The Instigator
SITR
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
patroclos
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Pit bull ownership should be regulated by the state.

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...
patroclos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 530 times Debate No: 80412
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

SITR

Pro

This may seem like an obvious statement to many of you. but... Pit bulls are dangerous.

I see pit bull advocates on social media all day ranting and raving about hoe pit bulls are treated unfairly in the media and are in fact great dogs.

rubbish.

These animals were born and bred to be killing machines. We humans made them that way. selectively bred to have aggressive tendencies, powerful jaws, deadly tactics.

I defy you to find a single study that puts any dog as more dangerous than this one. just how dangerous?

from 2005 to 2014 there were 326 dog related deaths in the United States. 206 of these deaths came at the jaws of a pit bull. That is 62.3%.

to put that into perspective. German Sheppard only accounted for 3.7% of all deaths. And they are the breed of choice for police in the field.

so a dog that is trained to take down criminals and actually does it all day every day is 16X LESS dangerous than your typical pit bull.

This is madness people. The only people that support unregulated ownership of wild beasts such as this are mentally ill. they would sooner see a human life be snuffed out by one of these animals than any harm to come to it.

these are the same people screaming bloody murder at a police officer for "murdering their dog" while the dogs victim is laying bloodied and dying on the ground. Simply go on youtube and look up pit bull attacks to see what I am talking about. there are hundreds of them.

I am not saying these dogs deserve death. I am not saying you should not be allowed to own one.

but this is not like owning a gun. this animal has a mind of its own and extreme care needs to be taken to properly train it, or one day it might very well snap and kill someone.

I propose that to obtain a pit bull you should have to go to a reputable breeder and pass a short evaluation showing that you are capable of taking care of this animal and giving it the immense attention it will require. this will get you a temporary permit.

I then propose that states adopt a law requiring would be pit bull owners to go through a month long course (4 weekends) where they, as well as their dogs, are trained by certified dog instructors. they take their newly acquired pit bull out into the field and they learn together.

this sort of class would teach the dog how to socialize better with strangers and other dogs. it would teach the human how to handle difficult situations and control their pit bull.

at the end of the course if they still feel they are capable of controlling and owning this animal they can receive their permanent pit bull license. But only if they are willing to sign a document taking full responsibility for the animal in all civil and criminal proceedings. if the pit bull tears up someone's yard, it is the same as if you did it. if the pit bull kills some kid on a bike, it is the same as if you killed them yourself.

If pit bull owners are half as competent as they claim to be this should not be a problem for them.

I look forward to your response.
patroclos

Con

"These animals were born and bred to be killing machines. We humans made them that way. selectively bred to have aggressive tendencies, powerful jaws, deadly tactics."

I will now disprove your statements about the agressive tendencies aswell as the powerful jaws of the pitbull.

aggressive tendencies:
This is not true. The American Temperament Testing Society(ATTS) which provides uniform temperament testing has
tested 870 American Pit Bull Terriers. 755 passed the test. This is a percentage of 86.8% (the average is 83%)
Also the American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Terrier were tested and both breeds archieved a higher than average passing score. They did better than many other breeds including the Golden Retriever when tested for traits as stability, agression, friendliness and others.

Even the American Veterinary Medical Association has stated that when it comes to pit bulls, "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous."

powerful jaws:
The jaws of the pitbull are not that stong.
Studies have shown that the pitbull has a lower bite force than for example the German Shepherd and the Rottweiler.

"From 2005 to 2014 there were 326 dog related deaths in the United States. 206 of these deaths came at the jaws of a pit bull. That is 62.3%."

The reason for this statistic is the popularity of this breed in the US, so it is logical that the frequency of attacks would correlate in this manner.
In some areas of Canada for example the most fatal dog attacks are mainly attributed to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies, so this statistics you brougt up is of no weight if you dont look at the popularity of the different breeds.

"This is madness people. The only people that support unregulated ownership of wild beasts such as this are mentally ill. they would sooner see a human life be snuffed out by one of these animals than any harm to come to it."

First of all i dont think the term "wild beast" is appropriate, as pitbulls are domesticated animals.
Second of all i would like to see you prove that "The only people that support unregulated ownership of wild beasts such as this are mentally ill" very much.
"they would sooner see a human life be snuffed out by one of these animals than any harm to come to it." ... this is a silly generalisation and i honesty dont see the relevance this should have to your argument.

"but this is not like owning a gun. this animal has a mind of its own and extreme care needs to be taken to properly train it, or one day it might very well snap and kill someone."

I find it funny how you state that this isnt like ownig a gun and later on in your argumentation come to the conclusion that you should require a license to own a pitbull and should be treated as if you did the thing your pitbull did.
Additionally I dont think training a dog not to "snap and kill someone" is that hard.
Also this argumentation does not serve your racist thesis that only pitbulls should be regulated because the need to properly train your dog exists among all breeds.

"at the end of the course if they still feel they are capable of controlling and owning this animal they can receive their permanent pit bull license. But only if they are willing to sign a document taking full responsibility for the animal in all civil and criminal proceedings. if the pit bull tears up someone's yard, it is the same as if you did it. if the pit bull kills some kid on a bike, it is the same as if you killed them yourself.
If pit bull owners are half as competent as they claim to be this should not be a problem for them."

I agree with you that the owner should take full responsibility in all civil and criminal proceedings but I think this should always be applied and not only on pitbulls or dogs for that matter.
Also I dont think that this course you are describing should be a requirement to owning a pitbull, but it could maybe be a requirement if you already had one or multiple cases of you dog harming someone.

Sources:
https://www.avma.org...
http://www.care2.com...
http://atts.org...
http://madvilletimes.com...
http://dogs.lovetoknow.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SITR

Pro

"The reason for this statistic is the popularity of this breed in the US, so it is logical that the frequency of attacks would correlate in this manner."

well you are right that they are popular. they are almost as popular as Labradors and Retrievers. Yet you completely ignore the fact that this one, single breed. is responsible for 62.3% of ALL dog related deaths.

http://www.dogsbite.org...

your claim that they are well mannered in laboratory type settings makes no difference when it comes to the fact that they are responsible for nearly 2/3rds of dog related deaths. These studies may very well be true. but i am not dealing with studies. I am dealing with what has actually happened in the real world.

"They did better than many other breeds including the Golden Retriever"

Then why arent Golden Retrievers even on the map when it comes to dog attacks? Why? If pitbulls are more well behaved than golden retrievers why are they responsible for 206 deaths and golden retrievers are responsible for 2... How is that possible? You seriously need to answer that question. I mean are you seriosuly going to sit here and say golden retrievers are more aggressive than pitbulls when faced with statistics like that?

or are you willing to admit that study was either deeply flawed and does not reflect reality or was perhaps totally fabricated by the pro pit bull crowed?

"In some areas of Canada for example the most fatal dog attacks are mainly attributed to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies"

And? Perhaps I could find you some statistic from Tajikistan where the deadliest dog is a miniature poodle. what difference would that make? these are isolated territories you speak of. There may not be a single pit bull in that isolated region of the globe. so this has no bearing on anything.

furthermore. several places in Canada have rightly outlawed pit-bulls. so of course there are going to be far less pit bull attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"this argumentation does not serve your racist thesis that only pit bulls should be regulated because the need to properly train your dog exists among all breeds."

you must be a liberal. Only a liberal would try to silence opposition by screaming racism.

Perhaps I would require it for rottweilers as well. they account for 11.7% of deaths. but since pit-bulls are 6X as dangerous I thought that would be a good start.

"Also I dont think that this course you are describing should be a requirement to owning a pitbull, but it could maybe be a requirement if you already had one or multiple cases of you dog harming someone."

You must be completely off your rocker.

first of all. If you already own a pit-bull and it has already bitten somebody. not only should the animal be euthanized, you should be charged with assault, possibly with a deadly weapon. You think they should be just slapped on the wrist and let go to have their dog maul a few more people? no. this class would be for fine upstanding dog owners with no history of having ill trained dogs.

at this point I would like to add that I think ALL dog owners, cat owners, pig owners, you name it, should have to sign a similar document stating that the actions of their pet are solely their responsibility in ALL legal matters and will be treated as if they did the action themselves.

BUT

as far as dogs go only with the pit bull would it be necessary to have this class since they are so dangerous. 62.3% people. come on.

this is not unprecedented. There are licensing processes for many dangerous animals. You can own a bear, lion, tiger, poisonous snakes, etc. You can own them all as long as you go through a process where you show you are competent and capable of handling these creatures. and quite frankly I think you will find lions and tigers and bears are actually far safer than pitbulls given they haven't killed near as many people.

I look forward to your rebuttal. perhaps you can figure out some way to call me a sexist this time?
patroclos

Con

patroclos forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SITR

Pro

See?

My logic and good sense has stunned my opponent to silence.
patroclos

Con

First of all I would like to apologize for forfeiting my 2nd round, which didnt happen, because your so called "logic and good sense" has stunned me to silence but rather because I had some techical issues with my computer.

I will now answer to your 2nd round.

"well you are right that they are popular. they are almost as popular as Labradors and Retrievers. Yet you completely ignore the fact that this one, single breed. is responsible for 62.3% of ALL dog related deaths."

First of all, the chart you posted to confirm your thesis represents only the dog related deaths in the US and not "ALL dog related deaths".

"your claim that they are well mannered in laboratory type settings makes no difference when it comes to the fact that they are responsible for nearly 2/3rds of dog related deaths. These studies may very well be true. but i am not dealing with studies. I am dealing with what has actually happened in the real world."

I dont deny the fact that they are responsible for nearly 2/3rds of dog related deaths in the US.
With my claim I wanted to highlight something I failed to illustrate enough in my first round.
This statistic shows, that the owners are responsible for the high number of pitbull related deaths in the US.

This also answers your question "Then why arent Golden Retrievers even on the map when it comes to dog attacks?".
It is because Golden Retrievers arent trained to attack. People who want tough dogs that can be violant and attack will train their dog to attack and often they will train a pitbull because pitbulls already have a reputation for being dangerous.
A regulation of pitbull ownership by the state is pointless, because people who want to have a dangerous dog and want to train it to attack will just buy other dog breeds such as german shepherds to do the same thing.

"or are you willing to admit that study was either deeply flawed and does not reflect reality or was perhaps totally fabricated by the pro pit bull crowed?"

I highly doubt that the American Temperament Test Society, Inc. is part of a "pro pitbull crowd".

"you must be a liberal. Only a liberal would try to silence opposition by screaming racism."

Demanding a regulation of a specific race is by definition racism. By the way I am libertarian/anarchocapitalist.

"Perhaps I would require it for rottweilers as well. they account for 11.7% of deaths. but since pit-bulls are 6X as dangerous I thought that would be a good start."

Dont you see the mistake in your thinking. Dog owners who want to have dangerous dogs will just adjust to your regulation and buy other breeds and train them to be dangerous. Do you seriously want to regulate every breed with the potential of harming someone? That is insane.

"You must be completely off your rocker.
first of all. If you already own a pit-bull and it has already bitten somebody. not only should the animal be euthanized, you should be charged with assault, possibly with a deadly weapon. You think they should be just slapped on the wrist and let go to have their dog maul a few more people? no. this class would be for fine upstanding dog owners with no history of having ill trained dogs."

I never said that your course should be a replacement for charges and other consequences. It should merely be a tool to ensure that one person wont screw a dog a secont time.
Although this is completely irrelevant for this debate.

"at this point I would like to add that I think ALL dog owners, cat owners, pig owners, you name it, should have to sign a similar document stating that the actions of their pet are solely their responsibility in ALL legal matters and will be treated as if they did the action themselves.
BUT
as far as dogs go only with the pit bull would it be necessary to have this class since they are so dangerous. 62.3% people. come on."

First of all I dont think you should have to sign a document to have this applied to you. It should be standard.
Additionally I dont understand why you only find it necessary for pitbulls. Should the owner of a rottweiler which has bitten someone be treated differently than the owner of a pitbull?

"this is not unprecedented. There are licensing processes for many dangerous animals."
For this debate it is irrelevant if this is precedented or not, because we are debating about how it should be and not what fits best in the existing system.

All in all I think it is pretty clear now that regulating one breed inflicting many fatalities is not going to help and is only going to increase the fatalities inflicted by other breeds since people who want to own a dangerous dog will just train other breeds to attack and be violent.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Youdontknowjeff 1 year ago
Youdontknowjeff
All the statistics on this topic are incomplete. Most of the dbrf statistics if not all come from the news media. Thats not to say theincidents didn't happen but that the news only reports what it can sale. Not every incident by every breed is reported. There are some statics with animal control humane society avma, and other professional organizations. However their statistics are limited to their scope of the issue. The cdc did a report in which they stated they got there information from news stories.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
SITRpatroclosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15DEDQGZA9wXVGtbLUcY7JnGh7h509ap-SiZY0SN2EF8/edit?usp=sharing