The Instigator
mission42
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheDiabolicDebater
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Owners should spay every female owned dog unless contract is signed allowing them to breed

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...
TheDiabolicDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,201 times Debate No: 21953
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

mission42

Pro

Too many stray dogs roam the streets of the world. To avoid unwanted "oopsies", owners in the U.S.A should spay all female dogs. Government should provide contract allowing breeders to continue with their career. Spaying the dog will also provide much better health for the dog.
TheDiabolicDebater

Con

I accept this challenge based on the understanding that my opponent will be arguing for the mandatory spaying of female dogs. The only exception being a government "contract" that will allow breeders to be exempt from this law.

I would first like to point out that my opponent has failed to provide a source for the claim, "Spaying the dog will also provide much better health for the dog."

The key word here is "better." Spaying dogs actually provides more health risks than it does benefits[4], so it should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary.

Now, onto my arguments.

Argument 1

P1: Spaying and Neutering are both forms of controlling the canine population.

P2: Neutering is less dangerous, and more efficient than spaying.
C: Mandatory neutering is preferable to mandatory spaying.

P1: Spaying is the removal of the ovaries and uterus of a female dog[1]. Neutering, or an Orchectomy, is the surgical removal of the testicles of a male dog[2]. Both of these medical procedures are performed with the intention of rendering the canine unable to breed.

P2: Spaying a dog involves abdominal surgery to remove the ovaries and uterus. The process is lengthy, bloody, and the recovery is somewhat slow. Stitches on the outside will need to be removed in 7-10 days[1]. On the other hand, we have neutering. The neutering of a male dog is a quick and efficient process. Using a laser as opposed to a scalpel blade, the bleeding is significantly reduced and the recovery time is substantially lowered[3]. Additionally, no stitches are required for the healing process.


C: Neutering and spaying canines are both performed for the same purpose: To reduce the canine population. Neutering is safer and more efficient than spaying. Therefore, mandatory neutering is the preferable procedure.


For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources
1) http://www.lbah.com...;(WARNING: Contains graphic images of actual surgery)

2)http://www.biology-online.org...
3)http://www.lbah.com...;(WARNING: Contains graphic images of actual surgery)
4)http://www.naiaonline.org...
Debate Round No. 1
mission42

Pro

My opponents sources are trustworthy, and the facts stated are true, however, a major point is missing in his argument.

He has not placed any strength in his argument. Sure, neutering is, physically, more efficient, and neutering may be
faster, but there is no point to this statement. So what if the procedure takes longer? What's so bad about that?

Now, I will not deny that neutering males may be a more efficient and quick process, and it will disenable that particular male dog to impregnate any female dog, however, the risks are still high of females to be bred by stray male dogs that are not yet fixed, again, causing unwanted overpopulation of stray dogs.

Female dogs are, undeniably, at lower risk of becoming pregnant if every owned male dog is neutered, but the problem is not completely gone.

Spaying female dogs will completely abolish impregnation of owned female dogs, making spaying the more desirable choice in reducing canine population.

Now, I will not deny that either process is efficient and valid, and non-fixed owned male dogs are still likely to impregnate female stray dogs, but it will be impossible for them to impregnate ( even if they try) an owned female dog. An owner will deal with their pregnant dog in three major ways:

[1]Decide that she does not want to have a pregnant dog and put her dog's life at risk, therefore spaying the dog after the eggs have been fertilized, killing completely innocent puppies

[2] Deal with their dogs pregnancy recklessly and either A) abandon the dog, or B) Not prepare for the puppies arrival putting more dogs onto the streets.

[3] Take it calmly and follow through with the pregnancy carefully.

The most likely of the 3 to be chosen by humans is either [1] or [2].

Therefore, spaying is the more desirable choice. Vote Pro!
TheDiabolicDebater

Con

It's obvious that my opponent and I are both trying to achieve the same goal here. That goal is a reduction in the canine population. Because we are both achieving the same goal, we must then judge this round based upon who achieves that goal more efficiently, more practically, and by causing less harm. The person who provides the most practical means to achieve this goal should clearly be the winner.

Now I will go over my opponents case. My opponents remarks will be italicized to make the distinction clear.

Arguments/Rebuttals

"My opponents sources are trustworthy, and the facts stated are true, however, a major point is missing in his argument."
My opponent agrees with my sources and states that I have provided factual information. Pro has not provided any evidence. If this does not warrant me getting points for sources, I don't know what does.

"Sure, neutering is, physically, more efficient, and neutering may be faster, but there is no point to this statement. So what if the procedure takes longer? What's so bad about that?"
Pro acknowledges that neutering is more efficient. This is a valid reason for favoring neutering over spaying. We are rational human beings. The more practical solution will typically be the more desirable one. The cons of spaying aren't just in the fact that it takes longer. As I have stated before, spaying is bloodier, involves a longer recovery time, and it requires abdominal surgery! Obviously neutering is the better choice here.

"Now, I will not deny that neutering males may be a more efficient and quick process, and it will disenable that particular male dog to impregnate any female dog..."
My opponent is just agreeing with me right here.

"however, the risks are still high of females to be bred by stray male dogs that are not yet fixed, again, causing unwanted overpopulation of stray dogs."
First of all, my opponent has no grounds on which to claim that, "the risks are high." Even if this statement is true, then the reverse is also true. If owned dogs aren't neutered, they can still impregnate stray dogs, thus perpetuating the population problem. In fact, I would say it's better for an owned female dog to become pregnant than a stray female dog. In the case of the owned female dog, the offspring can be efficiently dealt with, however you wish. In the case of the stray female dog becoming pregnant, the offspring will be born and also become strays. This further escalates the population problem.

"Female dogs are, undeniably, at lower risk of becoming pregnant if every owned male dog is neutered, but the problem is not completely gone."
It would be unreasonable to strive to completely eliminate the problem. Neither of us can possibly achieve this with our case. Simply lowering the risk is what I would consider effective.

"Spaying female dogs will completely abolish impregnation of owned female dogs, making spaying the more desirable choice in reducing canine population."
I'm confused by this statement. Pro isn't even making a valid argument here. Pro simply states the obvious fact that spaying females will prevent them from becoming pregnant. I don't see how this makes spaying more desirable.

"An owner will deal with their pregnant dog in three major ways:

[1]Decide that she does not want to have a pregnant dog and put her dog's life at risk, therefore spaying the dog after the eggs have been fertilized, killing completely innocent puppies."
Are you saying that pregnancy puts a female dogs life at risk? Do you have evidence for this claim? As for the risk, what kind of risk? Is it a significant risk? Is it a very low risk?

"[2] Deal with their dogs pregnancy recklessly and either A) abandon the dog, or B) Not prepare for the puppies arrival putting more dogs onto the streets."
I am skeptical that a pet owner would abandon their dog simply because she is pregnant. I am also skeptical that after having these puppies, the owner would simply throw them out into the streets.

"[3] Take it calmly and follow through with the pregnancy carefully.

The most likely of the 3 to be chosen by humans is either [1] or [2]."
This is a bare assertion fallacy. How can you conclusively say that options 1 and 2 are more likely? You have provided neither evidence or logical reasoning to justify your claims. I would argue that option three is the most likely because we are rational, thinking human beings. We are capable of competent problem solving.

Voters

Secondly, my opponent has provided no evidence to back up any of their claims. I have always done this when it was necessary to do so. Clearly the only way to vote on sources is con.

I would also like to remind any potential voters that this is my last round to argue. My opponent can not bring up any new information or new arguments because I would not have a chance to refute those arguments or challenge that information. Quite frankly, this wouldn't be fair for me.

So, for these reasons and more, I urge you to vote con! I thank my opponent for this debate. I actually learned a few things.


Debate Round No. 2
mission42

Pro

mission42 forfeited this round.
TheDiabolicDebater

Con

Extend all my points. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Woah, wait a minute. For some reason I thought that was the last round. My bad.
Posted by Mak-zie 4 years ago
Mak-zie
I don't disagree...I think too many dogs and cats are homeless, but it shouldn't be required so much as better encouraged. But as Pro didn't specify this, Con could argue that or completely against "fixing." There was actually a lot that Pro didn't specify.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
mission42TheDiabolicDebaterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited last round. Pro also conceded certain points in the debate and Con presented a stronger, compelling case.