The Instigator
Claudz
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

If A Dog Attacks A Human, It Should Be Put Down

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...
Claudz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,046 times Debate No: 13182
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Claudz

Con

I would just like to thank my competitor, whoever he or she may be.

Clarification: By this, I mean that a dog has snapped at a human (or something similar) , not if they have full-on ripped a person apart. If a dog is bloodthirsty and definitely out of control, it should be put down.

1. All dogs can be trained. It is possible to train every dog, although it may be hard, and take up a lot of time. Any dog is trainable, if you can put in the time and effort.

2. Most of the time, dogs are not deliberately vicious, except they were trained to do so (ie, guard dogs). Dogs are generally friendly and sociable creatures. Dogs generally attack because they are scared and/or approached by someone they did not know.

3. If the injury is not life-threatening, there are several ways to control a dog. A muzzle, for example. Putting a dog down (willingly ending a life) is an extremely cruel and drastic measure, and in several cases probably not needed.

I look forward to my opponents response.
Marauder

Pro

I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

now with the clarification made that 'attacks' does not mean bloodthirsty ripping a person apart, I admit this a much less reasonably arguable position to say we should put down dogs for more miner things. But I believe there is a workable case for the Pro side in this debate, and it may surprise you that to understand it we must first consider our wants in making robots (should we ever make any).

I am talking about Asimov's law of Robotics. http://en.wikipedia.org...
You of course wouldn't want any kind of harmful behavior to exist in robots, they are designed (in dogs case trained) to be used for our good. A robot that can harm has deviated from our interest to interest of its own.

How does that connect to dog's? well, the truth of the matter is optimally we don't want dogs to disobey any of these three laws either. And as far as a resolution concerned with what we 'should' do what is the optimally desired situation we 'should' peruse.

If a dog ever attacks a Human, its breaking the first law. robots that break the law self destruct (see video starting @ 5:35). This is done for our good (we humans). So likewise is this same disposal method needed to handle dogs that break Asimov's laws.
Debate Round No. 1
Claudz

Con

Thank you, Marauder, for accepting this debate. I also thank you for your speedy response.

Firstly, against your argument, I don't think that dogs are robots. Saying such a thing would imply that they are 'meat machines' which is of course not true. They are COMPANIONS, in the same way children or a partner would be. Robots are completely different than dogs. Robots are specifically designed for a PURPOSE, while dogs were made by nature, and have be chosen by humans to be companions, and friends. They are sentient creatures, and there is a thought process that happens in the dog's mind before the dog attacks. This reason is mainly because they are SCARED.

For example, in a war, if a soldier was scared and surrounded by 'enemies', they would immediately grab and shoot everyone dead. The dog is acting in mainly the same way. The difference - for the human, it's self-defense. The dog - is of course a blood-thirsty killer. (Sarcasm).

I also request that my opponent argues about my points, as well as adding their argument afterwards. Thank you.
Marauder

Pro

You want me to argue about your points and mine with the short 2,000 character limit? challenge accepted.

For starters on your points; I can not believe you actually think a dogs companionship even hold a candle to that companionship from a partner or children give. they are not even in the same league and thus cannot be compared as the same. For those that know the companionship that people can provide they would fast say that is REAL companionship and that of a dog is just a fake illusion pretending to be it.
Even though that illusion-like companionship is their purpose for us, if they begin to defect they still need put down, then you buy a new one. Any type of attacking nature coming from a dog is the beginning of their of becoming a defect dog. it would not be wise to wait until they deteriorate enough to be bloodthirsty, the kind of dog even Con admitted should be put down.

It does not matter how this mind defect is caused, (scared, hungry, territorial) what matters is that it has begun.
Dogs may be able to think but not in the same way humans do and thus they don't get the same consideration for why the would kill 'enemies'. Humans are the masters and dogs are to be the servants. my opponent would be mad to argue we should deviate from that status-quo at all, for it would mean considering ourselves equally with those dogs witch we obviously are superior beings to.

Dogs are not that different than robots. like Con said we humans have chosen their purpose. with robots we choose the purpose as well as we make them. the only deference is our choice for dogs was limited to what they naturally could be used for.

We should not be afraid to put them down thinking it somehow ' a cruel extreme', the dog is but down in a painless fashion and their can be no 'cruel extreme' in the dogs case anyway cause it is after all just a dog. An animal. What you do with animals is good or bad only in the logistical sense, productive or wasteful.
Debate Round No. 2
Claudz

Con

I apologize for being late, and would just quickly like to say something. You have reasonable arguments, and so do I. We seem to have conflicting opinions on the meaning of the word 'dog'. I, having a pet, see it as an companion and a friend, you see it as a kind of meat machine that wags its tail and makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. The debate has somewhat switched from the original topic to something like this : 'Dogs are companions'. If that is what you want to debate about, then fine. I'd be happy to debate that with you.

So, lets assume regardless of the way we regard the animal, what should be done in the situation if a dog bites a person. What should be done? And why?

1. Even if it is an 'item' as Pro says, we become attached to such items. We don't want to see them go. And many many dogs could be saved if we use other methods to 'tame the wild beast'. I'll show you two. 1. A muzzle. The dog can't bite anyone with a muzzle on, and wouldn't bite the master. Problem solved, no bloodshed involved. 2. Training. Dogs can be trained. They may not fully recover from their 'bad side' but they learn to curb it, and ignore everyone around them. It can, and has been done several times.

2. You don't actually HAVE to kill the dog. You can put it up for adoption, or to a pound. If they die, it's game over. They don't have another chance of living. However, if they live, then they can be trained and go to a new home. You wouldn't have to do a thing, and the animal has a chance to make someone happy.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It was a very interesting one, and I enjoyed it. Vote Con. Thank you.
Marauder

Pro

Companion, warm and fuzzy feeling generator; you just playing semantics, and a misconceiving set of semantics at that. The term ‘companion should truly just be reserved for the ‘real deal' companionship that only comes from sacs of water (humans) when referring to a human the term companionship is full of meaning. When the word is used though to describe what you get from a dog, it truly means no more than ‘warm and fuzzy generator' that's the peak degree of ‘companionship you get out of an animal. To get anything more requires something as advance as a human.

As for the muzzle solution, you have to take it of sometime to feed it. this is not a problem that can be mechanically solved. As for the training solution They are not worth time and resources to put into that. Between the option of taking months of time to train you harmful dog into a non-harmful dog you could have easily just gotten a new one.

You don't actually HAVE to let it live either. Its going to die anyway. And fairly soon compared to how long you live. Especially if don't keep it chained up. (gets near the road, car comes, doesn't slow down…)
Sending it somewhere else does not change the fact that it will die anyway. And it worsens the condition of dog as far as being violent goes. It's an observed fact by animal shelter owners that dogs that have been given up by former masters are scared by the event for what I can only assume is the rest of their life.

You say it is game over but for who? You can continue to play the ‘game' of pretending to have human companionship with another dog just find after the old one is dead.

You say that that dog could make some-else happy. Would you rob the animal that has attacked no one from the chance to make that same human happy so that the defected one could ‘try' again. People deserved the best, not the ‘used' stuff. People should invest their money in working dogs that have no history of malfunctioning.

I enjoyed this debate as well. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SmellyPoo 6 years ago
SmellyPoo
marauder i dont agree wit u

you are a sick puppy ironically

you are da prejudkce agenst animals (dogs rabbits cyborgs etc)

you should be put down if you are gonna be mean to da puppas!
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
Yes CSP. I have a dog. and yes I do not want it to die. I am attached to it. But you cant let yourself get so attached to animals. I had a cat before and it was run over. Theirs little to be done to extend their life to match yours any. and oh how easy to just replace it, and this new creature you attached to in the same way. nothing specially different from the last dog/cat or lost from it.

Even though I draw from that cynical attitude to supply some of this argument, I am still playing Satan's advocate just a little. putting them to death is a extreme I wouldn't do actually do for real
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 6 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
Pro has shown a clear disregard of any form of respect of life in animals. So because a dog will die eventually it is fine to kill it anyway? I hope I don't have to elaborate on what is wrong with that statement.

And don't get me started on "Dogs are not that different than robots." Have you ever owned a dog, pro? It is very clear that people form emotional bonds with dogs and grieve dearly when they are gone, just as dogs do with humans.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Jannah, that is a horrible way to look at things. Because you can't trust something, kill it?
That's a terrible way to live.
Also, the dog that mauled you probably had rabies.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
don't blame *her*
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'I agree with pro 100% on this. I was attacked by a dog when I was three years old so I know(it tore my face open). If a dog can't be trusted to be safe around humans then the best option would be to put it down'

Wow, you suck. Give it a muzzle at most, don't kill the damn thing. I had a chunk bitten out of my nose by one of my beagles when I was a toddler. It was my own fault, I was pulling her tail and she snapped. I don't blame she, and she went on to live a happy life to old age because we don't kill our dogs unless it's absolutely essential.
Posted by Claudz 6 years ago
Claudz
Kinesis: You have no idea. I used to have a massive Great Dane, and it was terrified by flies and cockroaches. My friends never let me live it down.

InsertNameHere: The dog you referring to is the 'full-on ripped a person apart' type. We are not arguing that.

Wush: Sorry. I thought of the debate idea first.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
I agree with pro 100% on this. I was attacked by a dog when I was three years old so I know(it tore my face open). If a dog can't be trusted to be safe around humans then the best option would be to put it down.
Posted by Pirate 6 years ago
Pirate
Piranhas aren't that big either.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
having a wimpy dog is fun no chance of it biting you
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
ClaudzMarauderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
ClaudzMarauderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
Steelerman6794
ClaudzMarauderTied
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:52