So as you've probably seen PETA and their violent Pokemon game that they created which shows how Pokemon supports animal creulty, they were very wrong in that argument. Here's why. First off it's a game not real life and in it you battle other Pokemon or animals to make them faint or so. They can be healed at Pokemon centers and used potions on to heal. But Pokemon are not necessarily animals rather they are mythological creatures. Pokemon was founded upon the base of the creator and the idea behind it was the creator caught bugs as a child and watched them very carefully and saw what they did if they were put in the same confinement. Although many Pokemon resemble real creatures the designs of them look very different then what they actually are. And the Pokemon don't die in battle rather the fact they supposedly die due to ate which you can see in Lavender Town in the original games Pokemon Blue and Pokemon Red. Although some theories have risen such as Gary or Blue's Raticate where it supposedly died after a fight on the SS Anne and wasn't healed on time. So Gary or Blue went to the Pokemon Tower to make it's grave or bury it and stayed there to battle you again. So it may seem true he could have found out about the storage system where he could just store all of his Pokemon and stored his Raticate cause it didn't perform well enough. So I hope you see that Pokemon does not support animal cruelty.
Pokemon does support animal cruelty, mainly in the form of shaping how children view animals. Your first argument is that Pokemon is a game and not real life, however often children have many problems distinguishing reality and television. In a study of first grade children, it was found that children did not view television as a separate world. (Van Evra, 1984). This means that children will not understand that Pokemon is just a game or television show and may mimic behavior. You're correct saying Pokemon resemble real animals, and this will lead to children not being able to tell the difference. A common Pokemon, Pidgey is identical to a typical bird. Even the names are identical, another bird Pokemon, Spearow closely resembles a sparrow. Rattata looks like a typical rat and the list goes on. In the game children are taught to put these Pokemon against each other in battle. In both the games and television show the violence is not hidden. Moves such as "Mega Punch" and "Hyper Fang" clearly illustrate a physical action that a child can understand and attempt to make their animals or pets repeat. Additionally, the Pokemon are able to "take" these attacks and this will teach children that animals can withstand abuse. The trainers let it happen and encourage their Pokemon to attack and keep going teaching children to do the same. Your argument that in the game Pokemon can be healed with potions or Pokemon centers and only faint is actually a con. This will lead children to the false impression that no matter how much abuse their animal takes it can be "healed". This is not the case. The problem only becomes worse when analyzing how aggressive behavior stays with an individual throughout their lifetime. Children who were aggressive when they were 8 years old were found to still be aggressive at age 30 (Huesman, 1984). Children will learn this aggressive behavior to animals and continue to display these characteristics into adulthood.
My final point, is that young viewers will repeat actions they see. The infamous Bobo the Doll experiment is a good example of this. Young viewers who saw adults treating a doll violently repeated the actions towards the doll. Those who saw the doll treated kindly, actually did treat the doll kindly. Much more research has built on this original experiment (Heath, 1986). In summation children are heavily influenced by what they see, and Pokemon displays violence and cruelty towards mythological creatures that closely resemble animals. Children can't separate reality from Pokemon and may carry these tendencies into adulthood, leading to animal cruelty.
Alright so you said you'd rather have Pokemon be deemed dead after battling rather then simply healed? And also there are lots of other Pokemon besides pidgey like Ditto or Muk that are inanimate objects that are not resembled to animals rather than Pokemon that are. Also, you stated that children can't tell the difference between both worlds and replicate things but, do you have evidence of them replicating Pokemon? On to my points, firstly it is stated that Pokemon like to battle and share bonds with their trainers such as in the anime and Ash and his little Pikachu are the main standpoints of the TV show and it shows how they bond and everything. Also, Pokemon rewards people for hard work and dedication. It teaches kids to never give up and follow your dreams as the Pokemon master. When you complete the game in the hall of fame it shows your hard work and dedication and that it all paid off and the bonds you have with your Pokemon. And my final point is Pokemon encourages bonds with your Pokemon like the recent addition with the new X and Y games called Pokemon Amie. And in Pokemon Amie you get to bond and play with your little Pokemon so they like you and perform better. Some Pokemon even evolve through it and getting lots of affection. Now I'd like to end with a few refutations. Basically everyone that I talk to that plays Pokemon never thought of messing with animals to replicate it. Although hyper fang seems like a real life move there are so many other moves like trick room or dark pulse that could never be replicated. So as you see Pokemon encourages people to bond with animals rather then attacking them.
I never said I'd rather have Pokemon dead however that would be more beneficial for helping children understand the consequences of animal abuse. I understand that there are Pokemon such as the ones you mentioned that don't resemble real animals, but there still are animals that do. It's the Pokemon that do (Pidgey, Rattata, Pikachu, Spearow, Butterfree, Beedrill, Squirtle) that emulate animal cruelty. The studies I presented are not Pokemon specific but do show that children struggle to separate reality and television and also like to imitate what they see. You have presented no evidence declaring the contrary. As for Pokemon related incidents, there were several in Turkey, of children hurting themselves thinking they were characters from the show. This does not prove animal cruelty but shows that children can have difficulties understanding Pokemon as a show and not real life. The show supports bonding with Pokemon, however the bond is built by the trainer supporting their Pokemon through the abuse. If trainers truly loved their Pokemon and were compassionate for them they wouldn't put them through battle where they clearly experience pain. Pokemon may "enjoy" battling in the show but this doesn't transfer to real life animals. I imagine you would not recommend people bond with their pets by putting them in cage matches. It doesn't matter how much training and hard work you go through with your dog you should not have your dog fight against others. Teaching children about hard work and dedication is irrelevant to the argument, this about influence of animal cruelty, not positive vs. negative effects. Your refutation saying that everyone you talked to is problematic, as if they ever did think of replicating it with animals they probably would not admit that to you and you probably have a low sample size, only testing people from where you live. If you have any academic papers that are peer reviewed to defend your position please present them. Finally, there are moves that are unrealistic but again they do not take away from the ones that can easily be replicated.
So you've failed to bring up the Pokemon Amie topic. And also there are other things in Pokemon such as contests which simulate completions that animals have in real life and there is also PokeWood studios in Black and White 2 where trainers can dress up and film movies with their Pokemon. Also there's many Pokemon spin off games that further support the trainers and bonds with their Pokemon showing they love and care for them. Games like Pokemon Channel and Pokemon Ranch are where you take care with your little creatures and have fun with them and play with them. Further more there are also lots of other games like Pokemon Snap where you study and take pictures of the fascinating mythological creatures called Pokemon. And look what PETA did with their spinoff of the game. They purposely made Pokemon look bad with out bringing in any of the details where Pokemon is good and just said trainers yap at their Pokemon who don't want to battle. It is said they do enjoy battling. Also you only brought up one incident of Pokemon actually supporting it where a few kids were hurting each other as if they were characters in the show whereas there are many other incidents of other shows encouraging animal creulty. Pokemon does not support animal creulty and I hope all the readers and you have come to realize the fact that it doesn't.