The Instigator
jay.gay
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sui_Generis
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Dog Fights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Sui_Generis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,072 times Debate No: 32588
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

jay.gay

Con

Okay, my argument is for the dogs who are treated terribly just to be put into a ring to fight another dog till death. Not only is this animal abuse it's also plain wrong.
Sui_Generis

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for offering this debate.

I'd like to clearly state the resolution as "Dog Fights Are Animal Abuse and Wrong." Further, I ask that voters use only the arguments presented within this debate, regardless of whether their previously held personal beliefs lead them to consider dog fights as wrong or as animal abuse.

As the instigator, I think it acceptable that the BoP lies with my opponent. While it was not specified, and because there are 5 rounds, I will use this first round for only acceptance. I look forward to the arguments posed by Con.
Debate Round No. 1
jay.gay

Con

First off, dog fights cause the harm of dogs. This equals to being animal abuse. People abuse these dogs by not feeding them, hurting them, and taunting them before a fight. This makes the dog more aggressive and violent. According to the website, www.peta.org/.../dogfighting-dogs-tortured-in-illegal-blood-sport. fights can go for hours and hours until a dog is injured to the point of were it can barely move or till it's dead. People say these dogs were bread to fight like this. I think they are wrong. These dogs are fighting (after being tortured) for human pleaser and not for survival. We make these animals fight and kill each other to make people happy and have a good time, that is wrong.
Sui_Generis

Pro

Dog fights cause the harm of dogs. This much I cannot refute. However, does this equate to being animal abuse? I do not think so.

For example, we injure dogs when we perform surgery. This is intentional harm of dogs, and I doubt you would classify veterinary surgery as animal abuse.

My opponent argues that people withhold food from these dogs, injure them, and taunt them before a fight, in order to increase their performance.

Nor is this animal abuse. We withhold food from our children when we think they are eating more than is beneficial for their purpose--that is, to perform well in life, in school, and athletically. A coach may impose dietary restrictions on a fighter, so that he becomes lean and muscular. I have already addressed injury, but I will add that injury can at times serve as a negative reinforcement as a means of spurring on their purpose--that is, the fights. Taunting dogs is no more immoral than taunting a cow. It does not have the cognitive ability to understand what taunting is. If it does, then it is no different than taunting any other sports performer.

My opponent argues that fighting can go on so long that a dog may die. This is unfortunate, however it is not against nature. Animals die every day. These dogs are feral creatures, they are not suitably domesticated. You don't say that two wolves killing each other is wrong or animal abuse. It isn't animal abuse even if it is filmed as entertainment. Further, I would argue that man, as a sentient being, has dominion over all of the dumb animals of the earth, dogs included. Treating the dogs as the wild animals that they are is not abuse. And it is certainly not wrong to utilize an animal that is beneath man for man's entertainment.

These animals ARE bred to fight like this. It is in their nature. The fact that humans derive pleasure from the observation of the natural course of events when two alpha dogs encounter one another is incidental. It is not wrong.

Beyond ALL of that, however, these attributes you mention are not INTRINSICALLY part of dog fighting, so even if you were to successfully argue that those practices are wrong, all you have done is prove that CERTAIN METHODS of dogfighting are wrong, not the act of dogfighting itself.
Debate Round No. 2
jay.gay

Con

My opponent says its natural for dogs to fight and kill each other. This is not so. It would be natural only if the dogs were fighting for survival. Which these dogs aren't. They are fighting because they are scared, hurt, and they have to fight. Dogs shouldn't be thrown into a cage to kill because not only is there agression for dogs will grow, it would also grow towards humans. We are endangering ourselves too. What if a dog who has just been fighting gets loose and attacks a kid or even an adult? All it knows is to injure, kill, or be killed, so the dog wont know NOT to attack humans. "These dogs were breed to fight." Not true. These dogs were NOT breed to fight, they were breed to protect. Dogs are supposed to be "mans best friend" not an intertanment.
Sui_Generis

Pro

Con argues that "it is not natural for dogs to fight and kill each other"..."except when they are fighting for survival." Con then posits that the dogs in arranged dog fights are NOT fighting for surivival. This is obvious not the case. If one of the dogs were to not fight, it would die. Thus, the only way for it to survive is to fight. Because it is fighting for survival, according to my opponent at least, it is natural for the dogs to fight.

Again, my opponent makes an practical claim that dog's should "not" be thrown into a cage just to kill, because they will become aggressive in general, and possibly attack humans if let loose. This is true. However, the risk involved in an activity does not necessarily affect its morality or its status as abuse. Just so in this case. I am endangering my life by crossing a street. By crossing train tracks. By crossing my yard. However none of these things are wrong, solely because they endanger myself or even others. Even if it were, then my opponent must think it at least marginally more acceptable to have dog fights in pits where there is no chance to escape, or if every spectator is given some sort of weapon with which to repel a loose dog.

Dogs have been bred for many purposes over the centuries. From scouting, to hunting, to herding, even to protection. Given enough generations and any line of dogs can be bred to fight in the hands of a skilled breeder. How do you think dogs were domesticated at first? There were no "housepet" versions of dogs at first. Only wild dogs. They were bred to be tame. These dogs have been bred to be feral and violent.

Please support your claim that dogs are supposed to be man's best friend and not entertainment; just because it is a cultural saying does not make it so. Culture also says diamonds are a girl's best friend. Do you agree with this? (I can present many more obviously untrue cultural sayings if you insist to see my point here.)
Debate Round No. 3
jay.gay

Con

jay.gay forfeited this round.
Sui_Generis

Pro

My opponent has forfeited.


I have no further arguments until my opponent presents hers.
Debate Round No. 4
jay.gay

Con

jay.gay forfeited this round.
Sui_Generis

Pro

My opponent has forfeited.

Extend arguments.

VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sui_Generis 4 years ago
Sui_Generis
Oh my true position is irrelevant. I will argue the opposite of your position, within the confines of this debate..
Posted by jay.gay 4 years ago
jay.gay
wait, so do you or do you NOT agree with dog fights and that they are animal abuse? :0
Posted by Sui_Generis 4 years ago
Sui_Generis
I realized after accepting this debate that we have the wrong sides for the resolution I stated.... oops.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
jay.gaySui_GenerisTied
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: Con's nonsensical opening statement warrants Pro to get the s/g point.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 4 years ago
Yraelz
jay.gaySui_GenerisTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
jay.gaySui_GenerisTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Bleeding heart liberal Con, did forfeit, however, Pro also was the superior debater in this.