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

Pit bulls are too dangerous to be pets and need to be banned to protect children.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,242 times Debate No: 72623
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Pit bull attacks have exploded in the USA and across the world. Severe injuries to children, elderly, and other animals happens on a daily basis. Pit bulls are the most dangerous breed of dog in the world and need too be banned so our society will be safe. Children deserve a community where they can play on their street with out having too worry about being attacked by a land shark. We need to protect people from pit bulls, and the people who choose too put others at risk.


My opponent has stated that pitbulls need to be banned for the purpose of protecting children. If banning pitbulls fails to protect children, or I can show that pitbulls are not a significant threat to children, then the resolution is negated. Pro may begin.
Debate Round No. 1


Declan Moss, 18-months old, was mauled to death by two family pit bull-mixes. When Hernando County deputies responded to the scene, the young boy was already dead. At the time of the attack, Declan was playing on the porch under the care of his grandfather, Gregory Moss, the owner of the dogs. Gregory witnessed the attack, but was unable to stop the animals. The two dogs, Thumper and Max, were father and son -- 6-years old and 18-years old accordingly. Neighbor Charles Shorey told the news media the dogs had never hurt a person in the past, but had killed smaller dogs. Hernando County Sheriff Al Nienhuis said the boy's mother, Sheila Moss, was devastated by her son's death, but was also "defending the dogs" and said "it's not necessarily the breed of the dog."

I will show why the "breed" of dog known as Pit bull is far too dangerous too be kept as family pets. There are far too many incidents involving the pit bull breed. Pit bulls are the #1 breed when it comes to severe attacks, mauling, disfigurements, hospitalizations, and deaths.

It should come as no surprise that pit bulls are dangerous. Pit bulls were selectively bred by the English for hundreds of years too participate in blood sports. Terriers were mixed with bulldogs to increase the bulldogs prey drive and gameness. Bull dogs were used in the sport of bull baiting, a sport where bull dogs would grab the bull by the mouth and bring them too the ground before killing the bull. By mixing the strength of the bull dog with the attack instincts of a terrier and selectively breeding them for hundreds of years the English produced the finest fighting dog in history. When bull baiting was banned for being too gruesome, the sport of rating was born. This was the sport were the dogs were put in pits with rats. The dog that could kill the most rats was the winner. When you breed bull dogs with terriers you improve the quickness, stamina, and prey drive resulting in a very strong, athletic dog that is programmed too attack and fight to the death. Later on the dogs were bred to fight other dogs in pits. The pit bull was selectively created too be a killing machine, a fighting dog that was capable of bringing down 2,000 lb bulls and killing them. They were bred to fight, not to be pets. How could anyone with knowledge of their history believe these dogs could make a safe family pet? Would parents choose to have a pit bull around their children if they knew about their bloody past? Does their violent past help explain why well raised family pit bulls suddenly snap and attack on a consistent basis? You bet it does.

Are pit bulls dangerous and a threat to children in our society? I will use statistics and incidents from the USA to show that they are.

[Malaki Mildward, 7-years old, was viciously killed by two 8 or 9-month old pit bull-mixes while playing in his yard. There were two adult pit bulls, a male and female, also living at the home, but were inside during the attack. The adult female, Road, had delivered a litter during the previous summer; the two fatally attacking dogs were from that litter. Malaki's stepfather, Jeremiah Hicks, was in the home when the attack occurred. The boy's mother and two other children were away. When several family members, including a 10-year old boy, returned to the home, they saw Malaki's body in the yard. The dogs had horribly attacked the boy and stripped away most of his clothes.]

Pit bulls have killed 7 people in the USA in 2015.
Pit bulls have killed 96 people in the USA since 2012.
Pit bulls have killed 319 people in the USA since 1990
Pit bulls severely injure 2 people in the USA every 12 hours.

TayLynn DeVaughn, 2-years old, was attacked and killed by a pit bull while visiting her aunt's home in the 3900 block of Fleetwood Drive. She was transported to Jefferson Hospital where she was pronounced dead. A subsequent autopsy showed that TayLynn died from multiple sharp wounds and multiple blunt force injuries to the head and neck as a result of the dog attack. Her death was ruled accidental by the medical examiner's office. The child's father, Corey DeVaughn, told the media that the day of the attack was the second time his daughter had been around the pit bull. He also indicated the dog was a male, calling the animal "Jake," which suddenly attacked his daughter. ""I came in the living room and the dog was just shaking her," DeVaughn said. "When he let her go, she was gone," DeVaughn said.

2014 Dog Bite Related Fatalities Compiled By Dennis Baker
January 22, 2015 at 4:27pm

42 Dog Bite Related Fatalities

by Breed:

27 by Pit Bull / Pit Bull Mix

3 by Bullmastiff / Mastiff Mix

4 by Rottweiler

1 by Cane Corso

1 by Shepherd Mix...

1 by Catahoula Leopard Dog

4 Unknown Breed

1 Mix Breed

By age:

20 Children

22 Adults

The statistics show us that pit bulls are responsible for more dog bite related fatalities than all other breeds combined. Pit bull attacks and kills are up 770% in the last 5 years due to over breeding of pit bulls and the pit lobby telling dog buyers what "sweet" dogs pit bulls are. Pit bulls are responsible for 80% of dog bite related fatalities in the last 3 years.

Kara Hartrich, 4-years old, was attacked and killed by at least two of her family's three pit bulls on her 4th birthday. The attack occurred at her home in the 2000 block of Parker Avenue in Bloomington. Police and fire and rescue were dispatched to the residence after receiving an emergency call. Upon arrival, rescue personnel found an unresponsive 4-year old girl with multiple dog bites. She was transported by ambulance to Advocate BroMenn Medical Center in Normal where she was pronounced dead by emergency department staff. McLean County Coroner Beth Kimmerling said the autopsy the following day determined that she died of massive blood loss and multiple dog bites to her head, neck and arms. At the time of attack, Kara was home with her 2-year old sister being babysat by her grandmother.

I am educated on the subject of pit bulls. But I like too hear what the experts like to say about this breed:

CESAR MILAN, celebrity dog trainer

"Yeah, but this is a different breed...the power that comes behind bull dog, pit bull, the fighting breed - They have an extra boost, they can go into a zone, they don't feel the pain anymore. He is using the bulldog in him, which is way too powerful, so we have to 'make him dog' (I guess as in a "regular" dog) so we can actually create the limits.

So if you are trying to create submission in a fighting breed, it's not going to happen. They would rather die than surrender.". If you add pain, it only infuriates them pain is that adrenaline rush, they are looking forward to that, they are addicted to it...

That's why they are such great fighters." Cesar goes on to say..."Especially with fighting breeds, you're going to have these explosions over and over because there's no limits in their brain."

RAY BROWN, former pit bull owner, breeder, dog fighter

Pit bulls didn't become dangerous because we fight them; we fight them because the English specifically bred them to be dangerous.

MARK PAULHUS, HSUS southeast regional coordinator

If it chooses to attack, it's the most ferocious of all dogs. I've never known of a pit bull that could be called off (during a fight). They lose themselves in the fight.

F.L. DANTZLER, HSUS director of field services

"They're borderline dogs. They're right on the edge all of the time. Even if the dogs are not trained or used for fighting, and even though they are generally good with people, their bloodline makes them prone to violence."

So if we look to the history of pit bulls we will see that they are a very dangerous animal.
If we look to the statistics we will see that pit bulls are very dangerous animals.
If we listen to the experts we will hear that pit bulls are very dangerous animals.

We need to ban pit bulls too keep our children safe.


I would like to thank my opponent for their opening arguments. I will address the resolution with two key points, the Utility (and hypocrisy of suggesting such a ban) and the Rights (this will sub divide into both owner rights animal rights). With that said, let us begin.

== Utility ==

Let us remember that the purpose of the ban is “for safety.” For us to be able to measure the impact, we need to understand the scope of what we are talking about. My opponent has stated that Pit Bulls are the most dangerous dog breed. This is true, but what does this mean? Being the most dangerous breed of dog is like being the most dangerous breed of hamster. You are still on an incredibly safe list. Let us look at the facts. Pit Bulls killed 27 people last year [1]. However, things like falling down the stairs kills over 1,300 and drowning in a bath-tub over 300 [2]. If my opponent is going to be consistent in their line of reasoning of banning for safety, then they must support banning stairs and bath tubs. We can conclude from this, that such a line of reasoning is ridiculous (this argument is known as reduction to absurdity).

However, we can take it one step further. Various studies show that the Pit Bull population is between 5% and 10% of the entire US dog population [3][4] (I’ve included two sources that show the populations in this range, each source is arguing the other side of this debate, so it cannot be stated that the pop% is bias). The US dog population was 83.3 million in 2012 [5], the most recent numbers we have. If we take the bottom number for Pit Bulls, we find that there are 4.17 million Pit Bulls in the USA. And they accounted for only 27 deaths last year. That gives them a murder rate of 0.65 per 100,000. However, African Americans committed 2,698 murders in 2013 [6]. This gives them a murder rate of 6.47 per 100,000, making them 10 times more likely to kill a person than a Pit Bull. Now, before anyone jumps up saying this proves we need to ban all African Americans, we should note that the White murder rate is 1.23 per 100,000, almost twice the Pit Bull murder rate. We can conclude that Humans of almost all races (at least the races that make up 85% of the US population) are a bigger threat to themselves than Pit Bulls. From this (once again, Reduction ad Absurdum) we can conclude that it is ridiculous to ban Pit Bulls on the grounds of “safety.”

== Animal Rights ==

Believe it or not, Pit Bulls are living creatures with functioning brains and they experience emotions, including love [7]. My opponent is talking about banning 4.17 million dogs, because of the actions of 27. Telling 4.17 million living, loving, emoting things that they do not get to exist for nothing that they have ever done. I am all for different animals being held to different behavioral standards, with different punishments (a serious dog bite should cost the dog its life, while that should not be the case for humans). However, in every case, the animal ought to have the right to be left alone until they commit a violation.

== Owner Rights ==

Let’s say that we don’t accept that animals have any rights, only humans do. In which case, dogs are merely the property of their owners. The confiscation of someone’s property, when no rights of others were infringed or harmed, is a violation of the most basic property rights laid out by John Locke [8]. A violation of this is an action of tyranny.

My opponent’s arguments bring up a number of emotional appeals and his only source is nothing more than a list of deaths and pictures designed to appeal to emotions. However, do little to put anything in perspective. There are a number of issues that we can take with his arguments and lack of meaningful sources. My opponent states that attacks are up 770% over 5 years (with no source), however, his one source that makes no arguments, only lists off the dead, we can count up all those that died and the year stated that they died and find that 4 years ago, in 2010 we had 22 deaths, so there is only a 22.7% increase since 2010 by my opponent’s own (and only) source. It can also be noted that so far in 2015, we only have 6 deaths, whereas by this point last year, we were at 9 deaths.

I will pass this back to my opponent and let them respond.

Thank you









Debate Round No. 2


I am glad to see that my opponent has agreed that pit bulls are by far the most dangerous breed of dog in the world. Too compare an animal that has been bred to bring down 2,000 lb bulls and too fight like savages in a pit to a hamster is......ridiculous.

Does it make sense for you to reason that because people suffer from accidents in life we should allow dangerous dogs too kill children, people, and pets? Does it make sense that a breed of dog that makes up between 5% to 10% of the total dog population is responsible for 80% of the dog bite related deaths? Is this OK? No, it is not. Does it make sense to argue that people kill more than pit bulls? No, it does not. We should try to prevent people from killing each other as well. Comparing dog's to people and accidents is foolish. People will have accidents, and people will behave violently. We should do everything we can to prevent and discourage this behavior. Pit bulls will continue to maul, disfigure, and kill, our children, our elderly, and our pets. When did we become so selfish as a society that we put a pet before our children's safety?

Pit bulls were banned in Winnipeg, Manitoba in 1990. Winnipeg had a major pit bull problem before the ban. When children were being attacked by these vicious fighting dogs, legislation was put in place. There have been 0 pit bull attacks in Winnipeg since the ban was fully implemented. There have been 0 disfigured children, dead children, dead family pets. Severe injuries due to dog bites are down, hospitalizations from dog bites are down. Not having pit bulls in the community has made Winnipeg a safer City. This is common sense. Swimming in water that does not have sharks in it safer than swimming in water with sharks.

I believe we should do everything in our power as parents, adults, and leaders in society to prevent deaths from falling down the stairs, drowning, and fatal dog attacks.

I do not see the #27 when related too people being torn to shreds by vicious dogs until they are dead as a small number.
When we look at "all" pit bull attacks the number grows to over 10,000 per year when we are talking about pets and animals killed every year by pit bulls. Between 600 and 800 people go to the hospital every day with injuries sustained from pit bull attacks in the USA. Do the living victims that have survived their attack count? Do the little girls that have had their faces torn to shreds and will have to live their whole lives disfigured not count?

I will ad links so victims story's can heard:

Animals Rights:

Believe it or not, Tigers are living creatures with functioning brains and they experience emotions, including love[7]. 50% of pit bulls fail in family homes due to aggression issues. Thousands of pit bulls are put down every week in the USA. My opponent is seemingly OK with these animals being slaughtered every week. A ban on pit bulls would put a stop to the slaughter of these animals in shelters.

A properly legislated pit bull ban would not harm the current existing pit bulls. New pit bull ownership and breeding of pit bulls would be banned. Existing owners would be allowed to keep their pets until they pass away or kill their children.

Animals do not have the right to be left alone until a violation is committed. Punishing pits after a child is disfigured or killed is insane. We know these dogs are extremely dangerous. We know these dogs are extremely unpredictable. We know that if we continue to own pits as pet 2 people will be severely injured every 12 hours in the USA. Putting down the dog and fining the owner is not a solution. You know the idiot will just go get another pit and say "this one is really sweet". Tigers have been trained too be pets in some regions of the world, and they have brains and love as well. Why do we not allow people too own Tigers as pets? Lions have been domesticated and have all the same traits as a house cat. Can I get a Lion?
The answer is no, because they are too dangerous. The same way that pit bulls are too dangerous.

Pit bulls were created and bred for fighting. Dog fighting is illegal. Why would we continue to breed dangerous animals and place them in family homes? If people are responsible for breeding this natural born killer, we can stop breeding them. There are over 400 different breeds of dog on earth and most are safe. Get a breed that is not killing our children.

I believe that pictures of cute little kid's who have been ripped to shreds by pit bulls does a lot to put things into perspective. What should our #1 responsibility be as a society too our children, our elderly, our citizens.? As a parent, an adult, an intelligent, reasonable person, should we allow people in our society to own dangerous fighting dogs as pets? Should we let them walk beside us on the street? Run in the dog parks with our pets? What kind of people want these animals in the first place? Pit bulls are the #1 breed of choice by dog fighters, drug dealers, gang bangers, criminals, and people with criminal records. Since when did we allow this segment of the population decide what was safe for our children and our communities?

My opponent has stated that there have been only 6 people killed by pit bulls in the USA this year (it's actually 7). Only? What kind of person is OK with an obviously dangerous breed taking human life? Children's lives? I am not ok with it.

A person is bitten by a dog every 75 seconds in the USA. We know dogs are unpredictable. Why would we allow people to own a breed that is so very capable of mauling, maiming, disfiguring, and taking lives? If we continue too allow pit bull ownership in the USA, Children, elderly, people, and pets will continue to be severely injured and killed. If we ban pit bulls, our communities will become much safer, and lives will be saved. Are you for saving children's lives? Or do you want too see the killing continue?


Lee, Sir Sidney. ""Bear baiting, Bull baiting, and Cockfighting.ShakespeareEngland: An Account of the Life and Manners of his Age. Vol II. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916.

Scott-Warren, Jason. "When Theaters Were Bear-Gardens; or, What at Stake in the Comedy

of Humors.Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol. 54, No. 1, Spring 2003. 63-82.

Encyclopedia Britannica 3. Encyclopaedia Britannica Company. 1910. p. 575

Johnathon Barry, ""Literacy and Literature in Popular Culture: Reading and Writing in Historical Perspective, in Popular Culture in England, c. 1500-1850, ed. by Tim Harris (London, 1995), pp. 69-94 (p. 70)

Colby, LB, Jessup, D, Colby Book of the American Pit Bull Terrier, T.F. Publications, Inc, NJ, 1997.

Beach, M, at (accessed February 2014)

Homan, M, The Complete History of Fighting Dogs, Ringpress Boods, 1999

American Bulldog, (Accessed: January 31, 2010).

Little Rock, Arkansas Municipal Code, Section 6-19 - Potentially dangerous breeds,

Cities with Successful Pit Bull Laws; Data Shows Breed-Specific Laws Work,, September 23, 1010

S.F. Sterilization Law Successful in Reducing Pit Bull Population, by Marisa Lagos, San Francisco Chronicle, August 28, 2007.

Information supplied by Council Bluffs Animal Control Services.

City Reports Fewer Bites, Licenses for Restricted Dogs Since Breed Ban, by Adam Goldstein, Aurora Sentinel, July 2, 2008.

Bulldog Approach to Warden's Job Makes Skeldon a Favorite Target, by Dale Emch, Toledo Blade, February 21, 2005

United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court"s Ruling that Breed-Specific Legislation is Constitutional


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. A ton of new stuff was brought up so I will have to address it in this final round. I will go point by point before finalizing with a single conclusion.

In the first paragraph, my opponent suggests that I am comparing Pit Bulls to Hamsters. This is inaccurate. I am showcasing that being the most dangerous of a group does not show that there is a real danger in need of addressing.

In the second paragraph, the “does it make sense” paragraph does nothing to build my opponent’s case. All it does is suggest that something should be done. There is no reasoning that banning the existence of over 4 million dogs is the right course of action to deal with these incredibly few deaths. My opponent states that deaths caused by other things don’t make sense to be compared to Pit Bull caused deaths. But he never explains why, he just states it. When, in fact, it does. The reason it does is because with murders caused by humans, we don’t ban humans. Deaths caused by bath tubs, we don’t ban bath tubs. But for some reason, with even few deaths caused by Pit Bulls, my opponent wants to ban Pit Bulls, rather than find a different solution.

My opponent makes an interesting state at the end of paragraph three. “Swimming in water that does not have sharks in it safer than swimming in water with sharks.” This is of course true, but likewise, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that people should never be allowed to go in the ocean, or that all sharks must be banned from the world because of the miniscule danger. The same applies for Pit Bulls.

In Paragraph four, my opponent states, “we should…prevent deaths from falling down the stairs, drowning, and fatal dog attacks.” Agreed, but banning is not the solution for any of those, especially not the one that causes the fewest deaths of the group.

== Animal Rights ==

My opponent attempts to disprove animal rights by mentioning that Tigers also experience emotions, including love. Unfortunately, this is not true [1]. Cats are not up to the same emotional level as dogs, however, for the sake of debate, lets accept it. Tigers also have a right to be allowed to live and exist.

My opponent goes on to move the goal post of this debate. This debate is about “Banning Pit Bulls” (as stated in the resolution, my opponent’s round 1 and their round 2). My opponent tries to shift it to banning the breeding of Pit Bulls, which is entirely different. This shift is also not supported by my opponent’s own argument when he referenced the 1990 Manitoba Pit Bull ban, which did, ban all Pit Bulls (unless you had a dangerous dog licence).

My opponent does not address any of the owner rights. And does nothing more that says that state that the utility comparisons “don’t make sense.” If he believes that Pit Bulls at a murder rate of 0.65 per 100,000 are “too dangerous” to exist, then he must believe the same to be true to other things that are statistically more dangerous, such as evil bath tubs, stairs, and black people.

Any deaths are sad, and something should be done, but banning is not a realistic, fair, nor just solution.


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
*Moderator update*

Skepticalone's vote has been reported. It sufficiently explains arguments, but offers too generic an explanation for sources. However, the moderation policy on debates where the voting period has *closed* is not to remove RFD's unless the *impermissibly* awarded points swayed the outcome. Since Skep validly awarded 3 points, the 2 points sources vote did not determine the outcome here. This policy is to be fair to the person in whose favor the votes are cast, since once the voting period closes, they cannot message any more people to vote on the debate to compensate for removed votes.

As such, Skep's vote will not be removed. The 2 point sources vote did not change the outcome (as it would have if someone had voted 3 points to Pro as well). In the future, endeavor to report votes prior to the voting period closing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Skepticalone 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was essentially a big emotional appeal. Con's arguments of 'being most dangerous in a statistically insignificant group' was a very compelling argument and revealed the inconsistency in Pro's arguments. I felt Con had more objective sources.