The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,892 times Debate No: 16975
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)




(This is my first debate to post, pardon if I screw something up. Please tell me [politely] in the comments section.)
My stand on rodeo is that it's cruel and abusive (con).
If you disagree with me, you think that it is a good sport (pro).
I'll gladly debate with you on whatever topics you can even begin to come up with as long as they fall under the subject of rodeo cruelty.


I accept this debate. Seeing that my opponent has not made an opening argument not has specified whether the opponent should make one I will invite here to make her case against rodeo first.

Good luck Con, and thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


This is a speech I wrote about rodeo cruelty. I have decided to post it since pro made no protests in round one.

Anyone can see that tazing puppies, whipping kittens, and kicking babies are all evil pastimes, so how can people be so blind to rodeo cruelty? Bulls, horses, goats, and other unlucky rodeo victims are no less intelligent or aware of the searing pain than the spectators that smile and laugh every time a horse is ripped to shreds with viciously sharpened spurs, and cheer every time a calf's neck is snapped! "The brute animals have all the same sensations of pain as human beings, and consequently endure as much pain when their body is hurt; but in their case the cruelty of torment is greater, because they have no mind to bear them up against their sufferings, and no hope to look forward to when enduring the last extreme pain." - Thomas Chalmers, Scottish Religious Leader.
Rodeo has an unusual party favor that they grant to all who come witness their horrors. Their specialty brand of rose colored glasses are deployed like missiles throughout the crowd. Spit from the mouths of disturbingly moral-less announcers, these lies take seed in the vulnerable, uniformed mind.
Bam! A horse slams into a wall after the rider has flung his self from his back before his eight seconds were up in a cowardly action. The horses body doubles over, it flips and start convulsing. A gasp rises through out the startled crowd. The unfazed announcers pulls the microphone to his unshaven jaw and begins dribbling sickly sweet lies in an obnoxiously fake southern drawl. "Now ya'll don't be gettin' yourselves worried bout' that there horse! He ain't hurt that bad! And we have specialty equine ambulances for his scrapes and what not! He'll be right as rain come tomorrow mornin'!" The ruffled crowd reseats themselves, one-hundred percent reassured that the horse being dragged by seven "brave" cowboys across the ring would make a full recovery. "Now can I git a big cheer for them cowboys helpin' that horse?" The crowd absolutely roars with pure excitement. A closer examination of the "specialized" ambulance reveals that it is no more than a metal stock trailer with a deceptive paint job. Legally, rodeo has to report all animal casualties. This horse was not reported as deceased. Yet, no one dared to question why this particular animal never showed up in any rodeo, ever again. The most disturbing part of this story? It is entirely true. SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness, or SHARK, captured this horrific incident on their hidden cameras.
I have seen first hand the cruelty of the rodeo. Unlike the stereotype, when the horses exit the ring, they do not, in fact, go out to graze in a huge rolling meadow. They go into a small pen with twenty plus horses about the size of a backyard in a densely packed suburban area. It's floor consists of dirt, hay, and manure. The hay, which they trample upon, is expected to be considered edible, and it is the only provided food source. In an entire week, their pen is not cleaned. They are placed with a bull in a pathetic attempt to rev them up in the most primitive manner. These horses are perfectly good, with beautiful conformation and phenomenal coloration. They have all been wasted. The scars that cover their sides run long and deep from years of spurring. Mare are penned up in an even smaller enclosure with their babies. They too, are being ridden in the eight second torment. The goats are in a stall intended for one horse. There are three. There is no water, or food and they are standing on concrete. As I stuck my hand through the bars to pet their scruffy beards, they skittered to a far corner. This is very much un-goat like. They should be more curious then a kitten. The dogs, who are next door, have a similar situation. They are trapped in stalls and are only released when they have a primate directly secured to their back. They mope, and flash depressed puppy eyes in my direction.

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." - Thomas Edison, American Scientist and Inventor

"Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead, American Anthropologist

What? End rodeo? But it's an American tradition! I know what I'm proposing, and it seems impossible, but please remember that at one time slavery was an American tradition as well.


Thank you for posting a swift response.

Just for laughs. This is the action of the prestigious "animal rights" individual you quoted.


Rebuttal 1: Concerning the harm and mistreatment of Rodeo animals

My opponent brings out the point that harming small animals including human babies is wrong therefore having horses, pigs, bulls, etc is wrong as well.

The reason this statement is not valid is because she is using young and weak animals as an example, while the fact of the matter is that the animals that appear in Rodeos such as horses, pigs, bulls, and cows, are all very strong, adult animals. Whipping and kicking a human baby or a small kitten, is not the equivalent of kicking or whipping a full grown horse or bull much like the ones they use in Rodeos.

The animals used in Rodeos can take the abuse and for hundreds of years now, whips have been used as successful tools for getting adult animals to move. Whips can be traced back to the ancient Egyptians and even more popularly, the cowboys of the Wild West, who used whips to drive horses and cattle. [1][2] Now back in the time of the cowboy, ranchers would be forced to rely on the well being of their cattle to make a living. Now obviously, if the whip was significantly injuring and wounding their cattle, they would have been rendered obsolete. But in reality they are simply effective tools at moving adult strong animals.

Therefore animals’ being whipped is not a legitimate reason to accuse Rodeo's of being abusive towards animals while it is a legitimate procedure for moving cattle while not inflicting severe bodily harm.

Now my opponent has also brought up terrible living conditions of animals but no evidence to back up her claims in her emotion ridden speech.

Rebuttal 2: Concerning the violence of Rodeos

This point is irrelevant regarding the legitimacy of Rodeos. I have already shown that animals are not harmed during Rodeos so there is no real issue. The fact that people like watching violent performances is also very normal. Many people enjoy watching war films, crime thrillers, espionage films, Westerns, etc. All of which have violence.

Now I have shown that animals are not seriously injured during Rodeos. Actors aren't injured either during films. We aren't opposed to the film industry, so why should we be opposed to the Rodeo? Sure it's violent watching cowboys lasso and wrestle with large animals, but the animals aren't supposed to get hurt.

Now I concede that there may be accidents in which animals do get seriously harmed but it is not common nor is it intentional.

Regardless a handful of accidents are no reason to ban or oppose a traditional normally harmless and exciting entertainment event.

Pro Rodeo Argument 1: Rodeos are entertaining.

Refer to videos. Case closed.

Pro Rodeo Argument 2: Rodeos are economically successful and beneficial.

Many organizations and entities that have become involved in the Rodeo have become very successful. Rodeos all over the United States have become popular as well have had growing revenue incomes. [3][4]

Even Non-Rodeo businesses benefit economically from Rodeo events. People come from miles around to see this form of entertainment. Local businesses in the area of a Rodeo event have more customers and are able to hire additional staff.[5][6] Selling more goods and services and hiring employees is good and helps the economy.

Reqarding selected quoatations

I'm also somewhat amused by opponent brought up the Thomas Edison quotes.

I doubt she realizes the history behind the feud between Edison and Nicola Tesla where Tesla's inventions and ideas regarding electricity, such as alternating current, were becoming more popular, efficient, and groundbreaking than Edison's. In an attempt to discredit Tesla's ideas and inventions, Edison proceeded to electrocute several animals in public demonstrations to support the false notion that Tesla’s inventions were dangerous and flawed. [7]

So by his own words, Edison was a hypocrite.


And all in all we have a enjoyable and successful form of entertainment in which animals aren’t abused or harmed deliberately, that positively affects the economy.

Therefore there is no reason to oppose the Rodeo.

Vote PRO


(Whips have been around for thousands of years)

(Whips have been used to move cattle and horse)

(Revenue increase in Rodeo event)

(Revenue increase in Rodeo event)

(Rodeo has severe positive impact on local economy)

(Non-Rodeo businesses experience economic benefits from Rodeo. They have more customers and hire more employees)

(Edison killed animals to discredit important scientific achievements)

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for your response, Pro.

As for your videos, it is the animals nature to attack an enemy to prevent another attack.

Rebuttal 1: Regarding the use of "adult animals"

First, I'd like for you to notice that adult animals are not the only animals being used in rodeo. For example, Calf Roping [2]. Most bucking horses used in rodeo are between the ages of two and six, which although full grown, are by all accounts mentally immature. An injury or particularly traumatic event happening before the horse is mature can scar them and remove their chances of moving on to a different equine sport (Dressage, Stadium Jumping, Barrel Racing, etc.). A horse that cannot do anything because an incident in the past has made them dangerous is often sent to slaughter. Argument extended.

Rebuttal 2: Regarding the use of whips

In a typical ranching situation, like you mentioned, the goal is to slowly and gently move the animals forward to a marked spot [2]. In the case of rodeo, the goal is to get the animals to quickly and erratically move forward, a rancher's nightmare. Also, if they must use whips, tazers, etc, the animal would rather stand still, and are not in fact "Born to Buck" [3].

Rebuttal 3:
The difference between movies and rodeos is that one has special effects, and is preformed by rationally thinking people, and one isn't. This renders your comparison unreliable.

Rebuttal 4: Regarding rodeos being successful economically

Yes, rodeos attract lots of spectators and fans, but so do drug dealers and prostitutes. Your mindset is a potentially dangerous one with that kind of mindset.

Regarding the quotation:
The main difference between Thomas Edison's testing and rodeo is that one saved lives. Rodeo serves no purpose in humanity. [4]

[1] Calf roping
[2] Cattle Herding
[3] "Born to Buck"


Thank you for your response Con

I was using the videos as supporting evidence that rodeos are entertaining.

Rebuttal 1: Regarding the use of able bodied animals.

My opponent brings up the point that calves are used in Rodeos.

What she neglects to mention is that calves are very large and even in her videos calves are about as large as humans.

So while she initially compared kicking babies and kittens to the rodeo, she concedes that tiny and weak animals aren't getting hurt in rodeos, large bulky and strong animals equivalent and greater in size than humans are used in rodeos.

And even the dangerous, "Jerk down" maneuver is banned in many areas according to my opponents own videos. She is using one violent event in rodeo performed on strong and large animals, which is widely banned in rodeo events, as a justification to oppose ALL rodeos.

My opponent goes on to claim that horses which are not mentally mature are used in rodeos. I wish to dispute this.

First of all, it is a widely accepted fact that horses are fully grown at the ages of around 4-6 years old.[1]

Second of all it is widely accepted that horses mentally mature anywhere between the ages of 2-6 years. [2]

Now it is very hard to find a set age where horses mature due to the variations in opinions, breed, etc., but until my opponent provides evidence otherwise, you're going to have to go with my sources.

Thirdly I have researched the rodeo horses that are being sold. NONE are less than 4 years old, far above the minimum.[3]

Now unless my opponent proves which breeds of horses aren't mentally matured and proves that there are sites or ranches that sell mentally underage horses the claim that mentally underage horses are at risk of brain damage holds no water, especially since I have put forth the effort to find and post evidence and sources contrary.

Rebuttal 2: Concerning the use of whips.

Regardless of whether or not the animals are moving fast, whips do NOT cause severe bodily harm to animals.

You used the argument that animals are being abused by whips and so far you have brought no evidence or sources whatsoever.

On the other hand I have shown that whips have been used for thousands of years for the purpose of moving horses.

Whipping a horse to move quickly is n more harmful than whipping a a horse to go fast. The horse is still being whipped and you can't adjust a large difference in force when you whip someone. It's still a piece of rope traveling hundreds of miles an hour at a specific location on your flesh.

Pro Argument 1: Rodeos are entertaining

Your baseless and offensive assertion holds no warrant whatsoever.

Argument extended.

Pro Argument 2: Rodeos are economically beneficial and successful

My opponent concedes this position by acknowledging that Rodeos benefit the economy by increasing business and resulting in the hiring of more people who need jobs.

Regarding selected quotations

My opponents position here is quiet laughable and obviously spurred by ignorance of the events of the early 1900's as well as landmark scientific achievments

Thomas Edison was the creator of direct current electricity and constructed his entire business off of his discovery.

Nicola Tesla, one of most important men in human history, came up with alternating currents.

Alternating current allowed for more energy to be carried over large distances than Edison’s Direct current inventions. It was more efficient, safer, and was going to rapidly replace Edison’s technology[4]

Edison, in a vain, greedy, and pathetic attempt to mislead the public about Alternating current, he needlessly electrocuted several animals in flawed experiments that simply showed that enough amps could kill things, not that Alternating current was more dangerous that Direct current.

Edison, your quoted animal rights man, killed animals for mere profit and to slander Nicola Tesla and Tesla’s inventions and discoveries.

Edison did not save a single life, he stalled scientific progress.


In conclusion my opponent has not proven or even supported the notion that mentally underage animals suffer brain damage in Rodeos while I have made a case, backed by sources, which shows other wise.

My opponent has not show that there is any additional harm is inflicted against animals when they are whipped to go faster, therefore her argument here is baseless and holds no water

My opponent concedes that rodeos are entertaining

My opponent concedes that rodeos are beneficial to the economy

My opponent quotes Thomas Edison as a credible supporter of animal rights when in fact Thomas Edison killed animals not to save human lives but to discredit Tesla's advancements in alternating current when in fact alternating current is safer, cheaper, more efficient, and more powerful than Edison's direct current

My opponents case against Rodeo has been debunked

Vote Pro


(Various opinions from people who own horses)


(Claims horses mentally mature anytime between 2-6 years of age)


(Site that sells rodeo horses sells no horses younger than when they mentally mature)


(Edison killed animals to stall scientific progress)

Debate Round No. 3


maria12245 forfeited this round.


It's a shame my opponent had to forfeit, but I do wish she could have let me know beforehand or posted a reason for her absence rather than drag out the entire time limit.

In conclusion

My opponent has not shown that animals unfit to be in rodeo's are harmed while I have made arguments and posted sources to the contrary, most notable posting sources showing when horses mentally and physically matured and showing that sources that sold rodeo horses sold horses well within or above the age limits

My opponent has not shown that animals experience more pain depending on whether or not they are whipped to go fast or slow.

My opponent concedes that rodeos are entertaining

My opponent concedes that rodeos are good for the economy by increasing economic activity.

My opponent had bad conduct for instigating the debate and forfeiting the last round.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
Originally I just liked reading over your debates because I thought it was interesting that you would argue for devil's advocate positions as well as both sides of an issue. Then I saw Mongoose's and Mongeese's photo albums showing that you would vote for yourself and it was becoming plainly obvious.

When people begin posting photo albums showing other users voting for themselves I'll look over their debates as well.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Okay fair enough and I will get back to you. However the fact that you went and specifically found debates of mine from months and months ago leads me to believe that you actually DO have motives against me specifically. Also, please feel free to tell me who else you decided to follow and check out how they voted on their debates specifically, and where you corrected their votes.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
Danielle, again, I was cancelling out your votes you cast for yourself on your previous debates, if there was a mistake in which case you didn't vote for yourself or where it was an obvious debate where the opponent forfeited or something along those lines, I ask you to post the URL's to me so I can immediately correct them since in all honesty I'm not out to cross people or pick fights.

Regarding your Death penalty debate, since you didn't like my RFD and consider it to be a joke, consider it a counter to hassenfor's vote.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
I don't have the time to go and find all of the debates I voted on but these are the ones I voted on that changed your win ratio.

In every single case you voted points for yourself while your opponent didn't.

Now if you want to do the same to me and counter any votes I made for myself on any of my debates go right ahead (Be my guest finding one) but don't try to make it seem like I have some ulterior motives against you because I don't like you for some reason.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
I'm not. I simply passed over old debates were I saw you voted 7 points for yourself when your opponent didn't.
If there are any debates where you voted 7 points for yourself and your opponent forfeited or was terrible please send me the URL's and I will correct them but in many cases you would give yourself the points needed to push yourself over the top.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
quarterexchange, I would really like to know why you're so obsessed with me to the point where you go and look back on old debates of mine that you can v-bomb. I have no idea who you are or why you don't like me / are so obsessed with me, but if we're just going to start voting against each other for no justifiable reason, let me know and I'll get started asap doing the same to you. Thanks. (Also your RFD on my death penalty debate was a joke).
Posted by maria12245 5 years ago
I'm not. Sorry, I've been really busy.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
Please don't forfeit
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
Posted by maria12245 5 years ago
I changed it, I am now con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments started out completely unsourced, and quickly refuted by Pro's sources. The Edison deal backfired. The continued attempts to regain ground by Con fell flat as most everything turned out to be insignificant as shown by Pro. The forfeit was the final nail in the coffin.
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro vote bombs me, so I'm just returning the courtesy.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Goo topic with earnest efforts. Con had the burden of proof, and had to show that rodeo was typically cruel and abusive. That requires statistics rather anecdotes. How many calves are harmed in calf roping? etc. For example, each year some kids die playing baseball -- that alone doesn't prove the sport toodangerous. Pro's evidence that whips have been used a long time doesn't prove they are not abusive. Edison being a hypocrite doesn't prove him wrong. Economic benefits are secondary.