The Instigator
Erick
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
rkkell
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Humans should be allowed to have pets.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,592 times Debate No: 13398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

Erick

Pro

Hello and welcome to my debate. Resolved: Humans should be able to have pets.
Some people object this resolution and some agree with it, I will be Pro and my opponent will be Con. I will give my arguments in Round 2 and so on, I would appreciate it if my opponent would say he or she accepts the debate in their first round without the arguments; since I have the burden of proof. Now, I will state my definitions.

Humans- a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)
Should- used in auxiliary function to express condition
Allowed- to reckon as a deduction or an addition
Have- to hold or maintain as a possession, privilege, or entitlement
Pets- a domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility

All definitions are from the Merriam Webster dictionary.
I await an interesting debate, Thank You.
rkkell

Con

I accept and look forward to an interesting and informative debate. The Con will be challenging the definitions. Also, for clarity, Pro, please advise whether the resolution is Humans should be allowed or able to have pets. Thanks and good debating!
Debate Round No. 1
Erick

Pro

Erick forfeited this round.
rkkell

Con

I would have liked to have debated this topic, but my opponent failed to post his openning arguement. However, as my own time is rather short right now as well, I would like to withdraw from this debate at this time. I urge no votes on this debate. Pro, perhaps another time. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 2
Erick

Pro

Sorry, I cannot go on with this debate; nor can my opponent.
Please do not vote.
Thank You.
rkkell

Con

This debate has elicited a number of comments and seems to be an interesting topic. I look forward to a more opportune time for both of us. Please do not vote. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Animals are living creatures, they desearve, respect, and as good of a life as they can have. Sometimes thats taking them as pets, and sometimes thats putting them down, sometimes that keeping a bird in a cage, and sometimes its putting animals back in the wild.
Its case by case, but bloodsports and animal breeding are wrong, no way to get around that.

So yes humans should be allowed to have pets, however the living condition should at least be positive.
Ragnar, its like taking in a black guy off the streets instead of letting him starve. Or if he has AIDS, cancer, and leukemia (which I guess is cancer too) or something, it would be best to put him down then too.
Or if he's really insane going to cook and eat babies or something its best to lock him away someplace, away from babies.

It actually doesn't fail as much as you'd like to believe.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"You're equating Africans with Animals?"
No, I'm performing reductio ad absurdum given your assumption that animals have rights.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
You're equating Africans with Animals? And there are some people who differ on what you are allowed to do with a pet; disemboweling them while they're alive doesn't count for me, but it counts for some.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Negro Rights Activists are fairly loco; having them as pets doesn't take away Negro rights. It's only when they are tortured and forced to fight. "
What?

"What does having a pet entail?"
If you assume animals have rights (which I don't)...

kidnapping, imprisonment...
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Animal Rights Activists are fairly loco; having them as pets doesn't take away animal rights. It's only when they are tortured and forced to fight. What does having a pet entail?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Additionally, your definition refutes your statement that humans are allowed to have pets. Animal rights activists do not actively consent to it.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
permit, agree to, consent to, let, {and FINALLY} tolerate, or to not stop.

Allow is actively consenting to something. You're wrong.
"
I'd say ad authoritatem, but in this case, it's bare assertion.

"And yes, I would say the Hitler debate is meaningless at the time because the only justification for murdering Jews is of his own rational.
"
That's a case for Con, not a case for meaninglessness.

And no, that's not the only justification. Another is that they are dirty bourgeious! :P.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
And yes, I would say the Hitler debate is meaningless at the time because the only justification for murdering Jews is of his own rational.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Without having domesticated animals, we wouldn't have the society we have today. It is meaningless.

Allow: Synonyms- http://i51.tinypic.com...

permit, agree to, consent to, let, {and FINALLY} tolerate, or to not stop.

Allow is actively consenting to something. You're wrong.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"1) Hitler was a dictator, no one "allowed", or granted him permission, to slaughter the Jews."
To allow is to not stop.

"2) What does that question mean? "Would a debate at the time about whether he SHOULD be be meaningless?""
Would it be meaningless to ask "Should Hitler be allowed to slaughter Jews?" at that time?

Would it be meaningless to ask "Should Hitler slaughter Jews" at that time?

Why?

I would contend no, and neither is it meaningless here. Simply because humans are presently allowed to have pets does not mean that debate about whether they should be is meaningless. It means-- Is it superior that the state of affairs in which it is allowed continue, that is, preferable to a state of affairs in which it would not be allowed?
No votes have been placed for this debate.