Pitbulls being banned?
Debate Rounds (3)
I have heard many times about 'pitbulls' and ridiculous myths ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ) about those types of breeds. One that I remember off the top of my head is that pitbulls have a locking jaw. Um, no. They just have a larger skull than other dogs. And that they are born 'vicious, killing machines'. I mean, come on, really? Just because they have a bad reputation for illegal fighting doesn't mean all pits are bad. I honestly don't know why pitbulls have gotten all the hatred and not other supposedly 'dangerous' breeds. Rottweilers, German Shepards, dobermans and many other large dog breeds can be just as dangerous as the breeds defined as a pitbull.
But why ban specfic dog breeds over 2 or 3 dog attacks by dogs who are defined as 'dangerous'? Forcing people to chose to give up their loyal companions or move out of town? That's absolutely absurd.
I just want to pipe up, when people describe 'pitbull' they describe many dog breeds. Staffordshire Bull Terrier (I have two Staffies and they are so loyal, kind and amazing), American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pitbull Terrier, etc.. are called 'pitbulls'. Pitbull isn't a certain breed, it defines quite a few different breeds but have similar characteristics.
So, my question: why do they need to be banned? What makes pits so bad?
I am taking the common use of 'Pits' and 'Pit Bulls' to refer to the breed of dogs coming from the bull dog/mastiff/terrier lines of breed to create the canine featured in Con's source. I am also assuming that because of the number of rounds available, rebuttals and reconstructions are done in the third round.
Good luck to Con, and thank you for a challenging topic.
KayRez5 forfeited this round.
The simple fact of the matter is that the dogs in question had some of the worst traits you would want bred into an animal living in your residence. I will be happy to do further research on the matter regarding mauled/fatal canine incidents and their breed, as well as property destruction (other animals killed by escaped Pits), I just want to make sure I have a sparring partner to debate. Seems I have had bad luck regarding FFing opponents.
Its a matter of statistics regarding justification, and the odds are not in favor of Pitbulls, the time it takes to overcome instinct is not something that can casually be done be done without appreciable risk.
What are some of the worst traits? That they have a strong jaw? If that is one (for some people it is), what about other strong dogs? I'm sure that Pitbulls aren't the most horrific line of dog breeds. I own two, considered 'pitbull', dogs (as I have mentioned in my previous argument) which are Staffordshire Bull Terriers or 'Staffies'. They are extremely sweet and loyal. Only once, have they nipped at me (my finger because I was holding their toy) and it was meant in a playful manner. My fellow classmate has once owned 5 mixed pits and I visited her house quite a lot but never once was I nipped or growled at. The only trouble that they cause is the struggle to keep their food stocked up!
Honestly, it's not just that line of breeds that are the only vicious dogs. Many other breeds can be quite dangerous. But the dogs aren't born aggressive and ready to attack the first thing they see. They are all (emphasis on 'all') born innocent and, I must say, quite clueless. My youngest dog, Maggie, when my family first got her, she was so timid and shy. Then she warmed up to up and proved her loyalty and sweetness. She is now about 4 years old and is still the sweet, playful dog she was when we first got her. What I am trying to say is: not /all/ pitbulls are vicious.
A Pit Bull derives its name sake from a the archaic practice of bear baiting and bull baiting in a pit fight. Quite literally its a dog that was cross bred for the blood sport of jumping into a deep hole with a bull or bear... and winning. Bull dogs, mastiffs, and some terrier has been incorporated in which to make the most effective killing machine. When the practice of such blood sport was outlawed, many owners simply continued to breed the line as is for smaller dog fights. Even when not used against bears, bulls, or each other, pit bulls make for excellent 'catch' dogs while hunting boar, as they have no problem approaching, seizing, and pinning a boar while the chase dogs bay for whomever might have a gun to dispatch the game.
Speaking from a strict numbers game: from 2005-2013, Pit Bulls accounted for 62% of 283 fatal dog attacks 
Speaking from a strictly numbers game in previous samplings of the past, the the odds don't get much better. A report by the CDC, between 1979 and 1998 lends insight into compiled numbers about pit bulls and is very telling: pit bulls still took the cake in terms of total incidents, but pits and pit types ran a neck and neck race in some years with rottweilers regarding fatal attacks, however it should be noted that at certain times when a known pit bull was involved in a fatality of a human, those specific numbers may be subject to interpretation due to the dog being 'on duty' at the time- it was put in place and used for the duties that compliment its purpose.  To be fair, the CDC is quick to point out the its just compiled stats, and various other factors might point to such frequent numbers, that being popularity of the breed in a region, or poor ownership, but both of those factors are part of the problem, they do not de-escalate the temperament of the dog, it only amplifies it.
Look, we all know the usual trope: Its not the dog, its the owners. The sad history of this, that is true in everything. We can't ban humanity, only what people do in hopes that the majority of irresponsible people don't try to circumvent the law, and continue to behave in manners that jeopardize others.
Out of sympathy for the creatures on this topic of discussion, rather than 'banning' (even though the data points to it being a good idea), qualified ownership should probably be implemented. Licenses, demonstrated ability, basically all the things that would dissuade some one from owning this variety of pet whom is unfit to manage the responsibility that such a situation demands.
I encourage a vote for pro, and remind all pet owners to have their cats and dogs spayed or neutered. Thank you, and good luck to con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Successfully rebutted cons case
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.