The Instigator
kingkd
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Briannj17
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Resolved: Dogfighting should be legalized in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
kingkd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,214 times Debate No: 82808
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

kingkd

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Constructive
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Closing

Using 16kadams Rules:

Rules:

1. First round is for acceptance only
2. Second round is for cases only
3. BOP is shared
4. No kritiks/semantics
5. Voting is on arguments only
6. Breaking rules = loss
7. Sources don't need to be in debate, but if you do that put them in an external link.
8. No NAP or annoying libertarian philosophy (counts as a K). Stats master race
9. You accept definitions
10. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate and an capital punishment through Jaguars.

Good luck to Con
Briannj17

Con

I accept and am very interested how you feel about this.
Debate Round No. 1
kingkd

Pro

Observations:

1. Something ought to be legalized if there is a direct benefit to humanity. Pro defends this observation because of the legalization of meat products. We eat meat because it benefits us, at the expense of some animals. Human society is, and ought to be, speciesism and favor the needs of humans over animals.

2. Even if something is not completely beneficial to humanity it can still be legalized because the right of humans to do what they want with their property. For example, eating chips is unhealthy yet is legalized because humans ought have right to choose what to do with their property, provided they do not violate another human"s rights.

Economic Benefit

Dogfighting provides a vast economic benefit, even while illegal. It is better to legalize and expand the industry rather than to arrest dogfighters and to waste money prosecuting them.

https://www.animallaw.info...

http://www.cnn.com...

http://www.theatlantic.com...

http://journaltimes.com...

According to Animal Law, dogfighting in Italy alone is a 500 million dollar industry. This is only a glimpse of what it could be in the much more populous United States. Dogfighting creates 40,000 jobs and would boost local economies. In fact, there could be up to 100,000 more people involved in dogfighting, according to CNN.

Legalization would end the criminalization of dogfighting, allowing for society to save money on prison costs. The Atlantic reported that a year at prison costs an average of $44,000. Thus, legalization would negate the prison and trial costs and would increase jobs and industry.

Animals shelters can cost 554 thousand to run a year and cost two million to start one. Dogfighting reduces the burden placed on taxpayers while DIRECTLY benefiting the economy.

https://www.aspca.org...

http://www.humanesociety.org...

http://www.petful.com...

The ASPCA reports that 1.2 million dogs a year are killed in shelter , and Humane Society found that 80% are healthy, these dogs could be used for dogfighting without killing family pets.

The current status quo has animals imprisoned for their whole life and developing "kennel craze" , which makes them aggressive. They can use this aggression in the form of dogfighting to benefit mankind, as opposed to be locked up in a cage their whole life and being killed, wasting money for people and providing no benefit to dogs

Conclusion

Dogfighting benefits humans with creating jobs and stimulating economies. It is arguably not worse for dogs also, as it provides a way for dogs to do something as opposed to lounging in cages all day.

Based off the benefits to humans, vote Pro.
Briannj17

Con

Ok so your view to sum it all up is we should legalize dogfighting because it can benefit the economy by taxing it, saving prison money, saving animal shelter money. Gives dogs in shelter a purpose. Well I reckon I ought to save my argument for round 3. So next I will state why dogfighting shouldn't be legalized.

Cruelty is an obvious reason. The dogs often die of blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion and infection. Many other dogs known as "cold" dogs (ones that refuse to fight) who could be turned a family dog are sacrificed as bait dogs. Dogs used for fighting are chained, taunted and starved so they are triggered into survival mode and become very aggressive. My favorite author Jack London writes great books depicting such events, White Fang, and importantly Call of the Wild which tells the story of Buck a great Bernard who was a nice family dog stolen from the family to use for the gruesome sport of dogfighting. Same kind of storyline with White Fang.
Nowadays to train dogs are often forced to swim in water until they are exhausted, to run on a treadmill while a cat or other frightened pet (often stolen) is placed in front. (later to be caught and chewed up for reward) The dogs are likely to be injected with steroids. Owners often sharpen teeth and claws, cut off the ears, and even add roach poison to the food to make their fur taste bad. This is just training, I could go into details about what happens in the ring but I beleive I have made my point. It is very very cruel.

Children are often in attendance at these events. Which desensitizes the young population. It will desensitize the world if such cruelty is allowed. There are passages in the Bible also that make it clear that animal cruelty is immoral.

There are also better more moral ways to save or make money. Start an honest business, don't lie about your taxes, invest, walk to work, save water, save power, grow a garden the list goes on and on but dogfighting is not on the top of my list. It shouldn't be on the governments either. Also it takes money to change laws.

If we legalize this we might as well legalize every other such event including gladiators.
I will wait to hear more.
Debate Round No. 2
kingkd

Pro

Observations

My 2 observations in this debate round are still standing, as they have gone uncontested in the round. Con has not challenged them and if he wishes to do so he must do so in this round, as the last round cannot have new arguments, for fairness sake. Both of these observations are thus valid in the round and lead to an automatic Pro ballot.

Refuting the Con Case
Cruelty:" Cruelty is an obvious reason. The dogs often die of blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion and infection. Many other dogs known as "cold" dogs (ones that refuse to fight) who could be turned a family dog are sacrificed as bait dogs. Dogs used for fighting are chained, taunted and starved so they are triggered into survival mode and become very aggressive."

Very emotional argument without much impact. Observation 2 invalidates this argument inherently as Con dropped that people ought to have right over their own property. Also, unlike Pro, Con has not provided a single statistic in this round. Also, this is outweighed by benefit to humans, as observation 1 states. Benefit to human outweighs detriment to animals, as hunting, eating meat, and animal testing are all "bad" for animals but are legal due to human benefit. Animal testing would be legal even if a drug was tested on 10,000 dogs to save 10 humans- this is legally permissible. Even testing for nonmedical reasons in legally permissible. Under this legal framework, so too should dogfighting. Hunting kills deer and eating meat is harmful to the animals locked up all day and killed, but if humans receive a benefit is is legal. Thus, cruelty is outweighed and invalidated.

" My favorite author Jack London writes great books depicting such events, White Fang, and importantly Call of the Wild which tells the story of Buck a great Bernard who was a nice family dog stolen from the family to use for the gruesome sport of dogfighting. Same kind of storyline with White Fang."

That"s nice. I know a story about a dog taken from a shelter and solitary confinement because of dogfighting. The dog was going mad inside solitary confinement, but dogfighting was preferable to him rather than to languish all day doing nothing. The humans running the dogfighting got their revenue and paid a 15% tax to the government, who received millions of dollars. The dogfighting people then hired more people, increasing employment and stimulating economic growth. How did this story happen? Because dogfighting was legalized.

"Nowadays to train dogs are often forced to swim in water until they are exhausted, to run on a treadmill while a cat or other frightened pet (often stolen) is placed in front. (later to be caught and chewed up for reward) The dogs are likely to be injected with steroids. Owners often sharpen teeth and claws, cut off the ears, and even add roach poison to the food to make their fur taste bad. This is just training, I could go into details about what happens in the ring but I beleive I have made my point. It is very very cruel."

I never said I supported every single method of training, I just support the dogfighting itself.

"Children are often in attendance at these events. Which desensitizes the young population. It will desensitize the world if such cruelty is allowed. There are passages in the Bible also that make it clear that animal cruelty is immoral."

No evidence here. Bible? I"m not Christian, why should I abide by this book you speak of? Turn: The bible says Man shall have domain over animals. No, I don"t care about the Bible, but I"m just refuting. Voters, recognize the Bible should not dictate federal law because there exist people of other religions that do not have to and shouldn"t be forced to obey a book they do not believe in.

"There are also better more moral ways to save or make money. Start an honest business, don't lie about your taxes, invest, walk to work, save water, save power, grow a garden the list goes on and on but dogfighting is not on the top of my list. It shouldn't be on the governments either. Also it takes money to change laws."

Morality is subjective. I am not saying I would become a dogfighter or that you must; rather I say someone should have the choice to run dogfighting if they wish to support their families. Supporting gay marriage does not mean you are gay; rather it means you support the right of people to do it. Takes money to change laws is outweighed by long run benefit

"If we legalize this we might as well legalize every other such event including gladiators."

Are you suggesting forcing HUMANS to fight? I recognize human rights and so does the federal government, animals that is different. If you suggest two consenting individuals choosing to battle each other, well, that is their own choice.

Adding to my offense

http://dogbitelaw.com...
http://time.com...
"The most recent USA survey of dog bites conducted by CDC researchers concluded that in 2001, 2002 and 2003 there were 4.5 million American dog bite victims per year " 885,000 bites per year -- almost one out of every 5 -- are serious enough to require medical attention. "
"Dog attack victims in the US suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) That $1 billion estimate might be low -- an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that, in 1995, State Farm paid $70 million on 11,000 claims and estimated that the total annual insurance cost for dog bites was about $2 billion. (Voelker R. "Dog bites recognized as public health problem." JAMA 1997;277:278,280.)
Researchers from the CDC estimated that the direct medical costs of dog bites per year equaled $164.9 million in the USA toward the end of the 1990s. Quinlan KP, Sacks JJ. Hospitalizations for Dog Bite Injuries [letter] JAMA 1999; 281:232-233.
Dog bites accounted for more than one-third of all homeowners insurance liability claim dollars paid out in 2012, costing more than $489 million, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) and State Farm, the largest writer of homeowners insurance in the United States. The average cost paid out for dog bite claims was $29,752 in 2012. From 2003 to 2012 the cost of the average dog bite claim increased by 55.3 percent. (Average Number of Dog Bite Claims Falls in 2012; Claims Costs Still on the Rise, Increasing by More Than 50 Percent Since 2003, Insurance Information Institute, May 2013.)"
"Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they"re responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982, according to research compiled by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, an animal-news organization that focuses on humane work and animal-cruelty prevention."

Crunching together the 68% of attack and 4.5 million victims, this is over 3 million victims a year and over 600,000 hospitalizations pit bulls cause. This proves that the pit-bull is naturally aggressive and should be used in dogfighting. These dogs are fighters and will instinctively attack, which ignores all of the "cruel" training methods stated by Con. Training is unnecessary, these animals will naturally fight each other. Better to have these animals fight in a ring where it can benefit society than to have their aggression unleashed onto innocent humans. If pit bulls are used for dogfighting, this will reduce the cost of dog attack on humans and increase revenue by job growth.

Conclusion

Based on my economic benefit evidence and my observations, vote Pro. Con"s case is interesting but does not stand due to lack of evidential support and the failure to refute my contentions.
Briannj17

Con

Now it is time for me to respond to your constructive piece. Do you not know the rules you set out?

You first talk about in what case things should be legalized. You say if there is a direct benefit to humanity, then you say if there is not a direct benefit to humanity it should still be legalized because humans have the right to do whatever with their property. You say human society is and should be in favor of humans over animals. You say we eat meat because it benefits us so we should allow people to let dogs fight. You compare dog fighting to eating chips. Unhealthy yet legalized. As long as other human rights aren't violated they can do whatever they want.

I say no, since you are saying that we should have the right to do whatever we want with our property there is a problem. Dogs are living, chips and meat are not. Potatoes were living also now they are dead and in a bag of chips. Meat was alive also, now it's dead and in a package. Dogs are still living and it is not right for them to kill themselves for the sport of just humans who love watching blood and pain. Your argument in this case is no good then.

Next in the point of economic benefits. I admit this point is valid, it will help the economy. But as I stated so will starting your own business, walking to work, taking the bus, saving power and water, paying your taxes, planting a garden the list goes on and on, dog fighting however is not on the top of my list and it shouldn't be on the governments either.

You tell us it will give the dogs something to do other then sit around in a kennel all day. Most dogs in shelters aren't fighting dogs. They are given care and comfort to the best of peoples abilities there. If you want to do something for them adopt a pet and give it love after all it is a living thing not a hunk of meat or a bag of chips. Or volunteer, but shelters help our economy by giving people jobs so if you get rid of dogs for fighting you'll kill some jobs along with it. Obviously most of the population is against dog fighting already, otherwise I would be arguing that it should be illegal and not that it should stay illegal. Dogs are already taken from shelters to do better things. Families, farmers, the army, the blind, hospitals, police, airports, security these are more beneficial to humans then dog fighting will ever be. There is a fine line between beneficial and just plain useless, dog fighting is more on the useless side then the items above therefore it should stay illegal.

How do you know what is preferable to a dog? Can you read his mind? No therefore you have no evidence if a dog enjoys fighting. You say you know there is a difference between human rights and animal rights, yet you don't believe the bible. So wouldn't you believe we descended down? Dogs and humans both have red blood, feelings, emotions similar internal systems. Would you let your own daughter or son fight themselves to death? Why not? Because it's wrong! So is dog fighting. If we bring back dog fighting we'll have to bring back bear baiting, cock fighting, and a whole wagon load of other similar blood sports. It's not right, money isn't everything. You can't eat money and expect to live very long, without money the world would still go on. Economics is all your argument is based on and I admit it would help, but not enough of the population is interested so it wouldn't help very much.

You say if it was legalized you wouldn't become a dog fighter. I wouldn't either. So if you wouldn't why do you support it? To support the right of others you say but what others? There's only a very small minority of people who will actually do this since most people actually have real jobs and if you legalize it, the money the dog fighters get will be much much less since the risk is less, so it would be a waste of time for people to be a dog fighter. Another point I would like to bring up is that you and I both know the breeds a true pit bull is, these are the best fighters and people won't go to shelters to get them they will breed them at home. Posing a risk that more dogs will go to shelters then come out, making your argument weak.

Your copy of info from the sites regarding dog bites I believe adds nothing to your case. Your saying that since dogs attack people they should not be put down but rather used for dog fighting. You say pit bulls are most responsible for the attacks. Well that's because the dogs were bred to be aggressive to fight bulls for the blood sport. It is again not there fault but maybe we should have never bred them to be that way. If we had never allowed such heinous blood sports to be legal in the first place those dog attacks as you say most of them wouldn't happen. It will not reduce the dog attacks on humans since the legalization would make breeders breed more of them.

I would also like you to watch your spelling. They didn't invent auto correct for no reason. You make a good argument however there are many flaws in what your saying. The conclusion I believe will be a good one! I thank you for the timely response and hope to hear from you soon.
Debate Round No. 3
kingkd

Pro

Framework

"You first talk about in what case things should be legalized. You say if there is a direct benefit to humanity, then you say if there is not a direct benefit to humanity it should still be legalized because humans have the right to do whatever with their property. You say human society is and should be in favor of humans over animals. You say we eat meat because it benefits us so we should allow people to let dogs fight. You compare dog fighting to eating chips. Unhealthy yet legalized. As long as other human rights aren't violated they can do whatever they want.

I say no, since you are saying that we should have the right to do whatever we want with our property there is a problem. Dogs are living, chips and meat are not. Potatoes were living also now they are dead and in a bag of chips. Meat was alive also, now it's dead and in a package. Dogs are still living and it is not right for them to kill themselves for the sport of just humans who love watching blood and pain. Your argument in this case is no good then."

Con has never refuted my first observation: that if something benefits humanity than it is legalized. Animal interest is outweighed- for instance, take hunting, fishing, or non-medical testing. Humans receive a benefit at animal expense, but society recognizes it to be legal.
For my second observation con attempted to refute it by stating that property rights do not apply to living things. This provides a very confusing morality of con, as he states that meat was once alive but is no more. So something intrinsically possesses rights if it is alive, but once you kill it, it is in a package and does not matter? Property rights apply to animals as well, thus extending my case.

Cases

The con case revolves around the purported cruelty of dogfighting. However, this is effectively refuted by Pro because the fact that dogfighting is not much worse than indefinite solitary confinement followed then euthanasia, and by my framework arguments.

"Next in the point of economic benefits. I admit this point is valid, it will help the economy. But as I stated so will starting your own business, walking to work, taking the bus, saving power and water, paying your taxes, planting a garden the list goes on and on, dog fighting however is not on the top of my list and it shouldn't be on the governments either."

Thank you for conceding; per observation 1 this leads to a Pro ballot.

"You tell us it will give the dogs something to do other then sit around in a kennel all day. Most dogs in shelters aren't fighting dogs. They are given care and comfort to the best of peoples abilities there. If you want to do something for them adopt a pet and give it love after all it is a living thing not a hunk of meat or a bag of chips. Or volunteer, but shelters help our economy by giving people jobs so if you get rid of dogs for fighting you'll kill some jobs along with it. Obviously most of the population is against dog fighting already, otherwise I would be arguing that it should be illegal and not that it should stay illegal. Dogs are already taken from shelters to do better things. Families, farmers, the army, the blind, hospitals, police, airports, security these are more beneficial to humans then dog fighting will ever be. There is a fine line between beneficial and just plain useless, dog fighting is more on the useless side then the items above therefore it should stay illegal."

I specifically stated in my rebuttal round I supported pit bulls fighting, never said that ALL dogs much fight. Again, notice the lack of evidence by Con saying that most shelters are caring a nurturing. Shelters are not care centers; they are places where animals go to die. Millions of dogs a year are killed in shelters.

"How do you know what is preferable to a dog? Can you read his mind? No therefore you have no evidence if a dog enjoys fighting. You say you know there is a difference between human rights and animal rights, yet you don't believe the bible. So wouldn't you believe we descended down? Dogs and humans both have red blood, feelings, emotions similar internal systems. Would you let your own daughter or son fight themselves to death? Why not? Because it's wrong! So is dog fighting. If we bring back dog fighting we'll have to bring back bear baiting, cock fighting, and a whole wagon load of other similar blood sports. It's not right, money isn't everything. You can't eat money and expect to live very long, without money the world would still go on. Economics is all your argument is based on and I admit it would help, but not enough of the population is interested so it wouldn't help very much."

Con claims that I do not know what is preferable to a dog. That is true, but that also means Con does not know either. TURN: Con cannot claim to know what is preferable to a dog, fighting or imprisonment, and thus his ENTIRE morality case is negated.
I would actually let my children join the military if they wanted to. Bear baiting and cockfighting I have not researched and shouldn"t be weighed in this round, as the resolution is dogfighting, we should be topical.

"You say if it was legalized you wouldn't become a dog fighter. I wouldn't either. So if you wouldn't why do you support it? To support the right of others you say but what others? There's only a very small minority of people who will actually do this since most people actually have real jobs and if you legalize it, the money the dog fighters get will be much much less since the risk is less, so it would be a waste of time for people to be a dog fighter. Another point I would like to bring up is that you and I both know the breeds a true pit bull is, these are the best fighters and people won't go to shelters to get them they will breed them at home. Posing a risk that more dogs will go to shelters then come out, making your argument weak."

I may or may not watch dogfights if legalized, but that"s not the point. Just because I do not directly feel the benefit of something or am not part of something does not mean I shouldn"t support legalization. I am a straight male but still support gay marriage even though it does not directly affect me.

"Your copy of info from the sites regarding dog bites I believe adds nothing to your case. Your saying that since dogs attack people they should not be put down but rather used for dog fighting. You say pit bulls are most responsible for the attacks. Well that's because the dogs were bred to be aggressive to fight bulls for the blood sport. It is again not there fault but maybe we should have never bred them to be that way. If we had never allowed such heinous blood sports to be legal in the first place those dog attacks as you say most of them wouldn't happen. It will not reduce the dog attacks on humans since the legalization would make breeders breed more of them."

Please provide some evidence saying dogfighting would increase dog attacks" what this evidence proved was that pit bulls naturally are fighting animals and fight each other all the time and even attack humans often. Isn"t it more beneficial to society as a whole to have this aggressive species fight inside a dogfighting match?

Conclusion

Vote Pro for this resolution based on higher use of evidence and statistics by the Pro. Con failed to provide a single link to an outside source besides White Fang, which is a fictional novel. Good read, but fiction nonetheless.
Con never refuted that something ought to be legalized IF IT DIRECTLY BENEFITS HUMANS. No new arguments last round, therefore Con cannot bring up a new refutation. Based off the framework vote Pro also.
Based off the cases the Pro side should win because economics falls under observation 1. My observation 2 should also stand, as Con never stated why something being living was enough to have rights to outweigh property rights. Remember the turns in this round. Con admitted we do not know how dogs feel and cannot claim to know what is preferable. Therefore, dogfighting could be in the best interest of dogs also, as a preferable alternative to incarceration.

Based off evidence vote Pro! I thank the Con for a lively debate.
Briannj17

Con

Fist of all I want to voice my disgust at you taking most of my words and pasting them into your argument. I believe that was not the right thing to do. Which is why I try to sum up what my opponent says in my own words.

Anyways on to the closing round. After the paste job you did, you argue that I never refuted your first observation. Well I did later in that round. I will discuss that later when it comes up. You now compare dog fighting to hunting, fishing and non medical testing. A better comparison, however dog fighting does not impact humanity the same way as hunting and fishing. I really don't support non-medical testing of animals so I won't talk about it since this is the last round. Hunting and fishing a way of life for many Americans. Now I don't support hunting for the sake of killing. I don't support fishing just for fisherman to throw a dead fish on the ground and leave it there. Those sports are for food traditionally. Food is a benefit. Killing for the sake of killing is murder. Just like dog fighting. Murdering innocent animals that could be loved and treated to a good family. If you kill a dog for food I am still against it. Why not kill a wolf then? Or a fox or a coyote? When is comes to dog you think of trust and the dog trusts you his master. Bad or not dog fighter or non dog fighter there is a trust. Trust to food, water and care. Otherwise the wild would look better to the dog. As for the chips in a bag and meat in a package I mainly said dogfighting is not a good comparison to those things. Meat might benefit you, so can chips. You can't eat a living dog. Living is a different class to dead. If you kill animals for food it is justified. If you kill animals you won't eat it's murder.

If you can't get this point in your head I will say it a dozen more times. There are better more honest ways for money. You can't expect to live very long by eating money anyways. The point of money is to get it out of your hands in trade for something to use. Start a business, plant a garden, carpool, go green, walk to work, save water, invest, a never ending list! Dog fighting is not on the top of my list, you admitted it is not on yours and why should it be on the governments?

Next after another paste job that I hope the voters see, you say you supported pit bull fighting. Not all dogs must fight. I hope you know that if only pit bull fighting is allowed more dog fighters will breed them. creating a whole lot more animals, and as you said earlier, a whole lot more dog bites. Most importantly a whole lot more dangerous pit bulls in the shelters. Next I need to define care. Care: the R03;process of R03;protecting someone or something and R03;providing what that R03;person or thing R03;needs. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Shelter is a care place for many dogs. It's the best they've got. Unless you want a pack of wild dogs not afraid of humans on the rampage. I know many of them die but what else can we do? dog fighting won't end shelter use, in fact it will probably add to the problem since the dogs dog fighters don't want will go there.

As for whether I know whats in a dogs head I do know. I have dogs! I know she's obedient she helps me herd sheep she comes when I call, she cares for me, if I fall down for some reason she'll come over and help me there are many true stories on how dogs care for their masters I will never accept that dog fighters actually love their dogs! Military is not the same as dog fighting for the dogs fighting are not protecting our country. They are giving their lives for sport that some people find enjoyable. Well you should research such things as bear baiting and cock fighting because if we let dog fighting be legalized they will be too.

So you support the legalization of gay marriage on the same basis that it improves humanity? Does dog fighting improve humanity? Not as much. That's human rights is what gay marriage is animal rights is dog fighting and since dogs can't hold a sign saying we hate fighting we'll just have to assume they shouldn't be used for that purpose and should be put to better tasks like farming which is what I'm acquainted with. Which I know my dog likes. Do you know dog fighters like dog fighting? No is the answer because you admitted you wouldn't be a dog fighter so you don't fight dogs so you don't know how such a dog would feel. I do know how my dog feels. By the way my dog is a border collie/blue heeler. But I have a friend who owns two pit bulls. Very nice dogs have never even growled at me. Very well loved dogs.

Well there's no doubt http://www.dogsbite.org... pit bulls are bred to be aggressive and thats a fact. However this can be trained out of a dog and it has worked such in the case of my friend.

IN CLOSING....

Aggressive conclusion by pro. I just have to say that I know what is the right choice for the dogs. You should too. Vote con because I have told you specifically what the problems are, dog fighting does not benefit humans as much as hunting which is were the public draws the line and living property should not be abused in any manner especially dog fighting. I argued every point used my OWN words and took my opponent down to size. I thank him for the idea of this debate. My name is Brian N. Johnson and that's all for now!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
True. Well I thank you all for the constructive criticism. I will use it for the future debates I will be in. "You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space." Johnny Cash
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Briannji7

I never vote a debater entirely down just based on the rules. Judges are allowed to discredit rules such as Rule 6 while judging. I can award the conduct point, but there's no point in doing so, since you'll lose anyway.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
pro should lose on account of his rules. "Using 16kadams Rules:

Rules:

1. First round is for acceptance only
2. Second round is for cases only
3. BOP is shared
4. No kritiks/semantics
5. Voting is on arguments only
6. Breaking rules = loss
7. Sources don't need to be in debate, but if you do that put them in an external link.
8. No NAP or annoying libertarian philosophy (counts as a K). Stats master race
9. You accept definitions
10. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate and an capital punishment through Jaguars."

Note rule 2 and rule 6 then look at his rebuttals in round two. therefore conduct point should go to me.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Pro wins government FW, I"m not getting a compelling reason from Con to believe that any moral framework would apply to animals outside of animals being living and appeals to emotion. So what if animals are living? Pro's meat reductio defeats this, since Con doesn't really explain the basis for their framework and why living animals should be considered but eating meat doesn't matter. Ob1 is conceded by Con and sufficiently warranted by Pro, and Pro wins Ob2 simply because Con doesn"t really justify their animal rights inclusive FW, except for "animals are living." I don"t see why cruelty matters, and why government should legislate on animal suffering, further Con has too many appeals to emotion to justify properly, meaning Pro wins FW. Economic args are conceded by Con. Given both observations, they apply. Vote Pro.
Posted by Briannj17 2 years ago
Briannj17
Hey opponent! I'm Following your rules! Rebuttals are for round three, constructive round two, and you criticizing me for following your rules?!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
kingkdBriannj17Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 1 year ago
Leugen9001
kingkdBriannj17Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: pro made an argument about the economic benefits of dogfighting; con's response was a list of alternative ways of making money, which didn't negate dogfighting's economic impacts. Although con's case about morality was promising, pro's rebuttal about how con didn't know what's best for dogs either was an interesting and logically sound takedown. Con was not able to adequately address pro's rebuttal, instead relying on more guessing about what dogs wanted, this time based on anecdotal evidence. In the last round, con said that dog shelters were good for dogs by definition, ignoring pro's argument invoking statistics showing that dog shelters lock dogs up before euthanizing them. Conduct: in R3, pro criticized con for not refuting his arguments in R2, even though R2 was for constructive cases. He also made a constructive argument in R3. Sources: con quoted fiction books and the Bible, which not everyone believes in, while pro used sources that were more reliable to everyone.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
kingkdBriannj17Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments - even if I disagree with pro, he provided a full set of arguments that definitely supported dog fights including economic benefits, rights of ownership, and benefit to humanity. Con effectively drops all of these by appealing to emotion (its just wrong) and nature (dogs are mammals like humans, so it's wrong for both) the whole debate, which pro pointed out. He only said that it felt wrong and he didn't see how pro could be right. Those are not negating arguments. Those are opinions. Pro also used evidence to back up the economic benefits and the evidence for how dogs react to being locked in a kennel. Con never properly refuted anything, relying more on emotional arguments than logical reasonin and evidence. To be clear appeals to emotion and nature are logical fallacies. con's whole case was based on appealing to emotion. So because pro at least backed up his case with logic and evidence, I vote pro on arguments and evidence.