The Instigator
nismo2009
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Dogs and Cats Are Superior Than Any Other Living Animals

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 3 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,576 times Debate No: 17206
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

nismo2009

Con

I have a 10 years old Yorkshire Terrier. It is so cute, also very lazy. I sometimes give it food from my own plate for instance i always cooked an additional piece of lamb chop for it while i was having mine. i give it a bath every week and i always clean its feet after we walked in the streets before we enter the house because the house has a fine timber floor and i dont want it to get dirty. i buy the nest dog food for it and it seems very healthy and happy. we play game sometimes. forgot to mention i have a turtle and i let it to stay in one of my ceremic pot. my dog usually play with the turtle too by bashing its shell so the turtle will fall off the edge while its trying to climb against the edge of the pot and come out.

i consider my dog is one of the happiest dogs on earth. however, despite the scientific evidence because i am not a vet or biological professor. simply in terms of social relationship and moral value, i absolutely see no reason why dogs and cats get so much more respect than cows.

i respect the individuals which help disable humans and those which show a unbelievable loyalty to its owner. but what about those individuals who hunt human down and eat them afterwards.

so my argument is, dont every tell me the crap like "dogs are humans friends"
my opinion is that it all depends on how we human train them. if it is a domesticated dog it is highly unlikely to harm any person. but what if it is a wild dog. and it think wild dog is not considered as our human's friend before it has been trained. a wild dog is as brutal as the wild wolf, they both dangerous to humans safety.

therefore, come back to my debate topic now. i dont think dogs and cats are naturally superior than other animals like cows and sheep and horse. we think they are superior is because we choose them to be. you can also see wild lions and monkeys performing circus and kangeroos starring as a film character. how will you argue that they are not beneficial to our human's favor. in some countries like Vietnam and Laos, farmers use cows to grow rice because the modern machine sometimes cant work in those terrain and whether. I dare to say those Vietnam farmers have built a close friendship with their cows than dogs.
everyone has their own friends and stories. it just couldnt convince me that dogs and cats are naturally made to be our humans friends and naturally superior than other animals. it is because we trained them which made them kinda educated.
phantom

Pro

//i absolutely see no reason why dogs and cats get so much more respect than cows.//

My opponent gives no reason as too why cows should earn mans respect more than dogs and cats. However dogs and cats have a natural appeal towards humans as pets. In fact statistics show 57% of American households today own either a dog or cat.[1]

It is also quite common to see dogs and cats staring in movies more than other animals.

//i respect the individuals which help disable humans and those which show a unbelievable loyalty to its owner. but what about those individuals who hunt human down and eat them afterwards.//

I am confused as to what individuals disable humans and as to why my opponent respects them. Disabled is usually used as a negative word so I ask my opponent to elaborate more in the next round. Second I assume my opponent is saying dogs and cats hunt humans down and eat them afterwords and that is why they are not superior. Being ferocious does not mean they are not superior, on the contrary it means they are more superior than other animals because they are able to fight off their enemies as well as being feared.

//so my argument is, dont every tell me the crap like "dogs are humans friends"//

Well first of all that is not an argument. That is an imperative sentence. Second, compared to other animals dogs and cats are very much humans friends. They are naturally loyal, smart, trusting, and friendly. There are not many animals that possess these attributes as much as dogs and cats do.



//it is because we trained them which made them kinda educated.//

This actually is one reason why dogs are superior. If you take 5 kids and gave them a good education, then compare them to 5 other kids who received no education the first 5 would be superior to the other 5.

Dogs are used in therapy for Alzheimer's disease and in clinical settings as comfort for the terminally ill.[2]

In a test it was found that dogs were able to pick up on what humans were trying to convey much better than other species including chimpanzees. [3]

I hand it back to con.


[1] http://www.petfinder.com...

[2] http://animals.howstuffworks.com...

[3] http://articles.cnn.com...

[4] http://green-buzz.net...
Debate Round No. 1
nismo2009

Con

nismo2009 forfeited this round.
phantom

Pro

My opponent has made a fail attempt of copying my avatar.




To make this easier I will give each gorilla a name. My opponents gorilla we will call Wesley , my gorilla we will call Leo.


My avatar is clearly the better avatar for the following reasons.



1. Now Wesley, we see, is smoking a cigar. Leo is smoking a cigarette. Cigarettes clearly fit the style that gorillas are expected to attain. If Wesley here does not even know what is acceptable in gorilla society we must deduce that he has herpes. For what other possible explanation could there be, I must ask?


2. My gorilla (Leo ) is holding his cigarette in a much more chill way than my opponents gorilla is. As you can see Wesley's cigar is just sitting on the edge of his mouth in an awkward hanging position. This, along with his overly serious expression, makes him look grouchy and boring. Like some strict high school principle. While Leo fits the image of a drug hyped hippie. (Obviously the fad.)


3. My opponents gorilla is wearing a suite. Mine is completely naked. Naked is the new cool! Wesley here needs to get in style like my nude dude gorilla.



Conclusion:
In all of my contentions we see that cons gorilla is out of style, has a bad choice in what too smoke, does not know how to hold his cigars, clearly has a bad choice in clothes, and has herpes.

For these reasons we must conclude, Wesley is a child molester.


If you vote con you are promoting child molestation.

Vote pro because he has a chillax hippie gorilla named Leo as his avatar.

Debate Round No. 2
nismo2009

Con

Thank to phantom who has accepted it as Pro. I apologies for the fail attempt for round two of this debate because I was away with friends the other day and totally forgot about it. I also apologies for stating imperative sentence in round one.

phantom:"Being ferocious does not mean they are not superior, on the contrary it means they are more superior than other animals because they are able to fight off their enemies as well as being feared."�

My previous argument has made the idea clear that firstly if we trained them as friends, they should behave the way we wanted which is to benefit in humans' favor, and to be bite or scratched or killed is not considered as humans' favor. To hurt people was not part of the education. Could my opponent explain why there are dogs hunting humans if they are naturally our friends? We failed in the process of educating wild dogs which revealed their wild dreams, the cruelty which is part of the nature. If that is true, then how could my opponent prove that a lion or a cow couldn't do any better than a dog as our friends. phantom's idea of dog's cruelty and being feared have made them stand out from other natural animals therefore be selected by humans to educate could not convince me. According to phantom's idea, then a wolf is superior than a dog, a great white shark is superior than a dog, a hawk is superior than a dog, a lion is superior than a dog, even a spider is superior than a dog as these animals all have a greater ability of being feared.

phantom:"dogs and cats have a natural appeal towards humans as pets. In fact statistics show 57% of American households today own either a dog or cat."

my opponent's argument is not convincing as he didn't point out how this statistics relate to the topic of superior. 57% of American households own either a dog or cat doesn't make them naturally superior. It was because we have educated them in order to benefit in our own life. The features that dogs posed are all trained by humans to be beneficial to US in the context of human's morality and value: friendship, loyalty, trusting. In reality, a dog doesn't understand what loyalty means, it doesn't understand what betraying means. Dogs don't understand what they were doing. phantom's statement "dogs and cats have a natural appeal towards humans as pets" is not persuasive as we can see so many kinds of animals have had natural appeal towards humans as pets such as rabbits.

phantom: "They are naturally loyal, smart, trusting, and friendly. There are not many animals that possess these attributes as much as dogs and cats do."

Have you guys heard of the film called DOGS AND CATS? I haven't watched the film but I know in this movie the cat is a bad figure. My argument is not going to be based on a fantasy movie but on reality. As I have posted in the previous section The features that dogs posed are all trained by humans to be beneficial to US in the context of human's morality and value. In reality, a dog doesn't understand what the loyalty means, it doesn't understand what betraying means." Same scenario towards cats. There are people who stated that dogs are loyal as they don't know why dogs are always running around them and keep in touch with them. Are cats doing the same? A cat will always climb up on the roof and keep disappearing for a night or so. In humans society cats are the example of betraying and shifty. Under this context they have made the film DOGS AND CATS, you can't argue with that. My question is do cats understand what shifty means? Do they understand what betraying means? According to phantom's logic, dogs are superior because They are naturally loyal, smart, trusting. Then what about cat, are cats loyal? are they trusting? what do you expect from a cat? not going out during night? but it is part of its natural habit. therefore a cat should be inferior to dog according to phantom's idea. My opponent here has made a big mistake as he is judging whether a animal is superior by comparing each animals natural appeal under the context of human value and morality. animals don't have morality. they don't understand, then how come my opponent say a dog is superior because dogs are loyal and trusting?

My opponent stated: "If you take 5 kids and gave them a good education, then compare them to 5 other kids who received no education the first 5 would be superior to the other 5." is that really true? no

being educated doesn't mean one will be better than those who hasn't, because we never known what happened in each individuals. Bill Gates withdrawn his degree while he was at Harvard, this didn't result him in a inferior position than those who have finished the degrees. A chimpanzee will be much more pleasing if it received education from human. A dolphin, an Octopus also built a close relationship with human's such as being friendly with human, performing shows and even doing mathematics. phantom's example "In a test it was found that dogs were able to pick up on what humans were trying to convey much better than other species including chimpanzees." I am confused here as I don't know what phantom was trying to say. Do you mean dogs are smarter? they are obviously not. wild gorillas using sticks and stumps to navigate a swampy forest clearing in the Republic of the Congo."(source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...) we also see monkeys and hawks using rocks to break up foods. A chimpanzee riding a bicycle. In terms of intelligence, a dog or a cat shouldn't be considered as superior.

Looking forward to Con's respond

In terms of round two, my opponent has made several mistakes.
Firstly, I was not trying to copy phantom's avatar, I personally see ape as a funny and lovely character
Secondly, my avatar is definitely better than phantom's because:

"Cigarettes clearly fit the style that gorillas are expected to attain"
phantom's hasn't explained why a ape couldn't have a cigar but cigarette.

" My gorilla (Leo) is holding his cigarette in a much more chill way than my opponents gorilla is. As you can see Wesley's cigar is just sitting on the edge of his mouth in an awkward hanging position."
I found out phantom's idea is very interesting because he thinks holding a cigarette on the edge is cooler. I have smoked for 4 years now with about 10-20 cigarettes a day. to be honest i only saw old aged women holding cigarette the way Leo does. All the women put their cigarettes on the edge of their mouths no joke. Looking at the length i truly doubt the actual size of the cigarette Leo is having. to be honest I never seen a straight man smoking a 90's+, as you can see Leo's is very long. what do you expect me to say? The way Wesley holding his cigar is very correct as cigar smoke is not meant to be inhaled, in order to enjoy a nice cigar while doing your work people always keep it on one side so they can rapidly exhaust the smoke from the other edge of the mouth without the aid of their hands. in fact this is a chiller way of smoking a cigar, i sometimes have Italian cigars and most of the time i keep it on one edge of my mouth so i can free my hands doing other stuffs.

"My opponents gorilla is wearing a suite. Mine is completely naked. Naked is the new cool! Wesley here needs to get in style like my nude dude gorilla."
phantom here made another mistake as he claimed nude is new for the gorilla. i have watched discover channel since i was 7 i never seen a gorilla wear anything. I believe all apes have a dream of wearing humans clothe and look cooler just like our human do. getting dressed up and looked like a civilized specie is the new cool for an ape!

conclusion
I truly doubt the sexual orientation of Leo. And I concern about his overall health as its skin color doesn't look very healthy to me.

This is nismo2009 at MElbourne, hand it back to phantom

cheers
phantom

Pro



//Could my opponent explain why there are dogs hunting humans if they are naturally our friends?//

Definition of hunt: to pursue for food or in sport<hunt buffalo> [1]

What my opponent means by hunting humans I'm not sure. I don't think there are any animals that hunt humans. It is on the contrary humans that hunt animals. I don't think I've ever heard of a dog pursuing humans for food or sport.


//the cruelty which is part of the nature.//

I have already proven that it is a dogs nature to be friendly, and loyal. Thus dogs are not naturally cruel as my opponent states.


//then how could my opponent prove that a lion or a cow couldn't do any better than a dog as our friends.//

57% Of Americans own either a cat or a dog. I'd like for my opponent to bring up some statistics as too how many Americans own cows and lions as household pets. [2]


//According to phantom's idea, then a wolf is superior than a dog, a great white shark is superior than a dog, a hawk is superior than a dog, a lion is superior than a dog, even a spider is superior than a dog as these animals all have a greater ability of being feared.//


My opponent assumes that the only reason I think dogs are superior is because they are fearsome.




P1. Dogs and cats are ferocious.

P2. The natural friendliness of an animals nature is a factor of their

superiority.




My opponent has confirmed premise one with his claims that dogs and cats are ferocious animals who hunt and disable humans.

Most of my opponents arguments have been the same as premise two therefore premise two is confirmed.




Both premises have been confirmed by my opponent:



My opponent says that according to my ideas wolfs, sharks, lions and spiders are all superior to dogs because of their ability of being feared. I will prove why this is wrong.

I have stated what the two main factors in this debate have been in premise one and two. There are other factors but these have been the main ones.




My opponent has confirmed that premise one applies too dogs and cats. Meaning that dogs and cats are ferocious animals capable of hunting and disabling humans.


I have proven that premise two applies too dogs and cats. Meaning that they are

appealing to humans, friendly and loyal.


Thus I have proven that both main factors apply to dogs and cats.

If you look at the animals my opponent has mentioned only one of these factors apply to each of them.

Premise one applies to all the animals my opponent stated previously (wolfs,

sharks, lions and spiders). But premise two does not apply to any of those

animals.



My opponent has also used the example of cows and horses. Premise one applies to these animals but not to the extent that it does to dogs and cats. And neither does premise two apply to these animals.


All the main factors of this debate in deciding the superiority of an animal have applied to dogs and cats. While only some too whatever examples my opponent has put forth.




//my opponent's argument is not convincing as he didn't point out how this statistics relate to the topic of superior. 57% of American households own either a dog or cat doesn't make them naturally superior. It was because we have educated them in order to benefit in our own life.//


P1. From birth dogs and cats are naturally friendly.

P2. My opponent has made arguments that cows and other animals

are superior because of social relationship.


Premise one proves that dogs and cats do not have to be educated first before becoming appealing to humans as household pets. I'm also not sure what my opponent means by educated as many dogs and cats don't receive education from humans.

My opponents argument that animals are not as superior because they have been educated to act the way they do is a refutation of his his own argument, this we see in premise two. If my opponents argument was valid we could apply it to his argument in premise two and therefore my opponent is refuting his own arguments.





//is not persuasive as we can see so many kinds of animals have had natural appeal towards humans as pets such as rabbits.//


My opponent has failed to show any proof that rabbits are any where near as common a household pet as dogs and cats are, and I highly doubt they are.



//In reality, a dog doesn't understand what the loyalty means, it doesn't understand what betraying means." Same scenario towards cats.//

If we apply this to dogs and cats we must apply it to all other animals, which would mean all of the animals my opponent has stated as most superior do not understand this. Thus my opponent has again refuted himself.


//Are cats doing the same? A cat will always climb up on the roof and keep disappearing for a night or so. In humans society cats are the example of betraying and shifty. Under this context they have made the film DOGS AND CATS, you can't argue with that.//


The use of a film (especially one such as cats and dogs) to back up proof is a very poor proof. The movie greatly exaggerates the nature of both dogs and cats. Cats are not betraying and shifty. Better words to describe them would be private and cautious but not to an extant where humans dislike them. But cats also being friendly and highly affectionate make them suitable house pets for humans.



//Then what about cat, are cats loyal? are they trusting? what do you expect from a cat?//


Cats quality traits are not the same as dogs, but that does not change the fact that 57% of Americans own either a dog or a cat.


//animals don't have morality. they don't understand, then how come my opponent say a dog is superior because dogs are loyal and trusting?//


I would like to ask my opponent as too why he thinks animals do not possess morality as evidence contrarily points to the opposite case.





//Do you mean dogs are smarter? they are obviously not. wild gorillas using sticks and stumps to navigate a swampy forest clearing in the Republic of the Congo.//


Gorillas may be smarter but not much smarter. Dogs posses more quality's that make them superior to gorillas. If gorillas are superior in one quality it does not make them over all superior.




I would continue the argument about our avatars, but as I went camping for a few days I was left with only a few hours to write my argument and so I was not able to have time to address it. Plus it is totally unrelated to the debate :p

If my opponent wants, though he can challenge me to a debate on whose avatar is better latter. :)



Sources:


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...


[2] http://animals.howstuffworks.com......

Debate Round No. 3
nismo2009

Con

nismo2009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
nismo2009

Con

Let me rephrase. I didn't mean hunt but attack.

"I have already proven that it is a dogs nature to be friendly, and loyal. Thus dogs are not naturally cruel as my opponent states." - Con

If dogs are naturally friendly and loyal but not cruel, please explain these to those innocent kids and old people

http://express.whereilive.com.au...
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au...
http://www.abc.net.au...

To be honest, before I started this debate 2 weeks ago I had only one argument in mind and my argument was following this logic:

whether a dog or a cat is superior?

-Because they are animals, the way we assess them will be a little different from the way we assess human beings.
-Thus I brought up the first argument in round one which was whether they are naturally our friends, whether they are naturally safe and beneficial to humans.
-I didn't ignore the fact that dogs and cats are kept as pets and act friendly towards humans. However my argument was on the issues of dogs and cats attacking humans.
-I kept asking my opponent through out the debate that why dogs and cats could attack human if they are naturally our friends?
-My opponent kept ignoring my questions.
-He stated in his first round rebutt explaining dogs attack human as being ferocious.
-The reason I totally ignore the issue of physical performance of dogs and cats was because I believe such argument doesn't worth to be debated because in terms of physical performance that a dog or cat, neither can't be considered as superior than lions, tigers, and even snakes.
-However my opponent phantom brought it up. He claimed that dogs and cats attack human because they are ferocious and can be feared which make them superior.
-I was amazed and shocked that my opponent have had such unbelievable argument. My argument was explaining because they can hurt people just like any other animals do, so they are naturally the same as other animals. phantom ignores my argument and said because they are ferocious so they are superior. That is how the second argument was created as phantom also used as his second main premise.
-Here in my final round I want to say that the second premise was not my argument it was actually my opponents argument. I refused to bring it up and talk about it becasue i think it didnt worth it. Because I believe that the only chance that dogs and cats could stand out from other animals and claim superior than others is when they are naturally our mate. and the meaning of a friend here is to not attack us at least!
-I would like my opponent phantom to imagine a senario. I have said we can not claim dogs and cats naturally superior because they sometimes could reveal their natural cruelty and hurt people. however my opponent said they attack because they are ferociou, thus superior. Please phantom, if one day you are attacked by a dog, don't go to police, but give the dog that attacked you a nice and warm hug. Because according to your logic, it was a perfect proven to your argument and you should worship the dog which attacked you, they are superior.
-Therefore through out this debate I have one and only one argument, they are not superior because they are like the other wild animals, sometime could harm our safety, betray us, not understand us, causing trauma.
-If my opponent could explain why dogs and cats attack humans? Not because they are ferociou. I think those kids and old people deserve a better answer than that.

Vote Pro! As our world need justice, and our animals need justice! All mammals are created equal!
phantom

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for what has been quite an enjoyable debate.

_____

My opponent has ignored much of my arguments in the last round so please extend those arguments.


My opponent says I ignore his question "why do dogs and cats attack humans if they are naturally our friends."


I did not ignore him. I have easily proved that dogs and cats are naturally our friends, but of course some of them are going to be different. My opponent seems to think that all dogs and cats attack humans. The majority do not.




//Because I believe that the only chance that dogs and cats could stand out from other animals and claim superior than others is when they are naturally our mate.//

I think the above quote just about won me the debate. I have proved that they are naturally our mate. My opponent seems to think they are not, for the sole reason that some of them aren't. My opponent has failed to bring up a single animal that is more of mans friend than dogs and cats. I can remember him saying rabbits, horses, and cows.


My opponent asks me to imagine a scenario where a dog attacks me. He thinks that because I think being ferocious is a factor of superiority, that means I should give the dog a nice warm hug. When in this whole debate did I say that dogs and cats should attack humans? The lion is the so called "king of the jungle" for the reasons that he is feared by other beasts because of his fearsome nature. This obviously makes him superior to the other animals of the jungle. The same is with dogs and cats.






//Therefore through out this debate I have one and only one argument, they are not superior because they are like the other wild animals, sometime could harm our safety, betray us, not understand us, causing trauma.//

My opponent has made other arguments but it appears he has dropped them.

Viewers please consider all of my opponents other arguments dropped.

In the same round my opponent says there are other animals more physically impressive than dogs and cats. I ask the viewers to consider this argument dropped as well.




//Vote Pro! As our world need justice, and our animals need justice! All mammals are created equal!//

First observation is that I am pro. But I'm sure my opponent did not mean to tell the voters to vote for me so I assume this is a mistake.

Second this makes no sense, as justice doesn't have anything to do with this debate.


Overview:

My opponent has ignored many of my arguments, especially from the last round.
My opponent has declared that he has dropped all of his arguments except for one.
My opponents sole argument that remains, is actually one reason why dogs and cats are superior. Thus his only argument does not stand, and actually works for me.
My opponent refutes himself in the last round and ignores the fact when I point it out.
I have used my opponents arguments against him, including the only one he didn't drop.
I have shown that dogs and cats possess many factors that contribute to their superiority.



My opponents only argument is not an argument thus I urge a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Yeah it was fun. There are a few things you need to work on, but you definitely improved towards the end.
Posted by nismo2009 5 years ago
nismo2009
thank you for accepting the debate, my first debate, it is pretty challenging for me though. : )
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Please don't forfeit again! This debate is fun. :/
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
I just noticed this debate is set in the philosophy category. Lol
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
I kind of hope he takes that argument.
It will make this fun :)
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Drmigt, you are right. if humans are animals, then they would be "superior" than the "dogs and cats", or at least in our view.
Posted by drmigit2 5 years ago
drmigit2
humans are animals, /end debate
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
nismo2009phantomTied
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: To win, Con should have worked on some definition of "superior" like "inherently morally superior" that would work to his advantage. As it was, superior ended up meaning "better pet," and Con conceded way too much on that score to win. Dogs and cats are bred to be pets, so it shouldn't be surprising they are good pets, which Pro pointed out.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
nismo2009phantomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: two forfeits
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
nismo2009phantomTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet.