The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
snkcake666
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

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 2 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 866 times Debate No: 85971
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Yeeeeeeeeeeee cats suck
snkcake666

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

1. Revenge.
As shown by the website http://www.livescience.com...; "Cats are, first and foremost, natural-born hunters, as recent studies of the effects that feral and indoor-outdoor cats have on bird and rodent populations have shown. Cats allegedly kill billions of small animals every year in the United States alone." And while the cat seems to "act as if you are its surragate mother", we personally do not do these things and plus the dead animals make our places quite dirty with germs all over the place. The fire is a sure way to get rid of all of that germ, and combined with water afterwards, we're sure to make our houses clean. On the other hand, dogs don't make our houses super dirty by bringing in dead animals, so that's a point for the dog.

2. Punishment.
Cats are not loyal to us as dogs. Why is this so? A study reveals that dogs hunt in packs, as with the first men, thus, they are used to go with men. On the contrary, cats are from a "solitary, territorial animal" and get distracted really easily. In contrast, dogs really need the social interaction and thus depends on their owners more. Thus, we can clearly see that cats deserve to be lighted up and burnt better than dogs.

3. For science! (and for interest!)

As you can see from this gif very interesting things happen with cats and buttered toast, causing an infinite loop. As this creates a mighty generation of energy, burning it not only gives us an interesting method to create energy, andcontributes to the understanding of the conversion of energy within science, it also gives us nice burnt toast to eat upon. By the contrary, dogs do not have such an interesting ability, making the burning fire on the fire while taping a toast on top pretty darn boring and non-scientific.

As can be seen here, if an animal should be lighted on fire, we should light cats on fire. Dogs don't deserve such a harsh punishment compared to cats, and burning cat-toast is much more interesting than burning dogs.
snkcake666

Con

Thesis:
My argument revolves around the concept of attatchement and "morality", as we define it on a normal day-to-day basis. This said, there are no 'benefits' of setting of cat on fire over setting a dog on fire- in fact, there are no benefits from neither.

First Rebuttals:
I would like to point out that in the Instigator's second argument, he defines a "study" in which dogs hunt in packs. While this is typically common knowledge, I might request that future "studies" are directly linked and/or cited. However, this does not automatically imply loyalty, simply the type of loyalty in which dogs express. In fact, the "hunting" for humans, is a cats essential own sense of loyalty, as cats will commonly kill for the sake of providing food to its litter or family. Source: (http://mentalfloss.com...)

The contender claims that cats are responsible for a vast population decrease in small animals across the United States. However, this fails to account for the remainder of the world, and in addition, this does not address the benefits of this matter (increase in resources, reducing scarcity costs- even for humans). Nor does this prove debilitating to the natural climate, as these creatures will commonly be hunted in nature regardless of whether or not cats are the ones to hunt.

Unfortunately, I have no reason to take the third point seriously as it is pure humor for that matter and does not site a reliable source.

Minor Argument:
Secondly, setting a cat on fire would prove rather detrimental, considering the fight/flight reaction a cat would immediately take. This means, one the cat is on fire, it could quite clearly run into environments catching the surrounding areas on fire too.


*I would like to note that I am not claiming that dogs should necessarily be caught on fire over the priority of cats, rather, cats should not have automatic priority themselves. I shall continue my debate next round due to limitations in text.
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent states that both cats and dogs have loyalty, but is the "type" really matter in the argument? In the end, we know the cat can't necessarily stay as loyal to the dog. Within the unnecessarily cruel but revealing experiments here: http://messybeast.com...; it is shown that dogs are DOGMATICALLY (Get it? no?) loyal to their owners regardless of their treatment, and the study explains that the nature of dogs versus cats means that cats are loyal to PLACES rather than PEOPLE, which I had already stated previously. We would feel easier to light up something that values an inanimate place rather than lighting up the dog that is naturally loyal to the people, still licking our hands while we torture it to death.... [too...much...pain...and...agony]

My opponent also claims that the decrease in small animals has benefits in increasing resources and reducing scarcity costs, however these are absurd and make no sense. Us scientists constantly test mice around, furthering my argument "for science!" with one less cat, there are also more mice for our experimentations. Along with the toast-cat experiment, it is obvious that burning cats help science more than that terrible study that is no longer legal!

My opponent claims to not believe my third point, however the following source [http://www.gksoft.com...] displays that indeed, energy IS produced, and the experiment so interesting as to provide further researches with strapping cats to cats! As you can see while my image may be a hypothetical situation, the experiment is nevertheless very interesting!

My opponent also says the fire-burning is detrimental, however, I already inferred from my experiment point that you'd be putting the cat in a situation in which the fire would barely harm anything. The room would be fireproof. The scientists would wear fire-proof vests. The same situation also applies to the dog, so my opponent isn't precisely saying anything here.

He also has no burning dog arguments.
snkcake666

Con


In case it cannot be read, refer to https://www.scribd.com...;
This will reiterate the entire argument.

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com... 
https://www.youtube.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...


 (Technically I only used 412 characters.) 
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent tries to prove them EQUALLY okay to being burnt. However, my opponent still loses in that case...
I'll admit that the case between introverts and extroverts is difficult to balance, especially with people's different views, however, my opponent's own words defeat his case. He notes that "introverts will often have a 'warming up' phase, while extroverts are less inclined to exhibit this attitude". As you can see here, even while analyzing loyalty he accidentally reveals that cats warm up more easily than extroverts, supporting that burning a cat is preferable to a dog--the latter wouldn't even produce even any heat!

My opponent leads to the mettling of natural systems, and tries pointing out the "positive advantages" while refuting my lab-mice argument. While my opponent may be correct, he has completely ignored my argument about the cat's capture dirtifying the home, and needing the fire and water to clean while the dog's cleansing wouldn't necessarily have the same effects.

My opponent points out that the third argument is a troll argument and does not work, however my admission only proves that my argument CAN apply because troll arguments ought to be taken seriously in a troll debate due to its humor, compared to a normal debate in which troll arguments may or may not work out. My opponent tries to say that the cat's energy produced is very less, however, as I have already stated, the experiment is VERY interesting, which my opponent has failed to refute. If burning cat is more interesting, it is surely better than the mundane-in-comparison burning dog.

As for the final argument, my opponent speaks of the environmental harms from cat-burning. However, I have to counter this since the area research would be specialized--where do you think they test out fire-proof suits or flamethrowers? In addition, the fire is also good for firemen to practice upon and a great drill. Not only do they get to "warm up" cats, cleanse the house, and do something interesting.

snkcake666

Con






Here is the text again in case it is illegible in picture:
https://www.scribd.com...







I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put forwarth in this debate. Best of luck in the voting period.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Not troll votes. This debate was for the outlaw tournament which is basically a troll tournament where judges must vote in the comments section.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
As the 'Simon Cowell' judge for this contest since I believe I know everything about anything, it is my duty to only reward points when a person has truly earned them and be a pretentious bag of d*cks in the process. So here goes

Opponent: 3

A debater who has less than 10 total debates on the site automatically puts him at a 5 at best. His arguments, originally reasonable, shot itself in the foot with the 'once the cat is on fire, it could quite clearly run into environments catching the surrounding areas on fire too' argument, which though funny, was rather stupid. The round after that where he posted links to youtube videos where he forgot to remove the s in the link at the end of http also didnt help.

Arguments: 7

The most convincing argument pro made was the 'FOR SCIENCE!' argument, since such an argument allows voters to use their wildest imaginations for what scientific gain could possibly be made from lighting cats on fire. The other arguments were a bore, but pointing out that con had failed to make 'pro-dog burning arguments' would have worked had he actually specified in the first round that the opponent had to be pro-dog burning. However, he failed to do that, and left the door open for an opponent to go the 'you shouldnt light dogs or cats on fire' approach. Rookie mistake by pro, rookie mistake

Humor: 4

Though the 'FOR SCIENCE!' argument was a solid approach, he only sunk a fraction of later rounds into that argument, and shot himself in the foot by making a dog pun, which while reading made me want to shove forks into my eyeballs and scream the national anthem. The one picture he also included in the debate, pictures having great potential to be hysterical, he instead blew on an 'i win you lose' picture that doesnt add much in terms of overall humor. The pro clearly sunk more effort into his arguments than actual humor, and the points shall reflect that.

14/30, good practice
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
A troll debate is one thing, but troll votes? And in the comment section?
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Opponent: 6

A really clever guy with a pretty good win rate however since he hasn't really debate much on the site looking at the statistics ultimately means that I cannot award that many points due to the lack of participation on debates by his opponent.

Arguments: 5

Loyalty wasn't a particularly convincing contention however I did find the first contention to be slightly persuasive. The only problem that I found with the first contention overall was that there was more potential for the argument but that potential wasn't used. For example, instead of just saying that they'd killed lots more things. You could have extended the arguments by showing how that violates universal morality and you could have also presented a philosophy like how it goes against utilitarianism. The lack of use of potential was a negative and the loyalty contention was quite subjetive. Therefore I only award 5 points on arguments.

Humor: 4

I liked the gif and the analogy that was associated with it. I also agree that the dogmatically pun was quite humorous. I didn't really find it particularly funny though, the arguments were clever and unique and could be perceieved as humorous but they weren't that funny imo.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Might note that the conditions of the debate were altered the moment the comment was posted to my profile page, even though the conditions were never given in the initial debate itself.
Posted by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
Tournament Judge Vote:

Opponent: 5
Opponent has a good win rate, but not many debates.

Arguments: 4
Pro's most notable argument was the loyalty one, which although gave decent supporting arguments, is still a moderately weak reason to burn one species of animal over another.

Humor: 6
notable humor: the DOGMATICALLY pun, the nonsensical more mice argument, and the overconfident "I win" image.

Total: 15
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
will have several judges here shortly
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
I might also state that Instigator was the first to change the terms of the debate. The initial argument did not clarify the debate as a "Troll debate", and he attempted to redefine the parameter of the debate on that foundation. It would be a double standard to recognize my parameter change alone and not his, would it not?
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Hm, does not even read the arguments and automatically discludea them. Seems oddly immature.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Hardly 'challenging' as much as downright obnoxious.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
9spacekingsnkcake666Tied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct point to pro. The arguments should be written in the debate itself and attempting to get around the character limit this way is unacceptable. I'll get around to reading voth sides and nudging argumebts later. I will not read the screenshots, while nudging so it will put con at a huge disadvantag
Vote Placed by kkjnay 1 year ago
kkjnay
9spacekingsnkcake666Tied
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: After carefully reviewing both arguments I can conclude that it is better to not light any animal on fire.