren't related to pokemon because apparently you don't understand implications in a film. I assumed you did and raised those examples to clarify and support the implications.

"How can you prove what goes on in the pokeball? You've never been in one and the show doesn't show what's it like. Hell, it could be a paradise."

So how do you know then? How do you know the pokemons aren't being tortured, experimented, or being electricuted in there? How do you know it's the same pokemon that's being summoned every time? All pokemons with the same names look the same.

If you are to invalidate my arguments without first understanding it, that's not debate, THAT IS TROLLING. If you do not understand a concept you can look it up. Rest assured that I am responding to everything you are saying. I don't troll on debates.
Debate Round No. 3
funnycn

Con

Actually you said "I"m just going to go ahead and grab a couple points from my other post and elaborate on that."
So you really didn't read my argument and look at that.
"You said I missed the point on mutual agreement. But are you reading my arguments as well? I said there's mutual agreement between the Pokémon and the trainer BECAUSE THE ARTIST MADE IT THAT WAY. I don't know if you're old enough to understand but when something is drawn, their on screen personality serves only to add to the story. The characters in the film could be happy and innocent while doing horrible things. You get me?"

Insulting is against the rules. I read your argument.


"I brought up that picture with the woman with the intention of showing you what an indirect promotion or implication would be like. I guess if you don't understand that part it's hard for the rest of the argument to carry on"

No I understand. You explained it was for the promotion and making the people think a woman can open it and I am aware of this.

"You said my examples weren't related to Pokémon because apparently you don't understand implications in a film. I assumed you did and raised those examples to clarify and support the implications."

Yet again, I understood the implications. The way you explained them however were comical.

"So how do you know then? How do you know the Pokémon's aren't being tortured, experimented, or being electrocuted in there? How do you know it's the same Pokémon that's being summoned every time? All Pokémon's with the same names look the same."

How can you be sure they're not?

"If you are to invalidate my arguments without first understanding it, that's not debate, THAT IS TROLLING. If you do not understand a concept you can look it up. Rest assured that I am responding to everything you are saying. I don't troll on debates."

I didn't say they were invalid. Nor did I say you were trolling. I said IF you were, don't do it. No I'm not trolling either.


To continue my argument...

It isn't animal abuse. There is no proof the Pokémon are actually being tortured in the pokeballs. They are fed and they are actually better off with a trainer than they are in the wild. It's beneficial to the trainer as well. They will have a companion, they will learn about trust, and they could be famous. Ash in the show, loves Pikachu and almost died once to save him (in one of the movies). That takes courage and is proof that the trainers don't intentionally harm their Pokémon.

3177318

Pro

I can't believe I even have to explain the part with my elaboration from the other post.
I'm bringing my part of the argument into this debate without retaliating against your argument first so you can have a go at me as well instead of just defending your own arguments. That's how you debate different opinions. Otherwise it'll just be you defending yourself against me. If you want me to simply poke at your argument without giving you the same chance that is fine with me.

If you think I didn't read your arguments then you don't understand what I typed up there.

You clearly DO NOT understand the implications behind the picture with the woman and ketchup.

"No I understand. You explained it was for the promotion and making the people think a woman can open it and I am aware of this."

Take the same picture and find someone to explain it to you.

I find it really hard to continue with this argument as you are misunderstanding my examples and questions.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@a_mysterious_stranger where is your RFD?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
funnycn3177318Tied
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: pro clearly showed at the very least an implication by Pokemon that infers it's alright to torture pokemon as long as you don't kill them. This evidence was never fully rebutted by con.
Vote Placed by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
funnycn3177318Tied
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: Pro wins arguments as He points out that the Pokemon are violently and against their will captured. Then they are trained to fight. Pro stated "You force the Pokemon to get hurt, heal it, make it fight again, heal it again, and so on. The Pokemon is probably better off getting released rather than taking the repeated abuse." Con rebutted with the idea of a "mutual agreement." I don't see it. The violent capture and battling of Pokemon seems anything but mutually beneficial. This portrayal of the treatment of animals, "pokemon," seems to justify animal abuse.