The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 871 times Debate No: 86297
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




This is for Wylted's Outlaw tournament (

1. No forfeiture.
2. No plaragism.
3. First round is for acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for accepting.

It is obvious that it is better to light a cat on fire than a dog. Cats are evil, dispicable beings that deserve to be set on fire. Regardless of how you think of dogs, there is little they could do to reach the evil of a cat. Cats, unlike most animals, domesticated themselves - they realized that it is better to leech off the humans than be killed by them.[1] Cats retain their evil instincts, killing wild birds in alarming numbers. In countries like New Zealand, cats are killing off endangered species of birds.[1] Cats carry a parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, that makes you like them - they effectively brainwash you into becoming their servants. The 'affection' they show you? They are just rubbing their scent on you, claiming you as its own. After you die, cats are known to eat you - one poor Romanian woman was eaten entirely by her cat. The reason cats lick themselves? They hate your scent. The reason cats purr? To manipulate you.[2] Experts have concluded that, if cats were big enough, they would kill and eat you.[3] Cats are, by nature, violent sociopaths who exploit others for their own gain. There is no solution to them other than the fire.

In contrast, dogs have been scientifically proven to love their owners. Dogs see humans as family - in fact, they rely on us more than even other dogs for things like affection and protection.[4] Dogs need us; cats abuse us. Dogs are the only species on earth that relies on humans for relief when they are nervous, anxious, or fearful. They are the only species that wants eye contact with humans.[4] Dogs are true companions. This is the reason they hate cats - they see how terrible they are and want to warn and protect us from them. To light one on fire would be a sin; to light one on fire rather than a cat would be an executionable offense.

In light of the, I propose the following plan: The Final Solution to the Cat Problem.

Step 1: Any cats will be brought to special cat dispensation facilities. These facilities will be in Africa; cats will be shipped from all over the world. A global relief fund will reward all people who find and report cats, in proportion to the number they find.
Step 2: A small number of cats (5%) will be sent to breeding chambers. The others will be sent to the furnace chambers. After providing offspring, the cats in the breeding chambers will also be sent to the furnace chabers.
Step 3: Cats will be burned. Their burning will create both heat and energy, providing clean, renewable energy for millions of Africans.

This is the Final Solution to the Cat Problem; cats will serve us, not the other way around. If we want to go further, we could send cats to chambers in Asia, where they are revered for their meat. This would provide relief to starving Asians, especially in North Korea. Opposing this plan means you hate poor Africans and Asians, which means you are a racist. Don't be a racist. Support the final solution to the cat problem.



I would like to Thank Wylted for this tournament, and Wylted could you please thank your sick, irregular, twisted mind for the topic.
Thanks also to my opponent T905 , and what a nice rational young man you seem to be.

It goes cats then dogs, it's the next step

If I opened a shop offering animal torture. Dogs would cost more then cats . The better the animal the better it is to set on fire. Simple as that.
I highly doubt any 1 you know would give up a opportunity of setting a panda bear on fire.
Let's say for example you lose a debate, and the person ya loss to has a dog and a cat. Of course you setting there dog on fire no question about it. My ex girlfriend once thought she could come get our dog that I payed for. Sure I said ,no problem. I covered the dog in fuel and ran a trail of fuel leading to it from a seat I sat in , she approached the shed so I lit the fuel. Doggy dead . When you set a dog on fire you can really see the horror in its eyes much clearer then a cat . Cats just bolt you don't get to enjoy it.

As you can see I can't spell or construct a sentence to good nor can I debate . But I do know about killing animals. Please believe me when I say dogs are heaps better setting on fire. Dogs are always looking at me funny and there so judgemental. Who do they think they are?. Maybe you can forgive a dog for barking at you, I certainly ain't. Just last week I lost $50 bucks on a greyhound it come last. If I was able to get to it I'd remove it's eyes in a instant. I'm pretty good at eye removal ,

Cat or cop dog, wich 1 are you setting on fire? , cats don't really bother people, if they do ya just kick there stupid heads off.
I never had a cat or dog growing up, I did have heaps of puppy's and a few kittens. Why have 1 dog for 15 years when you can have 50 puppy's. I'm always looking for stray animals , to cut . Why set a cat on fire , they make great crab bait, just prick a few holes in them . Cats kill wildlife , good on em, they know how fun it is . I've set more animals on fire then you've had roast dinners. If you find it fun lighting cats up its not long before dogs. Cats are a gateway drug to dogs. You say it's better to light cats on fire then dogs, I say it's better to light them both up, chuck in a few ferrets and a miniature horse. Stupid animals.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has developed an interesting thesis: that setting a dog on fire is better than setting a cat on fire, because dogs are cute and it is more fun to set cute things on fire. This leads to an interesting moral dilemma. Is it better to kill something for your own desire (the desire to destroy cute things), or for the good of mankind (killing all cats)? I think the answer is obviously the latter.

My opponent argues that, in a revenge situation, it would be better to set a cat on fire than a dog. I disagree. Dogs are easy targets. They are big, slow, dumb, and easy to confuse, and even if they attack their patterns are predictable. Cats are trickier prey. They flee at the sight of intruders, hide in different places, and stalk their prey carefully. It is far more satisfying to find and set a cat on fire, simply due to their sneakier nature.

My opponent next attempts an appeal to authority: he argues he is an expert at killing animals, and that dogs are far better to set on fire. This portion of his argument is disjointed - it appears my opponent has some sort of mental condition. I am concerned for his well-being and the well-being of others, but that is beside the point. He suggests dogs are more annoying, which makes them better to kill. This could be true. But does that mean they are better to set on fire? No. Not the same thing at all. The whimpering of a dog is far less satisfying than the final shreiking of the cat, which makes you realize what a great decision it was to set it on fire.

Not to mention, of course, how great for humanity my Final Solution to the Cat Problem is. We are going to kill and cats, and make them pay for it. We will build the biggest, classiest cat burning facilities on earth. I'll be the greatest cat killer God ever made. My opponent? He's a loser. Let him kill his dogs. I'm going to save humanity


My opponent out of pure rudeness and straight up disrespect, fails to talk about or simply acknowledge 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. The pinball song from sesame street. This fact is inadmissible and should be marked accordingly. I do however see he possess the ability to learn , and is kind of seeing that not so much the cutest pet, but the bigger and friendlier animals are much more greater to set on fire, and much more memorable and meaningful, dogs are better then cats to set on fire

I still remember it like yesterday. 15 to 17 years ago standing in a field in the dark of night feeding grass to a horse with 1 hand while poring gasoline on it with the other. Then. 1st ever flaming horse. I stood back and was in ore , this beautiful creature jumping and kicking , flicking flames in every direction. It was so F N cute like.

Your "final solution plan", where you go around gathering only 1 certain type of critter, Then transporting them to a place to be burnt in mass numbers, is copied straight of the TV show Sex and the city season 2 episode4 . Yet again this should be marked accordingly. If I was to survey 100 RANDOM , let's say mailman, from different backgrounds and cultures, and put this question to them, I'm 100% sure it would be a overwhelming response of. set the dogs on fire not cats. And we all know mailman and women are among the greatest and most trusted bunch of people in the world. I mean to match the number on the envelope with the box you place it in takes great mind skills.

I'm also sure if we asked 100 random cats , if it's better to burn dogs then cats , it would be a total waste of time. they would not answer because they are cats , and cats and dogs can't talk,
I get of track a little because I keep thinking about how great that horse was. But just know the bigger better animal is better to set on fire. The horse is better to light up then the ant. The giraffe is better to light up then the mouse. Wich makes The dogs better to set on fire the the cat
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has created a case so incomprehensible that I cannot effectively refute half of it. I will refute the second half. My opponent accuses me of stealing my final solution plan from Sex and the City. This is a lie. I stole my plan from Hitler, not from Sex and the City. He also argues mailmen want to light dogs on fire. I doubt this. Mailmen do not exist any more. We abolished mail when the e-mail was invented and exiled all mailment to Venezuela. He also says cats would prefer dogs be set on fire. So? Dogs would prefer cats be set on fire. According to FunTrivia, there are more dogs than cats in world.[1] Ergo, I win!

In closing, as I view my opponent's arguments, I reminisce on my youth. Like so many, I found joy in animals. But yet, there was one animal above all that I respected: the lion. Lions are cats. Cats are great, right? No. I saw the Lion King, an excellent documentary, and I was exposed to the dark underbelly of cat culture. Murder, espionage, theft. Cannibalism. Youth unemployment. I thought to myself "I cannot stand for this". This is when I killed my first cat. In the thousands I have killed since, one way has stood above all else: burning.

My opponent does not understand this. I know for a fact my opponent is not real. He is a hologram. We are all holograms, in fact. If nothing is real, what is real? The ramblings of a lunatic like my opponent are meaningless. The dark fact is that cats are the epitome of meaninglessless. They have no care for you, no desire for you. They exist to eat, sleep, and then eat you when you die. What better way to strike back against the meaninglessness of the universe then to kill it's manifestation in the cat? My opponent has no answer to this, because there are no answers. So go outside and light a cat on fire. Escape from the meaninglessness of your life for just a brief moment as you hear the squealing of a cat, begging for mercy in a universe that offers none.



Thanks T905, I wish you well. Sorry for my spelling and structure all.

If you think my opponent has set 1 cat on fire vote for him. I doubt he has ever pat a kitty roughly.
Have you ever watched the news and heard of a kid been viciously attacked by a domestic cat. But dogs do. Of course it's only the occasional dog . Dogs sometimes have to be put down for there actions cats don't or maybe they might but it's 1 in 1000 And if a animal by law has to be put down, it's better to light a dog that has to be put down on fire then a kids pet kitten,

Before voting I suggest you have a look at my opponent's home page and look at his activities , likes, beliefs, and find something that you don't like or approve of and vote with that in mind , please also note my opponent is from North Carolina, and no cats in North Carolina have ever been on fire, as the world seen just weeks ago. The long and short or his arguments are ,he wants to burn your cat , he thinks they are evil vicious killers and they all deserve to die. I don't know about you but that's just cruel .

My opponent's final solution plan was copied straight from Hitler he claims . Let's just not go their I say. Your last bit where you say I'm a hologram and if nothing is real what is real. Shows exactly what kind of person you are . One of them how can you prove I exsist I'm a squid. Not real what's real powwwww I might be a donkey you just never know.
Yes he is one of these people , look I can't prove your not a squid let's leave it at that.

I offered a 1st hand experience on my life as a juvenile. Non sugar coated , I know cats leed to dogs . And to really understand the topic of the debate ITS BETTER TO LIGHT A CAT ON FIRE THEN A DOG. You have to think about it from 2 positions 1 being a sick psychopaths POV, If your lighting animal's on fire and happily doing so . Of course it's better to light a dog on fire then a cat.
The other position, A Normal persons Point of view. It's not good to light any animal on fire full stop
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by funnyface318 2 years ago
Why dont you just not light either?
And seriously.. a debate on whether to light a cat or a dog on fire? thats just stupid
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
C'mon, why choose. Just don't light anyone!
Posted by TheDeafCreeper 2 years ago
Really? A debate on weather it is better to light a cat or dog on fire?
Posted by U.n 2 years ago
I'd take this debate but I've already got one.
Posted by U.n 2 years ago
Aw snap, if you're short on weird topic ideas all you need to do is ask.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
this is going to be f-u-n! (sarcasm)
Posted by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 2 years ago
Yea, for 16 contestants. That doesn't seem a bit redundant (and repetitive) to you?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
They were given 5 choices
Posted by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 2 years ago
Wylted really, really needs to mix it up a bit.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
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: Toughness of opponent- Good opponent, not great. You get 8 points for that. Strength of arguments- Good arguments. probably enough to beat a good opponent, if I were leaving a scoring RFD on this debate. I give you 9 points. Humor- There was an attempt at humor, and I almost smiled one time. 5 points total points- 22