The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

If I bark at my dog can he understand me?

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 222 times Debate No: 96036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




If I bark at my dog, he should be able to understand me, right? because you see dogs barking at one another all the time so whats the difference if I execute a perfect bark that matches one from another dog. It's like if you played back the recording of a bark.


Well, realistically, no. We, as humans, currently do not understand the language of dogs. Therefore, we should be unable to communicate in any way, even if the transmission of the communication simply goes from human to dog. There isn't even true knowledge that dogs do speak with each other in the same way humans do. There form of communication may involve no words, emotions or feelings at all.
Debate Round No. 1


While humans do not technically understand what a dog is implying when it barks at you, if you bark at it in exactly the same manner as it does to you, it should understand the bark as implying the same thing its own bark did. If someone who did not speak English just said the word "Nutrition" without knowing its meaning, we, as English speakers, would understand it. The same should apply to dogs.


Well, realistically, no. We, as humans, currently do not understand the language of dogs. Therefore, we should be unable to communicate in any way, even if the transmission of the communication simply goes from human to dog. There isn't even true knowledge that dogs do speak with each other in the same way humans do. Their form of communication may involve no words, emotions or feelings at all.
Debate Round No. 2


The Fourth Crusade (1202"04) was a Western European armed expedition called by Pope Innocent III, originally intended to conquer Muslim-controlled Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt. Instead, a sequence of events culminated in the Crusaders sacking the city of Constantinople, the capital of the Christian-controlled Byzantine Empire.

In January 1203, en route to Jerusalem, the majority of the crusader leadership entered into an agreement with the Byzantine prince Alexios Angelos to divert to Constantinople and restore his deposed father as emperor. The intention of the crusaders was then to continue to the Holy Land with promised Byzantine financial and military assistance. On 23 June 1203 the main crusader fleet reached Constantinople. Smaller contingents continued to Acre.

In August 1203, following clashes outside Constantinople, Alexios Angelos was crowned co-Emperor (as Alexios IV Angelos) with crusader support. However, in January 1204, he was deposed by a popular uprising in Constantinople. The Western crusaders were no longer able to receive their promised payments, and when Alexios was murdered on 8 February 1204, the crusaders and Venetians decided on the outright conquest of Constantinople. In April 1204, they captured and brutally sacked the city, and set up a new Latin Empire as well as partitioning other Byzantine territories among themselves.

Byzantine resistance based in unconquered sections of the empire such as Nicaea, Trebizond, and Epirus ultimately recovered Constantinople in 1261.

The Fourth Crusade is considered to be one of the final acts in the Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church, and a key turning point in the decline of the Byzantine Empire and Christianity in the Near East.


Ayyubid Sultan Saladin had conquered most of the Frankish, Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, including the ancient city itself, in 1187. The Kingdom had been established 88 years before, after the capture and sack of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. The city was sacred to Christians, Muslims and Jews, and returning it to Christian hands had been a primary purpose of the First Crusade. Saladin led a Muslim dynasty, and his incorporation of Jerusalem into his domains shocked and dismayed the Catholic countries of Western Europe. Legend has it that Pope Urban III literally died of the shock, but the timing of his death makes that impossible.[5] The crusader states had been reduced to three cities along the sea coast: Tyre, Tripoli, and Antioch.

The Third Crusade (1189"92) reclaimed an extensive amount of territory for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, including the key towns of Acre and Jaffa, but had failed to retake Jerusalem. The crusade had also been marked by a significant escalation in long standing tensions between the feudal states of western Europe and the Byzantine Empire,[6] centered in Constantinople. The experiences of the first two crusades had thrown into stark relief the vast cultural differences between the two Christian civilizations. The Latins (as the Byzantines referred to them because of their adherence to the Latin Rite) viewed the Byzantine preference for diplomacy and trade over war as duplicitous and degenerate, and their policy of tolerance and assimilation towards Muslims as a corrupt betrayal of the faith. For their part, the educated and wealthy Byzantines maintained a strong sense of cultural, organizational, and social superiority over the Latins.[7]

Constantinople had been in existence for 874 years at the time of the Fourth Crusade and was the largest and most sophisticated city in Christendom.[8] Almost alone amongst major medieval urban centers, it had retained the civic structures, public baths, forums, monuments, and aqueducts of classical Rome in working form. At its height, the city held an estimated population of about half a million people behind thirteen miles of triple walls. Its planned location made Constantinople not only the capital of the surviving eastern part of the Roman Empire but also a commercial centre that dominated trade routes from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea,[9] China, India and Persia.[10] As a result, it was both a rival and a tempting target for the aggressive new states of the west, notably the Republic of Venice.

One of the leaders of the Third Crusade, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, openly plotted with the Serbs, Bulgars, Byzantine traitors, and even the Muslim Seljuks against the Eastern Empire and at one point sought Papal support for a crusade against the Orthodox Byzantines.[11] Crusaders also seized the breakaway Byzantine province of Cyprus; rather than return it to the Empire, Richard I of England sold the island to the Knights Templar. Barbarossa died on crusade, and his army quickly disintegrated, leaving the English and French, who had come by sea, to fight Saladin. In 1195 Henry VI, son and heir of Barbarossa, sought to efface this humiliation by declaring a new crusade, and in the summer of 1197 a large number of German knights and nobles, headed by two archbishops, nine bishops, and five dukes, sailed for Palestine. There they captured Sidon and Beirut, but at the news of Henry's death in Messina along the way, many of the nobles and clerics returned to Europe. Deserted by much of their leadership, the rank and file crusaders panicked before an Egyptian army and fled to their ships in Tyre.

Also in 1195, the Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelos was deposed in favor of his brother by a palace coup. Ascending as Alexios III Angelos, the new emperor had his brother blinded (a traditional punishment for treason, considered more humane than execution) and exiled. Ineffectual on the battlefield, Isaac had also proven to be an incompetent ruler who had let the treasury dwindle and outsourced the navy to the Venetians. His actions in wastefully distributing military weapons and supplies as gifts to his supporters had undermined the empire's defenses.[12] The new emperor was to prove no better. Anxious to shore up his position, Alexios bankrupted the treasury. His attempts to secure the support of semi-autonomous border commanders undermined central authority. He neglected his crucial responsibilities for defense and diplomacy. The emperor's chief admiral (his wife's brother-in-law), Michael Stryphnos, reportedly sold the fleet's equipment down to the very nails to enrich himself.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by denison 1 week ago
Because I need to know so I can tell my dog to shut up
Posted by domfincrag 1 week ago
Why is this debate even a thing?!?!?!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FurryDragon 1 week ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither one wins, due to the trolling the last round