Puppy mills should be banned.
Debate Rounds (3)
I Pro will contend for the resolution.
Con against the resolution.
This is a normative resolution.
"A puppy mill is a large-scale commercial dog breeding facility where profit is given priority over the well-being of the dogs." 
"a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs are raised in large numbers "
Oh, right, I think I accept the challenge. I clicked the little "accept" button, after all.
First the definition of puppy mill is contested. From link  anyone can tell that puppy mills aren't limited to just purebred dogs. Thus, the definition of puppy mill by merriam-webster is obsolete. Instead of "a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs are raised in large numbers." The definition new definition should read a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs and/or designer dogs are raised in large numbers.
Does Con accept the slightly modified merriam-webster definition? Con makes the claim that the aspca is a "biased site." With no warrant, this is a bare assertion.
Pro contends that such large scale operations are wasteful and often cause animal cruelty.
Claim 1: There are approximately one million dogs euthanized each year.
Warrant: "Average annual number of companion animals that are euthinized at shelters 3.5 million
Percent of dogs in animals shelters that are euthanized 60%" .
Warrant: "" Number of cats and dogs euthanized by U.S. shelters each year: 3 " 4 million (nearly 10,000 animals killed every day)" .
Warrant: "Each year, approximately 2.7 million animals are euthanized (1.2 million dogs and 1.4 million cats)."
Impact: With so many dogs being euthanized each year, continuing to bred dogs at such a high rate from puppy mills makes little sense.
Claim 2: Puppy mills are wasteful.
Warrant: Claim 1.
Impact: Puppy mills are an incredible waste of resources.
Claim 3: Factory farms cause animal cruelty.
Warrant: "Perhaps the most abused farm animals, nearly 280 million laying hens in the United States are confined in barren wire battery cages so restrictive the birds can't even spread their wings. " .
Warrant: "Factory farms dominate U.S. food production, employing abusive practices that maximize agribusiness profits at the expense of the environment, our communities, animal welfare, and even our health." .
Impact: Dogs in large scale operations are likely mistreated too.
Claim: Puppy mills cause animal cruelty
Warrant: "Authorities from the Randolph County Sheriff"s Office discovered a total of 46 dogs and 11 other animals, living in "appalling" conditions on the property at Warm Springs Road. Many of the animals were kept outside in freezing conditions - icicles were found hanging from the dogs' fur. The few that were indoors were housed with feces and urine - very few of the animals had any access to food or water." .
Warrant: "CANTON, Ga. " A Georgia woman has been charged with more than 250 counts of animal cruelty after hundreds of puppies were seized from her business in rural Cherokee County." .
Claim: Animal cruelty causes unhappiness in humans.
Warrant: Logic, if people didn't care animal cruelty cases would not be in the news.
Impact: Shows unhappiness created by puppy mills.
Puppy mills should be banned. Reasons being, puppy mills are wasteful, cause animal cruelty, and animal cruelty causes human unhappiness.
>Takes almost three days to stop laughing.
Very well, we'll use your definitions... but considering the source you cited was the "American Society for the PREVENTION of Cruelty to Animals", you know what their stance is going to be on the topic.
Admittedly, puppy mills AS THEY ARE NOW are wasteful. If they expanded into the sale of dog meat (No, really, the stuff's delicious.), then the unsold products (ie dogs) would not go to waste.
Puppy mills are merely a production site for dogs. The mills and contents thereof (ie site and dogs) are property of the owner. Puppy mills are legal as they are now, but deregulating them would decrease the amount of suffering by allowing the dog meat to be sold as a food product, instead of an interim period until they are put down as we have now.
Animals are property, and we need to make use of everything we've got to ensure a good future for us. Once we've done that, then, maybe we'll throw "not us" a few concessions if we feel like it and we don't stand to lose anything.
And now, the case-by-case basis you have been waiting for.
Claim 1 is inconsistent. It's either 3-4 million or 2.7 million, and no mention is made of how many cats and dogs were put down on the request of their owners because they were really old and had an incurable disease.
Claim 2 is re-iterating Claim 1.
Claim 3 assumes that animal cruelty is bad.
You then go off on a tangent on how factory farms are cruel.
The "animal cruelty causes human sadness" bit intrigues me. How does some people in the media higher-ups deciding what goes on the news with zero input from the general public save viewership ratings become "people caring"?
Puppy mills should be further deregulated to allow for the sale of dog meat. I know for a fact that that East Asian cultures, a rising demographic in America, incidentally, consider dog meat a staple food, and liberal types love their multiculturalism. It would be politically incorrect to not let them have part of their heritage taken away.
And now, some number crunching.
4 million at most in America are put down, then cremated, vs. 25 million worldwide, who are eaten, 10 million in China alone. We could export our unwanted pets to China, where they will be fed to the people making us the latest consumer goods.
(//With five minutes to spare! Go me!)
"Admittedly, puppy mills AS THEY ARE NOW are wasteful. If they expanded into the sale of dog meat (No, really, the stuff's delicious.), then the unsold products (ie dogs) would not go to waste." Con
"Puppy mills are merely a production site for dogs. The mills and contents thereof (ie site and dogs) are property of the owner. Puppy mills are legal as they are now, but deregulating them would decrease the amount of suffering by allowing the dog meat to be sold as a food product, instead of an interim period until they are put down as we have now." Con
Pro thinks what Con is stating is that by banning puppy mills a black market would be created. Very similar to the idea of legalizing drugs and prohibition. Legislation that makes drugs illegal makes the drugs more profitable for criminals. Not only that but dog meat would somehow be sold on the black market.
There are small and responsible breeders in existence already. Pro doubts that a black market would arise over dog meat.
"Animals are property, and we need to make use of everything we've got to ensure a good future for us. Once we've done that, then, maybe we'll throw "not us" a few concessions if we feel like it and we don't stand to lose anything." Con
Pro is unsure what Con is stating. Pro thinks Con is making a reference to dog meat.
Claim: Producing dog meat create additional animal cruelty.
No country in the world has devised a humane method of slaughtering dogs for commercial dog meat production." .
Impact: People would become unhappy at the inhumane treatment of dogs. Less dogs produced by banning puppy mills is preferable.
Claim: Meat is causes cancer.
Warrant: "A New Study Linking Meat and Cancer Is Somehow Even More Alarming Than the Last One" 
Warrant: "Meat-cooking mutagens, including heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are formed as a result of meat cooking, preparation, and level of doneness and may increase the risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC)." .
Warrant: "Meat Is Linked to Higher Cancer Risk, W.H.O. Report Finds".
Warrant: "Red meat
After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature, a Working Group of 22experts from 10
countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans(Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect. This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer. Processed meat Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) , based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer."
Impact: Meat is unhealthy and since dog meat is a subset of the set meat, dog meat is also unhealthy and thus puppy mills should be banned.
"Claim 1 is inconsistent. It's either 3-4 million or 2.7 million, and no mention is made of how many cats and dogs were put down on the request of their owners because they were really old and had an incurable disease." Con
All the numbers are at least 1 million. Pro doubts that old and sick dogs make up much of the numbers.
"Claim 3 assumes that animal cruelty is bad." Con
Con makes a good point Pro has no shown why animal cruelty is bad. Let's go from a survival point of view. Most people assume survival is desirable. If an alien flying a scout ship with advanced technology spies on the planet Earth they will most likely not share human values. The aliens may not even know the difference between dogs and humans.
To these aliens they may simply see us humans as ruthless butchers. Since the aliens are already way more advanced than us we would be at their mercy. The chances of the aliens sparing ruthless butchers would be less than a more merciful scenario. Thus, its imperative that humans clean up their act and prevent animal cruelty to increase their chances of survival.
As for aliens not existing, that is very unlikely considering the sheer size of the universe. Considering estimates are at 100-200 billion galaxies there is a high probability aliens exist. "While estimates among different experts vary, an acceptable range is between 100 billion and 200 billion galaxies".
"The chances of alien life existing on a newly-discovered Earth-like planet are 100 per cent, an astronomer has claimed. " .
The chances of aliens existing are 100%. Yes, there is a chance humans will blow their-selves up before then, but we should be prepared for the future. We can't count on aliens being able to distinguish between humans and dogs. Therefore, we should be nice to animals and ban puppy mills.
Dog shouldn't be eaten and animal cruelty should be stopped. Ban puppy mills, vote Pro.
I'm referring to the fact that cremated animals is wasted biomass that we could have eaten.
No country in the world has bothered to make a humane method of slaughtering dogs, but now Con has the mental image of dogs that would have been put down instead being re-directed to underground laboratories to be sacrificed in the name of science to find a humane method of snuffing dogs.
It's assumed you accept the risk of horrible things happening to you every time you eat vegetables too. (eg e. coli)
If those aliens take a look, they'll see... THIS: https://1d4chan.org... (link NSFW, mostly because of profanity)
They'd try to kill us simply because they're utterly terrified of us. Look at us from the perspective of those who want for nothing. We're insane enough to have enough WMDs to blow up our only world 20 times over, and treat that is a guarantee of peace among ourselves! Every other animal is rational. We rationalize, which means that we'll pursue doomed causes, and find they're not as doomed as everyone thought! Some among us blow themselves up to make a point! We have a range of industries about finding better methods of slaughtering each other, and treat it as everyday life! What do they think we'll do to them if they don't want to play ball, considering we treat our fellow humans like that? What makes you think that we'll treat them as anything more than a speed bump when we wreck their ship and loot their technology? Say hello to humanity, coming soon to a world near you, from your deciphered star charts, no less. All because you didn't say hello. This is our universe now. You foolish aliens just haven't realized it yet.
Dogs are food, just like alligators, cattle, and people.
Puppy mills need deregulation, vote con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.