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

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

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,687 times Debate No: 86088
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




======================Outlaw Tournament Round 1 Debate========================

This is a first round debate for Wylted's invitational outlaw tournament

Thanks to U.n. for accepting my challenge.

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


- First round acceptance
- No new arguments in the last round
- 8000 characters & 48hrs to argue.

Better: of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable. [1]

Example of a Dog:

Example of a Cat:



Thank you ObiWan for the opportunity to debate a topic which is very dear to my heart and my fantasies. I would also like to state upfront that my position will be that it is better to light a dog on fire than a cat.

Example of a Dog:

Example of a Cat:

Best of luck to you and may the best pyro win.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks once again to my opponent for accepting this debate.

My argument will essentially boil down to two main themes. First I will focus on the fact that, especially when compared with dogs, cats have an overwhelmingly negative impact on society and hence are more deserving of being combusted and secondly I will address the many characteristics of the feline creature that lend themselves to a pleasurable fire lighting experience.

The modern domesticated dog has become an integral part of human society and their usefulness is immense. They are employed at ports as sniffer dogs, helping to protect people from bombs, illicit drugs and people that smell like steak and they work with the police to help track down criminals and search buildings. Dogs are also capable of acting as guides for blind people, enabling them to do navigate obstacles in environments that would otherwise cause them great difficulty. If you’re going to light a guide dog on fire you may as well light their owner on fire along with them. I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that ‘man’s best friend’ has integrated nicely into modern society.
Cats on the other hand are becoming a burden. Feral and stray cat populations continue to cause environmental problems around the world, to the point where feral cats have been classified as an invasive species in Australia due to their hunting of native species.

They are a major cause of decline for many land-based endangered animals such as the bilby, bandicoot, bettong and numbat. Many native animals are struggling to survive so reducing the number killed by this introduced predator will allow their populations to grow.” [1]

In the US a 2013 study found that between 1.4 and 3.7 BILLION birds are killed by cats each year, around two thirds of which are native species. There are 300 known feral cat colonies occupying the DC area alone [2]. Feral cat hunting and burning would be of great benefit to these native populations as they struggle under the oppression of these cat pests. By lighting just one cat on fire you could be saving the lives of numerous other important animals, not just rats and mice.

Modern day cats, excluding wild varieties such as lions and tigers that are most likely not readily available to the average bonfire enthusiast anyway, are also all a relatively consistent size. On the other hand dog breads range in size immensely. The consistency of cat size provides for an enjoyable and consistent cat lighting experience. The overall small size of cats when compared to most dogs also gives them a greater surface area to volume ratio, allowing for easier ignition and combustion, leading to the large leaping flames that make fires so enjoyable to watch creating an overall more pleasurable fire experience. It is also worth noting that due to their smaller size and overall fluffiness cats also have a greater ratio of highly flammable fur to flesh. The speedy combustion of this fur will not only ensure that the reaction to lighting a cat on fire will be quick and immediately satisfying but also will replace the overall smell of burning flesh with burning fur, especially when compared to a dog, leading to a more aromatically pleasant fire lighting experience.




1.0 Light dogs on fire because they offer more variety.

Dogs come in all shapes and sizes. Short, fat, tall, thin, brown fur, speckled fur, fluffy fur, no fur, ears to crop, tails to burn; and for individuals interested in larger fires, dogs truly are your only option. There have been recorded cases of dogs towering over 7 feet (2.13 meters) tall and weighing over 300 lbs (136kg), you can certainly make quite the large fire by setting a large dog ablaze -- much larger than any fire you could get from a cat. [1][2]

Then we get into dog breeds. As of June 15, 2015 the American Kennel Club recognizes 187 different dog breeds [3], and that is not including mutts or so called "designer dogs" such as Labradoodles, Puggles, and Bullshits.

As Malora Creager so eloquently stated:

"We are moving rapidly into a post-Darwinian era, an era when species will no longer exist. Once the general public gets the hang of genetic engineering, there will be an explosion of monstrous creations." [4]

When it comes to dogs, we don't need test tubes and a chemistry degree. The everyday arsonist can just as easily toss an unneutered male together with an unspayed female in heat to breed their very own monstrous creation for his or her burning pleasure.

2.0 Light dogs on fire because they are dangerous.

Let's get down to the facts:
- The CDC claims that approximately 4.5 million dog bites occur each year in the United States [5]
- 885,000 of those dog bites require medical attention [6]
- 368,000 victims of dog bites arrive at emergency departments per year [6]
- 27,000 people required reconstructive surgery due to dog bites in 2012 alone [6]
- 30+ Americans are mauled to death by dogs every year [6]

That is a significant amount of maimings and annual carnage from man's alleged best friend. Numerous insurance companies won't even insure homeowners with dogs because dog attacks are so incredibly common. When was the last time you heard of an insurance company dropping someone because of their housecat? You won't because the reality is cats don't kill people; dogs kill people.

So while that cute little kitten you are slandering is off killing insects, mice and other small pests - you know, doing something useful - the dog next door is busy ripping the faces off small children, gouging their innocent eyes out with sharp canine fangs, tearing out their young intestines, digesting the bloody mush which had once been a child's smile; and that sick, twisted, vicious mutt is wagging his tail the whole time.

3.0 Light dogs on fire because they are evil.

I am sure you are all familiar with David Richard Berkowitz aka American serial killer Son of Sam. But for the uninitiated, between July 1976 and July 1977 the Son of Sam went on a shooting spree in New York City. Using his .44 calibre Bulldog revolver, Berkowitz killed six people and wounded seven others in total. When the Son of Sam finally confessed to the shootings, he admitted to authorities that he had not acted alone -- he had been ordered under strict command by Harvey, his neighbor's black labrador retriever. A dog was in fact the mastermind behind the Son of Sam shootings. [7]

What is worse than a dog that commands humans to kill? How about dogs commanded by demons: Hellhounds.

Stories of hellhounds are known to date as far back as 8th Century BC Greek mythology [8]. They are formidable canines with supernatural abilities, including but not limited to invisibility, invulnerability, super senses and super strength. These inherently evil dogs come from the depths of hell and do the bidding of demons. All it takes is one quick sniff of a scent, and these hellish dogs will track down their victims with a tenacious obsession; they do not rest until their kill is complete [9]. It would be impossible to calculate the total number of humans killed by hellhounds throughout the ages but it is undeniable that the mortal world would be a better place if these beast dogs were all burned back to hell.

4.0 Light dogs on fire to weaponize them.

Unlike cats, dogs are trainable animals. They're easily taught commands, they're willing to perform tricks, and they can be given jobs. In fact, dogs have been weaponized before. In World War II, Russia trained "anti-tank" dogs [10]. These were dogs, carrying explosive devices, which were trained to look under German tanks for food. When the dog went underneath a tank, a trigger on its explosive device was detonated and KA-BLOO-EY! The sky would rain red with flesh, shrapnel and canine intestines.

As previously stated, dogs can range up to incredibly large sizes. And large dogs equal large stomachs. So what I'm proposing is that we can force-feed a large trained dog a flammable liquid, an incredibly volatile substance such as gasoline. The larger the dog, the larger the stomach, the larger the explosion. It"s simple math. Then douse the whole dog in gasoline - get his fur nice and soaked. After that take a dry, slow burning towel and wrap it around the dog's tail.

We can then take this well-trained, oversized, walking, breathing molotov cocktail, set the towel on fire, and send him off on his kamikaze mission. Molotov dogs could be used in guerrilla warfare, by political activists or even just for shiggles. Maybe blow up some homeless people, possibly an abortion clinic or a church - depending on your political agenda of course, or really whatever tickles your fancy.

5.0 Light dogs on fire for food.

You can roast a dog over a fire pit, smoke them dry for dog jerky, or even grill one up at a bar-b-que: dogmeat burgers, dogmeat sausage, hot dogs made out of real dog... Pulled dogmeat sandwiches go over great with young children as well as the elderly.

And even if you opt to burn dogs for reasons other than food, you will probably still find yourself wondering what to do with all that leftover dogmeat. Well how about a nice bowl of Bosintang, also known as dogmeat soup. I have the perfect Korean recipe for you. You take roughly 100g of dogmeat, boil it, toss it in with some vegetables and gravy. Serve it with a side of Kimchi and pair it with a glass of Soju. [11] Just follow the referenced source link, you won't be disappointed.

Regardless of your palate preference, you are sure to get a lot more meat off a large dog than you ever could off a cat.

6.0 And if you are still not convinced then I have three words for you: Puppy monkey baby.

That monstrosity right there is the reason why God created the blowtorch.

Debate Round No. 2


While I will concede to my opponent that dogs can sometimes be dangerous, I would like to point out that so can cats. In fact, while instances of dogs becoming violent forms a small minority of human-dog encounters, a “neurotic and unstable” cat is perfectly normal. A study conducted just last year has found that house cats “have similar personality structures to African lions with high inclinations toward dominance, impulsiveness and neuroticism” [1]. Lions, by the way, are responsible for over 200 human deaths a year, a number that dwarfs the 30 con attributes to dogs. [2]

Furthermore, of the 30 or so deaths caused by dogs last year 27 of these involved pit bulls. [3] The case that dogs are dangerous death machines is less a case against dogs in general and more a case against pit bulls specifically. Con himself points out that there are 187 recognised dog breads, so in effect less than 0.01% of dogs are responsible for 90% of these deaths, a statistic that points towards the inevitable conclusion that the vast minority of dogs are violent.

Cats on the other hand are almost exclusively evil and the average cat is far more sinister than the average dog. There’s no doubt about it, cats are vicious hunters and “If they were bigger, they probably would consider killing you”. “Cats can be fantastic, sweet companions — until they turn on you” [1]

Your cat is gunning for you, a fact now backed up by science, so what are you going to do about it? The obvious solution is of course to burn them. This serves the purpose of removing your cat before it can a) learn how to kill you b) reproduce and pass on its hatred and some new super death mutation, which given the rate at which cats are capable of reproducing is only a matter of time or c) go rogue and contribute to the environmental damage mentioned in the last round [4]. A public burning would also send a clear and effective message to all other cats not to mess with you.

My opponents hell hound and puppy monkey baby arguments are both ridiculous and should be completely ignored. In regards to the former, everyone knows that hell hounds are fire proof; they come from hell for god’s sake! So even if you wanted to, you couldn't’t light one on fire. Plus there’s also the chance it would be on fire already anyway [5]. In regards to the latter, this unholy creature is only 1/3 dog, so an argument against it is more an argument against puppy-monkeys than it is against dogs. Finally, as far as cooking your dog goes, if you’re going to light them on fire, you’ll end up with nothing but tough, charred meat that’s no good to anyone. A nice, slow grill would produce much better results.

The hypothetical dog weaponisation program put forward by con in the last round is also fairly ridiculous. However there is an air of plausibility hanging over it so I would like to propose a more effective counter plan. Assemble yourself the same ingredients as before, but this time substitute the dog for a cat. You will also need a long-range laser pointer to function as a sure fire control mechanism. [6- youtube]

By taking advantage of the amazing agility feline creatures this new and improved Combustion and Arson Transport (CAT) is now capable of exploding all those hard to reach places. You can lead your CAT up walls, over fences and through the narrowest of fence gaps. Tired of investing hours of your time training exploding dogs to do exactly what you want? Well the added functionality of the laser pointer makes controlling your CAT a breeze, with immediate and repeatable results anyone can become an expert in no time at all without the added worry of a dog possibly disobeying you. Still not convinced? Well, use a CAT within the foreseeable future and you can throw in the added bonus of getting to destroy a creature that has no other value to society absolutely free!

But wait, that’s not all! If exploding your CATS just isn’t enough why not grab some friends, a few torches and some pitchforks and go hunt down your neighborhood strays or the local ferals and burn them all and you’ll experience stress release benefits and mob-mentality highs that have been lost to humanity since the days of witch trials. Plus these experiences comes with no lock in guilt, seeing as your actually doing society a favour by removing an invasive pest species that does serious environmental damage. So stop what ever it is you’re doing and ignite some cats, while the world is thanking you, you’ll be thanking yourself.









ObiWan, what are you doing, man? You can't just toss in a youtube link at the bottom of your argument like a boring literary citation and expect everyone to watch it. You gotta post it!

And here we are nearing the halfway point of this incredibly important debate. So I propose an intermission. Anyone who has been reading along, we appreciate your continued attention. But please take the opportunity now to go grab a snack and possibly an ice cold beer. And most importantly, take the time to appreciate the hand selected YouTube video that my Aussie adversary has provided. Yes, that's right, I am posting my opponent's video for him. Enjoy - I'll wait.




What, you are back so soon? Yes, those were some really cute kittens. And I hope that you enjoyed them as much as I did. Which brings me to my next round of arguments: reasons why you should NOT light cats on fire.

1. Do NOT light cats on fire because Cats are entertaining.

In today's digital age, cats have become an internet sensation. They are staring in viral videos, amusing people with clever memes, and bringing diverse cultures together with the power of laughter. We all just watched the video Pro provided and the kittens were absolutely adorable. Here is just a sample of some of the internet's most popular feline celebrities: keyboard cat, LOLCatz, Maru the box cat, business cat memes, Simon's cat, that cat with the green melon peel on its head. Even Pro could not resist posting a picture of Grumpy cat - one of the internet's most famous and beloved cats - as his "example of a cat".

Cat images, videos and gifs have become so popular on the internet or as John Oliver calls it, the "electronic cat database", that cats are taking up large chunks of the overall internet activity. In fact, studies conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology show that cat pictures and videos make up approximately 15% of all internet activity, that is second only to pornography [12], as illustrated in this pie chart that I recreated on my very own computer:

2. Do NOT light cats on fire because they prevent the spread of deadly disease.

Pro claims that we should all grab pitchforks and chase down cats with a mob-like mentality. He even goes so far as to reference "the days of witch trials". What a rather draconian train of thought. Pro, I like your style; however, I dare say that your proposal is incredibly flawed. You are correct in stating that cats had been hunted down and killed as part of the witch trials; however, it ultimately resulted in 25 million dead Europeans. But I'm getting ahead of myself. First, a quick tale from the depths of History 101 or some other three digit number.

It is important to understand the history of our feline friends and the intricate way that they have woven their lives into human society. It is believed that cats have been domesticated since as far back as 12,000 BCE. Humans recognized the cat's natural hunting abilities and began trusting cats to protect their grains and other food supplies from rats, mice and other pests. [13]

Cats then rose to a god-like status during the days of the Ancient Egyptians: exporting cats was illegal, injuring cats resulted in severe punishments; and the penalty for killing cats, even by accident, resulted in the death penalty. The Egyptians went so far as to depict one of their most popular deities, the goddess Bastet, in the image of a cat. Bastet was said to protect the Egyptian people from evil spirits and disease. Similarly, the Ancient Chinese made sacrifices to the cat goddess Li Shou to protect their families from pests. These societies understood that if you respect cats, cats will protect their people in return. But let's take a look at a society which failed to respect the feline species - a society which killed off cats, much like Pro proposes that we do. [13]

Cats were not so highly regarded in Europe. During the Middle Ages the Christian Church began drumming up their witch trials. They began to associate cats with witchcraft and the European people grabbed pitchforks and killed off cats with a mob-like mentality, exactly like Pro proposes that we all do. But here is what happened: When the European people killed off cats, it allowed the mice and rat populations to thrive. The vermin population carried fleas. And those fleas carried the great Bubonic Plague. [13] In other words, by killing off cats, the European people killed off a key natural defense against the spread of disease.

In 1347, right before the Bubonic plague struck, the European population was estimated at approximately 75 million people. After just five years the European population had plummeted down to 50 million people. That's roughly one-third of the European population which was culled off by disease. [14]

If the European people had simply respected the feline species as the Egyptians had, the Black Death pandemic could have been avoided. What good is history if we don't learn from it? Only a fool would risk the health of humanity by burning cats.

3. Do NOT light cats on fire because they are more sanitary than dogs.

Now that it has been established how cats prevent the spread of pandemic diseases, let me walk you through the day of your average dog. They drink from the toilet, then they lick your face. They lick their own butts, then they lick your face. They eat their own poop, then they lick your face. Dogs are regularly spreading bacteria with their tongues. In contrast, cats love to be clean. Veterenarian Dr. Cynthia McManis claims that "adult cats spend up to 50 percent of their waking hours grooming". [15]

Additionally, dogs poop everywhere. They poop on lawns. They poop on sidewalks. One time a dog even pooped in the water fountain at my local park [16]. That flaming paper bag of poop you stomped out on your front porch last Tuesday - don't ask me how it got there - but chances are it was dog poop. At least, you can be certain it wasn't cat poop because a cat has the decency to cover up its own poop and bury it.

No Double Dipping

Pro uses a picture of a house cat as his "example of a cat" but when forced to concede that dogs are more dangerous than cats, he expands out his scope of a "cat" to include lions. Yet at the same time, Pro dismisses Hellhounds and the Puppy Monkey Baby as "ridiculous". You can't have it both ways. Either hellhounds and the Puppy Monkey Baby are included -OR- lions need also be dismissed as ridiculous.

[16] Some homeless guy I met in the park. We call him Terry the Bum. Also, if you've got any change please consider donating it to the Terry the Bum drinking foundation. His booze fund is running perilously low these days. #Economy.
Debate Round No. 3


First of all thank you to my opponent for a fun and challenging debate. Also thank you for reposting my YouTube video (even if it was just to repurpose it for your own means), I did try to embed it in my argument and while I don’t know why it wasn’t working I suspect the cat internet overlords had something to do with it.

Final Rebuttals:

Last round my opponent proposed that the burning of cats allowed rat populations to thrive and hence contributed to the spread of the bubonic plague through Europe. In contrast to this, my opponent claims, societies such as they Egyptians and the Chinese respected their cats and hence were less likely to succumb to the spread of such diseases.

However it is a commonly held belief among scholars that the black plague actually originated in central Asia, with many placing its origin somewhere in western China. The very source con cited last round ([14]) mentions this. In 1334 an outbreak killed 90% of the population of Hebei province and from 1200 to 1393 the population in China halved, the main causes of which were famine, unrest and, you guessed it, the bubonic plague. The plague then proceeded to spread east to India and the Middle East along trading routes such as the famous Silk Road. [1]

More populated cities and poorer hygiene standards then allowed the plague to rampage through Europe. Bodies were simply dumped in the streets and people whipped themselves in the hope that it would show their devotion to god. [2]

If cats really where the disease preventing machines my opponent makes them out to be then they should have preventing the disease from spreading out of China and across the world in the first place, as well as preventing it from affecting Chinese populations.

As far as cats on the Internet goes, I don’t see why this should prevent cats from being lit on fire. In fact, given the great popularity of cats on the Internet, posting a video of you lighting some up would be sure to catapult you towards YouTube stardom and the bucket loads of money that comes with you. Flaming dogs would just not attract the same kinds of Internet stardom.

The fact that cats spend so much of their time grooming themselves is also one of the reasons why they are better to burn than dogs. Cats sleep for around 16 hours a day, so if half that time they are licking themselves then that leaves a window of arond 4 hours for your cat to something intersting. [3] Dogs on the other hand are always up for a play, walk or cuddle. Furthermore the ability of dogs to produce a seemingly endless supply of poop is what makes them such good animals for couples to own before they consider owning a baby. They prepare people for the non-stop diper changing crap storm of early parenthood and teach people about responsibility and caring.

A note on double dipping:

I dismissed the hell hound arguments because hell hounds are often depicted already on fire, so attempting to light them on fire to destroy them is pointless and the puppy monkey baby because it is more not a dog than it is a dog. That being said, I was using Lions not as an example of a cat but more as a ‘character witness’, to show the killer instinct that cats must also harbor since, as the study I cited showed, cats are very psychologically similar to lions.

Brief summary of my arguments:

- Feral cats are an invasive and environmentally destructive pest species and should be destroyed.

- Cats provide a more pleasurable fire lighting experience, with a greater surface area to volume ratio and a greater proportion of highly combustible fur.

- Dogs fill more roles, such as security and police dogs, sniffer dogs and guide dogs and are far more useful to society than cats are.

- Scientific studies have shown that all cats are evil and if they could kill you, they would.

- Cats make for much more effective Combustion and Arson transports than dogs.






I would like to thank ObiWan for a light-hearted dogfight, pitting the fate of cats against that of dogs. I can hear the protests of PETA activists and animal rights supporters barking in the distance. So I am afraid that we will have to put a muzzle on this debate before it gets put to sleep.

Closing Summary as Con (that's me!) saw it:

1. Pro came out firing in the 2nd round, proposing that cats would be more fun to light on fire due to their consistent, small size and fluffiness. I have a bone to pick on this. How can it pawssibly be more fun to light the same sized creature on fire over and over again? As I stated, dogs offer more variety, and we all know that there is more than one way to skin a cat -- er, burn a dog. You can get dogs the same size as cats, or smaller - such as chihuahuas [17], or obviously much larger, or really any size you pawfer. And if you want to be really nip-picky, you can certainly get fluffiness with dogs as well, such as pomeranians and sheepdogs [18]. Light dogs on fire because they offer more variety.

2. In the 2nd round I listed dog attack statistics, including annual injuries and fatalities to showcase how dogs are more dangerous than cats. Pro rebutted stating "While I will concede to my opponent that dogs can sometimes be dangerous"...

Let’s paws here for a moment. Pro conceded that dogs are more dangerous than cats.

Pro then created a bone of contention by citing lion-related fatalities, but was forced to tuck his tail between his legs in the 4th round clarifying “I was using Lions not as an example of a cat. Let’s not pussyfoot around this, Pro was unable to offer tangible evidence that cats are a furrocious threat to humans. Therefore I maintain that we should light dogs on fire because they are more dangerous than cats.

3. Now to unravel the ball of yarn: are dogs evil? I listed both Harvey the dog from the Son of Sam murders as well as hellhounds to support my claim that dogs are evil. Pro retorts that hellhounds are ridiculous. So in the interest of both time and character space I will throw Pro a bone and scratch the hellhounds. However, I won’t call off the dogs. The fact remains, Pro never addressed the Son of Sam murders. It would appear that the cat’s got Pros tongue or purrhaps Pro simply furgot. Due to a disapurrance of rebuttal, we must maintain that Harvey was the leader of the pack who commanded David Berkowitz to go on a serial killing rampage and therefore I conclude that we should light dogs on fire beclaws dogs are in fact evil.

4. Pro both opened with and included in his closing summary that dogs are useful working animals. And I agree with this statement: unlike cats, dogs are trainable animals. I proposed that dogs can therefore be weaponized and turned into living molotov cocktails, and I supported my proposal with a quick hisstory anecdote about WWII Russian tank sniffing dogs.

Pro stated that the dog weaponizing program is ridiculous yet he admits an "air of plausibility hanging over it". He then suggests a copycat idea using felines instead by way of laser pointer, stating "You can lead your CAT up walls, over fences”. Up and over? You have got to be kitten me. Directing laser pointers skyward is known to distract aircraft pilots, risking unnecessary catlateral damage [19]. Even in a war scenario, you could risk the unfurtunate pawssibility of alerting enemy pilots to your location. Weaponizing cats is clearly an infurior concept. Let’s stick with the proven species here and lights dogs on fire to weaponize them.

5. In the 2nd round I suggested numerous recipes for how to prepare and serve dogmeat entrees. Pro wasn’t feline it; he claimed the dogmeat would be too ruff. However, Pro did not dismiss the concept of dogmeat food entirely. In fact, Pro pawlitely suggested an alternative approach to cooking dogmeat stating “A nice, slow grill would produce much better results.” So let’s light dogs on fire for food and grill them to purrfection - don’t forget the catsup!

6. I proposed that we should fetch a blowtorch and light up the puppy monkey baby because well, look at it. Pro fanned the flames stating "this unholy creature is only 1/3 dog" and "it is more not a dog than it is a dog". Therefore Pro purrty much admits that the puppy monkey baby is part dog. I'll take it. Light dogs on fire because Puppy monkey baby.

7. I opened my 3rd argument detailing the entertainment tailent of cats, including the pie chart which shows total internet activity includes 15% cats and 4% mean comments. Pro did not understand what was so doggone cute about internet cats that would absolve them from being set ablaze. I believe the answer to this is quite simple and explainable through statistical analysis and mathematics, but I will spare you the dog and pony show, the short answer is: No cats = more mean comments. No one likes mean comments. Therefore, do NOT lights cats on fire because cats are entertaining.

8. In the 3rd argument I pointed out how cats prevent the spread of disease by killing off hosts such as rats and mice, citing how Europeans killed off their cats with a pack mentality. Pro rebutted that the Bubonic Plague also hit China despite the Chinese owning cats. While that is a furry good arguing angle, it must be noted that there have actually been multiple outbreaks of the Bubonic Plague throughout history. And while it may be true that the 'Black Death' of 1347-1352 was so cat-astrophic that even felines couldn't fully prevent it, how else would one explain how the Plague was continually releashed upon Europe from the 13th through the 17th century? [20]

As one article explains "people finally noticed that these cat owners often seemed to be immune to the black plague" [21], and when people began giving cats a round of appaws, the plague outbreaks finally ceased. It is with this that I must conclude do NOT light cats on fire because they prevent the spread of deadly disease.

9. In my final arguing point I noted how cats are more sanitary than dogs. However, Pro failed to address the flaming doggie bag that mysteriously appeared on his doorstep last Tuesday. Nor did he mention any attempt to interview a booze hound of his own in order to rebuttal my source, [16] Terry the Bum. Instead Pro welcomed all the dog poop he could get his paws on, claiming it to be some kind of prepawsterous baby training method, which grosses meowt. Therefore I must maintain do NOT light cats on fire because they are more sanitary than dogs.

Vote for Con, I double dog dare ya.

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
RFD CONT. (Sorry for the backward posting )
The fire experience: PRO contends that due to relative size consistency and fluffiness cats, they would provide a consistent experience. CON successfully rebuts that with multiple dog breeds available the same characteristics can be found, and larger dogs can provide enhanced results. Internet cats: CON comments on their immense popularity and entertainment value. PRO rebuts the same value can be achieved if cats were set ablaze (highly contentions). CON make point that this would this lead to negative comments which is not preferred. I"ll give this point a wash based on arguments provided; although this reader believes that internet cat burning would appeal to only a small sadistic sect of viewers, not the public at large. Disease prevention: Both sides were convincing regarding the bubonic plague. Though CON points out the plaque occurred numerous times throughout history and cats were seen as beneficial to stave off the disease; provides citation to back his point. For this issue the citation has weight. Dogs as a food source: PRO makes a horrible move by not rebutting this point but, instead offered an alternative cooking means of canine. Summation of arguments: P2/C5. On quality of amusement, both sides made this reader chuckle but, CON"s use of puns throughout the debate edged out his competition. S&G points tied due to good readability exhibited by both sides. Sources to CON due to superior visuals provided that enhanced the reader experience. Conduct tie, both exhibited self control and appropriate tone.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
RFD: Overall this debate was a fun read. Since this was not a serious debate, actual supported facts will be considered lightly. Which had better quality of argument and amusement factors are weighted. On the point of feline environmental impact made by PRO, CON does not sufficiently rebut. Pertaining to the dangerous nature of dogs, CON wins the point; PROs concedes to a degree that at times this is true. CON embellishes on this point with the "Son of Sam"s" dog and history of Hellhound threats. But, on the argument of the Hellhound itself, PRO wins due to common knowledge that hounds from hell are either already on fire or can"t be set on fire. Weaponization of cats vs. dogs: Although both sides were imaginative with scenarios, CON made the stronger point that laser pointed guided cats would be detrimental during a war time due to lasers being problematic for planes and would alert enemy forces to your location.
Posted by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 2 years ago
Punishing final argument.
Posted by BlazingRodent 2 years ago
@ColeTrain. Ah! You're infected!
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
Go cats!
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
Puppy monkey baby.
Posted by SmellTheGlove 2 years ago
This should be a entertainingly heated discussion.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years 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: Strength of opponent- Tough opponent. That guy was great. Incredible arguments, funny creative. He had it all. You get 10 points in this category. Arguments- Nice, you did a great job with your arguments, and caught a tough break by drawing that opponent. 8 points for arguments. Humor- Not funny pro. Barely any effort, I have 2 doc you points here. You get 2. T Total Score- 20 points, not bad overall
Vote Placed by Peepette 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments