The Instigator
patsox834
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
mongoose
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Dogs Pinch Running in Baseball.

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 5 votes the winner is...
mongoose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,349 times Debate No: 8513
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (36)
Votes (5)

 

patsox834

Pro

It's about time we all got over ourselves and allow canines to suit up for MLB games; dogs ought to be allowed to pinch run for a human player.

As long as he/she is vaccinated, domesticated, and willing to participate, it would add an entire new element to the game that is unprecedented in professional sports. We aren't just a human race -- but an entire population of organisms living together in unison; allowing animals to compete in MLB games may finally bring that fact to light.

They couldn't bat, pitch, or play defense, but they would compensate for it on the bases, where they can run significantly faster than your quickest human player.

The chess match between managers would be entertainment at it's finest. Picture a late inning scenario in which one manager has a Persian Greyhound on the bench eagerly awaiting the opportunity to swipe second, third, and possibly home, while the opposing manager is weighing his options of pitching to the #4 hole slugger, or seeing him be replaced by a canine as a pinch runner after issuing him an intentional pass. It's not an easy call for the manager of the dog either, as it carries certain risks as well.

He'd have to play late inning defense with 8 players as opposed to nine, and he risks the chance of having the dog bat which would obviously be a major void in the lineup; however, to ensure the dog's safety, they would be an automatic out.

I think many of you look at this as a slippery slope: first we will let dogs play baseball, and then a whole slew of animals will be bound to follow, but that simply isn't feasible.

The reason why dogs are still in existence is because they've adapted to their environment, specifically to humans, and have found their niche as a symbiotic relation to man kind. No other animal would naturally be inclined to willing participate by the rules, and thus would not be allowed to play simply based on regulations of the game.

Cheetahs are violent. Rabbits aren't very good at following orders, and they may just nibble on the grass unaware of what is happening. Thoroughbred horses are too powerful, and deer are too timid. Dogs are the only viable option, and while It may appear unorthodox at first, in the long run it not only will make the game more exciting, but more competitive and strategical.

I know what everyone is thinking, "well, then why not just let a peregrine falcon take off from first to second at speeds up to 200 mph?"

Well, that is just nonsensical. A falcon could easily avoid a tag because it could fly around the second basemen's glove. A falcon is also unpredictable. Imagine this...an opposing fan purchases tickets within ear shot of where the falcon will be standing on first base. Around his shoulder is a duffel bag that when checked by security, appears innocent enough. Just a few baseballs, felt point pens, and a copy of "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis for casual reading before game time. Just as the bird is about to take off for second base, he opens up his book, and out of the carved out pages he releases a well groomed falcon of the opposite sex that takes off into the night sky sure to attract the falcon in uniform.

These situations won't arise with a properly trained dog. They are more docile than most other species of animals (generally speaking), and deserve the opportunity if only the fans would allow them have it.

Are we bending any rules for them? No. There is no rule in the books that states a dog isn't allowed to participate in baseball. Are we creating new rules for them, or disregarding existing rules? No to both. Should some unforeseen circumstance arise by which they destroy the integrity of the game, then by all means write a new rule. "No Dogs Allowed," or maybe "No Animals Allowed," if the circumstance is specific enough to negate all non-human animals.

As of now, though, I think we'd be crazy not to do it.
mongoose

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate.

"As long as he/she is vaccinated, domesticated, and willing to participate, it would add an entire new element to the game that is unprecedented in professional sports. We aren't just a human race -- but an entire population of organisms living together in unison; allowing animals to compete in MLB games may finally bring that fact to light."

There can be many problems in this. What if some players are allergic to dogs? This would be very inconvenient for them: an inconvenience that could be avoided.

"They couldn't bat, pitch, or play defense, but they would compensate for it on the bases, where they can run significantly faster than your quickest human player."

Much faster. Greyhounds can reach speeds of 45 mph, while the human record is a mere half of that. [1]

"The chess match between managers would be entertainment at it's finest. Picture a late inning scenario in which one manager has a Persian Greyhound on the bench eagerly awaiting the opportunity to swipe second, third, and possibly home, while the opposing manager is weighing his options of pitching to the #4 hole slugger, or seeing him be replaced by a canine as a pinch runner after issuing him an intentional pass. It's not an easy call for the manager of the dog either, as it carries certain risks as well."

Yay. More time-taking decisions. As if they don't have enough of those already.

I'd assume that instead of letting a dog get an out at bat, he'd just replace the dog with someone else. Why would you keep the dog if he'd never get on base anyway?

"I think many of you look at this as a slippery slope: first we will let dogs play baseball, and then a whole slew of animals will be bound to follow, but that simply isn't feasible."

Why isn't it feasible? Why not cats? Why not wolves?

"The reason why dogs are still in existence is because they've adapted to their environment, specifically to humans, and have found their niche as a symbiotic relation to man kind. No other animal would naturally be inclined to willing participate by the rules, and thus would not be allowed to play simply based on regulations of the game."

That's just another problem: the rules. It would be extremely difficult to get the dogs to learn many of the rules (tag up for a pop fly, don't go to a base with a teammate on it, etc.). It would also be difficult for the fielders who might have to tag the dog out. They would be more liable to accidentally injure a dog than injure another player, so lawsuits could arise.

Your scenario for the falcon is ridiculous. How do you smuggle a bird of prey into a baseball stadium? Security checks INSIDE the bag. They would see the bird. They aren't THAT stupid.

"These situations won't arise with a properly trained dog. They are more docile than most other species of animals (generally speaking), and deserve the opportunity if only the fans would allow them have it."

Well, they'd also need the approval of certain animal laws, and the other players. What if someone has an irrational fear of dogs? Then what does he do when a greyhound is charging at him at over 40 miles per hour. He'd scream his head off.

"Are we bending any rules for them? No. There is no rule in the books that states a dog isn't allowed to participate in baseball. Are we creating new rules for them, or disregarding existing rules? No to both. Should some unforeseen circumstance arise by which they destroy the integrity of the game, then by all means write a new rule. 'No Dogs Allowed,' or maybe 'No Animals Allowed,' if the circumstance is specific enough to negate all non-human animals."

There are many other reasons to forbid dogs:

When running to a base, they would be much more likely than human players to injure the fielder on the base, waiting for the throw. By going much faster, they would be more liable to crash, and less liable to slow down. Their claws could tear the base, or the other player's face.

"3.02 No player shall intentionally discolor or damage the ball by rubbing it with soil, rosin, paraffin, licorice, sand-paper, emery-paper or other foreign substance."

A dog would probably reach the ball, hold it in its mouth, and damage it. Therefore, they should not be allowed.

Also, when the ball is thrown, many dogs could be inclined to chase after it, get it, and be out. That would ruin the game.

As of now, I think it would be insane to let dogs onto the baseball field.
Debate Round No. 1
patsox834

Pro

Firstly, I'd like to thank my opponent for his response, and for accepting.

<"What if some players are allergic to dogs? This would be very inconvenient for them: an inconvenience that could be avoided.">

Simple: allergy medication. That's how players deal with seasonal allergies, so it's clearly how they'd deal with dog allergies, as well.

<"Greyhounds can reach speeds of 45 mph, while the human record is a mere half of that. [1]">

My opponents above comment doesn't really seem to rebut much -- if anything, he's affirming my point that dogs are significantly faster. So...thanks.

<"I'd assume that instead of letting a dog get an out at bat, he'd just replace the dog with someone else. Why would you keep the dog if he'd never get on base anyway?">

Pinch hitters aren't always available. *If* there was an instance where the dog's spot in the batting order were to come up, then he would be an automatic out. The operative word is *if.*

<"Why isn't it feasible? Why not cats? Why not wolves?">

Wolves are much too violent and aggressive, and are much more difficult to domesticate. Cats would also be much more difficult to train to run the bases and obey orders.

<"That's just another problem: the rules. It would be extremely difficult to get the dogs to learn many of the rules (tag up for a pop fly, don't go to a base with a teammate on it, etc.). It would also be difficult for the fielders who might have to tag the dog out. They would be more liable to accidentally injure a dog than injure another player, so lawsuits could arise.">

Firstly, lawsuits? For injuries in a baseball game? I can't think of a single instance for someone being held liable for injury in a baseball game; why would that start happening now? Such lawsuits would be entirely frivolous.

Besides, the dogs would be owned by MLB, which I think is obvious, since they're the one's using them -- I doubt they're gonna sue themselves.

But even if they didn't own the dogs, MLB could get their owner to sign a consent form stressing that anyone who plays (canines and people) are more susceptible to injuries.

As for the rules, I think I covered that here: <"As long as he/she is vaccinated, domesticated, and willing to participate, it would add an entire new element to the game that is unprecedented in professional sports."> -- the dogs would go through extensive training regimens in order to ensure that they relatively easily comply to the rules put forth by MLB.

<"Well, they'd also need the approval of certain animal laws, and the other players. What if someone has an irrational fear of dogs? Then what does he do when a greyhound is charging at him at over 40 miles per hour. He'd scream his head off.">

Again, the dogs are vaccinated, domesticated, and are willing to participate. Any players with a fear of dogs would be exposed to the dogs being used in order to get used to them, which would therefore vanquish their fear of those specific dogs.

<"When running to a base, they would be much more likely than human players to injure the fielder on the base, waiting for the throw. By going much faster, they would be more liable to crash, and less liable to slow down. Their claws could tear the base, or the other player's face.">

Dogs can have their claws removed. Plus, I'd think a player's spikes would do more damage than a dog's claws.

And while the dog would be going faster, you also have to remember they weigh significantly less than humans, which would therefore take away from the severity of the blow. More speed? Yes. But they also way much less, typically, as well.

<""3.02 No player shall intentionally discolor or damage the ball by rubbing it with soil, rosin, paraffin, licorice, sand-paper, emery-paper or other foreign substance."

A dog would probably reach the ball, hold it in its mouth, and damage it. Therefore, they should not be allowed.

Also, when the ball is thrown, many dogs could be inclined to chase after it, get it, and be out. That would ruin the game.">

Again, the dogs would be trained, domesticated, whatever, which would take care of that problem, which means the above rule wouldn't be broken.

If a dog *did* break the rules, then they'd be consequently punished, just as a player would be if he were to break rules, which does happen. The dog would be replaced by another dog, which would also go through extensive training.

I've rationally addressed all the possible concerns my opponent has, and he actually seemed to help me, by reaffirming my point that dogs are significantly faster than humans. That in mind, I urge the voters to vote pro.
mongoose

Con

"Simple: allergy medication. That's how players deal with seasonal allergies, so it's clearly how they'd deal with dog allergies, as well."

But they don't want to take allergy medication. Also, it can have side effects. Loratadine, a common dog allergy medicine, has the side effect of being able to "affect performance of skilled tasks" [1] which could be very detrimental to a player's game playing.

"My opponent's above comment doesn't really seem to rebut much -- if anything, he's affirming my point that dogs are significantly faster. So...thanks."

Higher speed means harder to slow down.

"Pinch hitters aren't always available. *If* there was an instance where the dog's spot in the batting order were to come up, then he would be an automatic out. The operative word is *if.*"

Fine.

"Wolves are much too violent and aggressive, and are much more difficult to domesticate. Cats would also be much more difficult to train to run the bases and obey orders."

"More difficult" does not mean impossible. You are discriminating against cats! Err... SPECIESIST!!!

"Firstly, lawsuits? For injuries in a baseball game? I can't think of a single instance for someone being held liable for injury in a baseball game; why would that start happening now? Such lawsuits would be entirely frivolous."

Okay, maybe not lawsuits, but it could still cause extra injuries.

"Besides, the dogs would be owned by MLB, which I think is obvious, since they're the one's using them -- I doubt they're gonna sue themselves."

Wouldn't the dogs be owned by the owner of the team? It would be an owner suing another owner.

"But even if they didn't own the dogs, MLB could get their owner to sign a consent form stressing that anyone who plays (canines and people) are more susceptible to injuries."

But if they don't want this, then they don't sign it. Now what? No more dogs. You are assuming that they would sign it.

"As for the rules, I think I covered that here: <"As long as he/she is vaccinated, domesticated, and willing to participate, it would add an entire new element to the game that is unprecedented in professional sports."> -- the dogs would go through extensive training regimens in order to ensure that they relatively easily comply to the rules put forth by MLB."

So a dog can run while turning its head and paying attention to if the ball lands in the fielder's glove? I don't think they can do that.

"Again, the dogs are vaccinated, domesticated, and are willing to participate. Any players with a fear of dogs would be exposed to the dogs being used in order to get used to them, which would therefore vanquish their fear of those specific dogs."

You are assuming rationality. This is irrational fear. Being around dogs might not work. Then what?

"Dogs can have their claws removed. Plus, I'd think a player's spikes would do more damage than a dog's claws."

Maybe.

"And while the dog would be going faster, you also have to remember they weigh significantly less than humans, which would therefore take away from the severity of the blow. More speed? Yes. But they also way much less, typically, as well."

Then what do you do about large dogs, like the English Mastiff? It can weigh up to 250 pounds [2]! You must assume all dogs, not just the ones you want.

"Again, the dogs would be trained, domesticated, whatever, which would take care of that problem, which means the above rule wouldn't be broken."

Training has its limits.

"If a dog *did* break the rules, then they'd be consequently punished, just as a player would be if he were to break rules, which does happen. The dog would be replaced by another dog, which would also go through extensive training."

Because clearly we have so many dogs who have undergone extensive training and know how to play baseball.

My opponent has stressed many times how much training these dogs would need. This means that it would be very expensive for the owners to have dogs just to pinch run, because they would need excessive training, vaccinations, and all that other stuff. Humans would be so much more efficient, because they would be overall cheaper, less time-consuming, less risky, more capable of receiving instruction, and much more in the rules.

If any of my arguments win, then I have won this debate, because all it needs is one reason not to exist to not exist.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by monstrous15005 5 years ago
monstrous15005
The argument I have chosen to critique is one associated with dogs and baseball. The person arguing states, "It's about time we all got over ourselves and allow canines to suit up for MLB games; dogs ought to be allowed to pinch run for a human player." In my opinion this is a bad argument. It makes absolutely no sense. The person arguing for this just list a lot of explanations as to why dogs should be allowed to pinch run, none of these "premises" help further the argument or make it rational to even believe that the argument is something worth taking into account. The first premise that they give states that it would add an entire new element to the game that is unprecedented in professional sports. I think this is a bit much. If women aren't even allowed to participate in MLB should we really allow dogs? The person arguing then states why dogs would be a better option than other animals. At the end of the day dogs may be domesticated and better at interacting with humans but they are still animals. The arguer states that peregrine falcons are unreasonable animals because they are uncontrollable but in all actuality so are canines. They are more readily trained and for the most part slightly more predictable but they are still animals. They are still unpredictable and can't be completely controlled. The arguer also states that we should include dogs as long as they are "willing" to participate. As humans we cannot communicate with dogs and it would be difficult to tell whether or not a dog is actually "willing" to participate. You would almost have to go out of your way to interest the dog in participating in some cases, with things such as treats and other special treatment, which in turn could slow the game down. With humans a paycheck would be motivation enough because there is an understanding that this is there profession. Conditioning would be another issue. Humans train year round for these events but a dog doesn't and may need special treatment to make su
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"You still haven't done anything to go against this notion.">

That's because I don't have to. All medication (that I know of) has side effects -- but they're not pertinent unless they directly affect the players' performance negatively, so proving that medication exists without side effects isn't at all necessary.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, I still had no reason to believe that any medication existed without side effects.

You still haven't done anything to go against this notion.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"you didn't specify what type of allergy medication they would use.">

So? Seeing as different medications are better suited to different people, doing so would be nonsensical.

<"Expecting him to go through every medication and point out that it had negative side effects would be rediculous.">

That's what he'd have to do if he were to debunk my point about medication being able to negate allergies. Simple as that.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, the thing is, you didn't specify what type of allergy medication they would use. Expecting him to go through every medication and point out that it had negative side effects would be rediculous. I'd call it your burden to point out such a medication that they could use, because I am given no reason to believe that there are any dog allergy medications that lack side effects.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Really? It was? Thanks for pointing that out; I'm obviously incapable of reading.

He brought that point up, so I rebutted it. It's not as if I was adding an extra round of debate in the comment section, or something.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
But that was just one of many arguments.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"No player would ever want to be required to take medicine that would cause him to play worse than he had before.">

...you do know he only listed one kind of medication, right? They just wouldn't take Claritin. There's more than one kind of dog allergy medication.

I mean, I figured that was obvious. I said players could take medication, and he replied by basically saying "well, they can't use this one type!1!!1!"

Wonderful -- but that doesn't at all negate the idea that they could take medication. If Claritin was all that's available, then it would -- but that's not even close to being the case. Unless he was gonna show me that *all* dog allergy medications were a detriment to performance, then his point was entirely frivolous.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"What's wrong with simplistic?">

Uh, you're essentially asking what's wrong with using an argument that's easy to deal with...?

I think you can answer that question for yourself; if you can't, then something isn't right.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
No player would ever want to be required to take medicine that would cause him to play worse than he had before.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
patsox834mongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 7 years ago
thejudgeisgod
patsox834mongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
patsox834mongooseTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
patsox834mongooseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
patsox834mongooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06