The Instigator
Chelicerae
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Scorpions are good pets in general.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 8 votes the winner is...
Chelicerae
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,219 times Debate No: 24937
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (8)

 

Chelicerae

Pro

The first round is for acceptance. I will be arguing that scorpions are good pets in general, and Con will be arguing that scorpions are not good pets in general.

Good- To be desired or approved of

Scorpions- A terrestrial arachnid (order Scorpiones)

Pet - an animal kept in confinement

General- not confined by specialization or careful limitation

First round is for acceptance. The debate will be back and forth arguments and counter-arguments. All sources must be linked and available online, and no semantics are allowed.
ConservativePolitico

Con

I accept.

I also accept the provided definitions.

I want to request that Round Five is kept short and in bullet point fashion if at all possible as Four solid rounds of debate is a bit much for this topic. If we could use Round Five as a brief recap for the voters I would appreciate it.
Debate Round No. 1
Chelicerae

Pro

=Introduction=

As stated in the opening part of this debate, I will be defending the resolution that scorpions are 'good pets in general'. If you haven't noticed, I'm a fan of scorpions and I'm getting one as a pet soon. I'm glad that ConservativePolitico has decided to debate me, as my last opponent forfeited every round of the debate. For that reason, I'll be using the same arguments I did in the last debate, with some new information added in. I hope that doesn't bother anybody who's read the last debate.

I will be defending three major points. The first point is that scorpions are not lethal, the second point is that scorpions are easy to take care of, and the last point is that scorpions have longevity. These reasons together are why I am in favor of the resolution. I will be backing up these points with sources and factual information, because it is good conduct to do. Anyways, thanks again for the debate, and good luck!

=Scorpions are generally not lethal=


The number of scorpion species on the planet is estimated to be around 1,752, and they are found in all continents except for Antartica [1]. The number of scorpion species that are able to to deliver lethal stings to humans is estimated to be 25 [1]. This means that only 1.42% of scorpion species are capable of killing a human being [3]. Since the number of lethal scorpion species is so low, it can be known that scorpions are generally not harmful.

The fear humans have for scorpions is like the fear we have for sharks and other 'monsters'. We think they're going to kill us, but in fact, we harm them a lot more than they harm us. I'm willing to bet that when you add the scorpions humans kill as pests, for food, and for science, the number is larger than the amount of people scorpions have killed.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...

=Scorpions are easy to take care of=

Scorpions are very easy to keep. After you have set up the terrarium for it, it's not a challenge to keep it well-fed and happy. All a scorpion needs is a ten gallon tank (minimum) and a hiding spot to hide under [1]. Scorpions do not require food that often. Most scorpions only need to be fed 1-2 times a week and 1-2 proper sized crickets each feeding [2]. A bag of crickets will cost $18.69 for 250 crickets [3]. Taking into consideration the fact that scorpions won't eat before and after molting, you will feed them rarely.

Even if you forgot to feed your scorpion, some scorpions can survive without eating any food for a year [4]. Even the most irresponsible pet owner would be able to take care of one just fine.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...

=Scorpions have longevity=

The two most popular pets in the United States of America are the cat and the dog. [1] A cat will usually live for 14 years, while a dog will usually live for about 12.8 years. [2][3] However, a scorpion will usually live between five and fifteen years. [4] This means that, on average, scorpions live longer than cats and dogs, the most popular pets in the United States America.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...

=Conclusions=

From my argument, we reach the following three conclusions:

(1) Scorpions are not lethal, and 99% of scorpion species cannot kill a human being.
(2) Scorpions are easy to take care of.
(3) Scorpions live longer than cats and dogs, the most popular pets in the United States of America.

The resolution is upheld. Thank you.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Counter Arguments

1. Lethality

First off I want to point out that something can be harmful without being lethal. While my opponent claims many scorpions are not deadly, they can still be harmful. Now, the resolution states that scorpions in general are good pets, in general being defined in Round One as "not confined by specialization or limitation" meaning that we can't say scorpions are good pets for everyone except.

Now, scorpion stings are dangerous for young children, the elderly and other pets. While they may not be lethal necessarily, I wouldn't want my child being stung by a scorpion "if your child is stung, always get immediate medical care". [1] This shows that if you have a child stung by your pet, you'll need to get immediate medical care. This could turn into a restraint in that many parents won't want scorpions in the house if they have children. They're also dangerous to other pets so if you have a cat or dog you won't want a scorpion around because it could be bad for them same as your child.

I would say, scorpions are not good pets in general because they pose a danger to children and pets.

2. Ease of Care

Ease of care does not make a pet good. Ants would be easy to take care of but that doesn't mean I want pet ants. This point is a small factor in considering the overall desirability of a pet but is not a main factor. In fact, many pets are easy to take care of. Hamsters, fish, mice etc all have similar requirements for care as scorpions do.

This is a small factor easily outweighed by other negative factors about a scorpion.

3. Longevity

Cats and dogs are not the most popular pets in America because of their longevity. Hamsters, fish and mice are also on the top 10 list [2] and all of these pets are not long living, in fact many types will die within two years of ownership. Cats and dogs are the most popular because they're common, have roots dating back hundreds of years, are friendly and loyal as well as cute and soft. Cats and dogs have many types and distinct personalities, all of these things rank much higher on the Pros list for cats and dogs than longevity does.

A. Most Popular Pets

The top 10 most popular pets in America feature many animals that share similar qualities. The number one similar trait between most of the pets on the top ten list is visual appeal. Cats, dogs, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs and ferrets all have fur and are generally pleasing to look at. Some are considered "cute" others "fluffy" but all none of them are truly ugly. Scorpions aren't pleasing to look at, with their hard outer shell and bug-like legs they would not appeal to the majority of pet owners making them not fit the requirement of "generally" good pets. The scorpion does not even make it onto the top 10 pets in America list. [2]

No other bug or arachnid is on the top ten list and the scorpion does not fit in with the rest of the pets on the list. Many of the pets on the list have personality appeal such as dogs, cats and birds. Others have appeal to children that can cuddle and play with them such as hamsters, dogs and guinea pigs.

You can't really play with a scorpion, can't teach it tricks, take it for walks, let your kids cuddle with it, ogle over its cuteness or anything else that pet owners generally enjoy in their pets.

* Scorpions are dangerous to children
* They're ugly
* They don't share qualities that other popular pets in America have
* You can't play with, cuddle with, walk, train etc scorpions
* Scorpions are not good pets in general

In general, the public and majority of pet owners would not find the same appeal in scorpions as they do in other pets. Therefore the resolution is negated.

[1] http://www.mayoclinic.com...
[2] http://www.writers-free-reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Chelicerae

Pro

Counter Argument

=Lethality=

Con asserts that scorpions pose a threat to small children and other pets. However, statistics show that this 'threat' is overstated. Between 1991 and 2001, only .26% of animal related fatalities were attributed to scorpions. Scorpions were beat by hornets, bees wasps, spiders, and even dogs. Your child is statistically more likely to be killed by a dog than a scorpion. Therefore, the threat that a scorpion sting poses to the life of anybody, small children included, is very small. [1]

There were fifteen deaths related to dogs in 2011. [2] Only 4 deaths in 11 years have occurred as a result of scorpion stings. [3] The number of people scorpions kill is so low it's one person. How can that be construed as a major threat?

In regards to scorpions being harmful, it is true that they can cause pain. However, this statement doesn't surprise me at all. Having an arthropod shove its telson into your skin is painful? Of course it is! The most venomous scorpion in the United States of America is the Arizona bark scorpion.[4] Only two recorded fatalities have occurred in the state of Arizona since 1968 from bark scorpion stings.[5] If the most venomous scorpion in the USA kills such a small amount of people, what does that say about every other species?

Can a scorpion kill a pet? Well, it depends on the circumstances. In most cases, your scorpion would probably die if it escaped from its terrarium, as they have very sensitive exoskeletons and wouldn't survive the drop. However, if they did manage to escape and live, I feel that a house-pet such as a cat or a dog would be able to kill them. Cats and dogs in places like Arizona, where scorpions are considered pests, have been known to kill scorpions. If your scorpion did manage to kill another pet, who's fault was it for not securing its cage enough? That responsibility lies with the pet owner.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...

=Ease of Care=

I feel that ease of care is definitely an important factor when purchasing a pet. A horseshoe crab requires a huge tank, about 120 gallons. Would Con assert that's not an important thing when looking for a pet horseshoe crab? Probably not.

The fact that a pet ant would be easy to take care of is actually a pro in favor of it. The fact that you don't want a pet ant for that reason doesn't mean it's not a good reason. It's a good reason, you just find other aspects about having a pet ant outweigh it.

=Longevity=

The argument that Con has presented here confuses me. Not because he's refuted a point of mine and I don't know how to reply, but that he's refuted a point I've never made. I did not state that cats and dogs are the most popular animals because they have longevity. I stated that scorpions lived a long time, and used the popular pets of the USA as a comparison to that. Nowhere in my argument did I state that cats and dogs are popular because of longevity, so Con has attacked an argument that I did not make.

=Most Popular Pets=

I feel that Cons argument about the appearance of scorpions is too subjective to debate about. How a person quantifies beauty and ugliness is completely up to them, and as a result, it is not a topic that we can debate with sources, logic, and argumentation. Just because something is not in the top ten list of pets doesn't mean it's ugly. That is a non-sequitur.

The topic of personality appeal is also subjective and undebatable. What things a person finds good in the personality of a pet is up to them. Personally, I like scorpions because I think they're interesting creatures. Other people will disagree with me, and that's fine. We cannot ever find out who's standards are objectively correct. This is why my opening argument was more about statistics and facts than the subjective issues you are bringing up.

What can you do with scorpions? Well, a lot of interesting things actually. Firstly, it's always interesting to feed a scorpion. You drop their prey in, usually a cricket or a cockroach, and you get to watch the scorpion hunt down its food like it would in the wild. It's like watching a nature documentary in real life. Secondly, it's an interesting topic you can bring up to people you meet. Not that many people have scorpions, so it's a good way of sparking somebodies interest in having a conversation with you. Thirdly, scorpions are good climbers and burrowers, and watching what they do while in their terrarium can get interesting. Fourthly, if you really wanted to play with your scorpion, you probably could. Handling it is not impossible at all, and gloves can be worn if you are concerned about your personal safety.

I'd like to point out that you can ogle over its cuteness and take it on walks. What's to stop you from putting a leash on a scorpion and taking it for a walk? Theoretically, nothing. It would just be considered weird of you to do so. However, that doesn't mean you can't do it. There's also nothing stopping you from oogling over the cuteness of a scorpion either.

=Conclusions=

- Scorpions are unlikely to harm your children or pets.
- The fact that somebody may consider a scorpion to be ugly means nothing, because that is not a thing we can debate objectively.
- They may not share all of the qualities as other pets, but other pets don't share their qualities either. Why are their qualities better because they're in the top ten list and scorpions aren't?
- You can walk, play with, and adore a scorpion.
- Scorpions are good pets in general.

The resolution is upheld.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Lethality vs. Harmful

I already conceded that scorpions are largely not lethal.

The crux of my argument comes from the fact that scorpion stings are dangerous, painful and require a hostpital visit if they happen to small children or elderly people. Just as red ants aren't lethal, you wouldn't want your child playing with red ants because their bites are painful.

Something can be harmful without being lethal. I have already shown with a reputable source (The Mayo Clinic) that if small children are stung you need to seek medical treatment. While pet scorpions may not be lethal, not only is the possibility of being lethal there, they have a sting that is harmful to three very distinct groups of people pointed out by the Mayo Clinic.

Elderly
Children
Pets

Their venom can cause shock in some victims and there is a population of those allergic to scoprion venom much like bee venom. [1] They are not safe pets.

All I'm saying, is that the general public might not want to have a scorpion as a pet because of these warnings of potential harm to distinct groups of people which would eliminate the "general" clause of the resolution when it comes to scorpions as pets.

Ease of Care

The point I was trying to make with the ease of care remark was that most common pets (cats, dogs, hamsters, fish etc) are all realatively easy to take care of. Ease of care in a scorpion does not set it above other pets which are also easy to care for.

Also, scorpions are not as easy to care for as my opponent makes out. They require strict habitat control with temperatures near 100 degrees at all times (via heat lamp) and a strict humidity level to keep them happy or else you'll have problems.

"[T]he habitat should be maintained at a high humidity level by regular (daily) misting. The substrate should be kept damp, but not wet. If there is mold on the substrate or condensation on the walls of the tank, the humidity is too high." [1]

That seems pretty picky for a pet "easy to take care of". You have to mist the cage, keep the humidity to a correct level. That sounds more intensive that dropping a few crickets in now and again.

Longevity

You compared scorpions to popular pets (cats and dogs) and used longevity as the common denominator. Therefore you were insisting that longevity is what made cats and dogs popular which would make scorpions popular as well. However, I was saying that longevity is not necessarily an important factor for some people and for others longevity is a deal breaker.

Each pet owner is different. Some want long living pets, others want short 1-2 year pets. Either way, longevity alienates short life pet fans again making them fit a specific market and not "general" pet owners.

Most Popular Pets

My opponent forgets that I did not make these assumptions about beauty and personality appeal from the top of my head. I derived it from the top ten list of most popular pets in the US and came up with them using common factors between the ten of them. My observations about the appearence is derived from 10 popular sources. All of which have common factors. All of these things were derived from data.

The resolution driving this debate is whether or not scorpions are good pets in general. In general meaning they have to appeal to everyone or just about everyone. While some things are indeed subjective, I was trying to find common traits that are accepted by the general majority and in doing so have shown they do not coincide with the likes and wants of the general public. Sure, scorpions can be a good pet for a small group, an individual, a niche but the debate calls for the defense of scorpions as good pets for the general public.

As for the other points:

- Watching your scorpion eat might be cool once, twice maybe even three times but more than that? Probably not. Things get old eventually.
- It's interesting because it's not general. Scorpions are uncommon for a reason.
- Like the eating thing, watching them burrow and climb will only be interesting for so long.
- A general pet should not require gloves to operate.

As for the cuteness of scorpions, you yourself said it's subjective. I pointed out that the things that make a scorpion cute would not go over well in general.

Also, they would turn off people who are afraid of insects or spiders. There are those out there (quite a few actually) who are afraid of anything small with more than four legs. This crowd would be completely shut out from the scorpion pet crew. They wouldn't be able to handle one. Because if you really look at it simply, a scorpion is merely a bug.

Scorpions are not good pets in general. They exclude too many groups of people such as overprotective mothers, people who find fuzzy pets cute, those who are afraid of insects or spiders, those who want a short term pet.

The resolution is negated.


[1] http://exoticpets.about.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Chelicerae

Pro

=Lethality=

Con concedes that scorpions are generally not lethal. This means that I can move onto the harmful point, and it also means that my opening statement was not negated.

Con asserts that that a scorpion sting is dangerous and painful. This is a tautology, as they mean the same thing. Because of this, I will only address the point that scorpion stings are painful. Here, I notice an apparent contradiction. Con says you wouldn't want to play with a scorpion because they're harmful, yet in his previous argument, he asserted that you cannot play with a scorpion. In his list under 'Most Popular Pets', he states 'You can't play with, cuddle with, walk, train etc scorpions'. By his own argumentation, you cannot play with a scorpion. Therefore, whatever he thinks about playing with a scorpion is irrelevant, because he asserts you can't do it in the first place.

I also find it to be ironic that he cites the Mayo Clinic to support his argument that scorpion stings are harmful. His actual Mayo Clinic source reads that 'Scorpion stings — although painful — are mostly harmless'.[1] The source he provided to back up his statement only contradicts him. Furthermore, Mayo Clinic also says 'Most scorpion stings don't need medical treatment'.[2] Therfore, using Cons own sources, scorpion stings are mostly harmless, and mostly don't require medical attention.

Would a scorpion sting be more likely to harm the elderly and children? Possibly. However, the elderly and children only make up 33% of the population when they are combined. Therefore, this does not satisfy the 'general' part of the resolution.[3] Furthermore, I would like to stress that the unlikelihood of being stung by your pet scorpion. If it gets out and stings someone, it is because you did not secure its terrarium well enough, allowing it to escape. The medical attention Cons sources refer to are mostly referring to stings from wild scorpions. If you or a family members gets stung by a pet scorpion, it was likely the fault of one of its human caretakers. A well-kept pet scorpion could not escape in the first place. This argument holds true for people who are allergic to the venom.

In regards to pets being stung, I have already answered that question. I stated 'Can a scorpion kill a pet? Well, it depends on the circumstances. In most cases, your scorpion would probably die if it escaped from its terrarium, as they have very sensitive exoskeletons and wouldn't survive the drop. However, if they did manage to escape and live, I feel that a house-pet such as a cat or a dog would be able to kill them. Cats and dogs in places like Arizona, where scorpions are considered pests, have been known to kill scorpions. If your scorpion did manage to kill another pet, who's fault was it for not securing its cage enough? That responsibility lies with the pet owner.' Con did not even begin to address that argument. All he died was repeat the same argument again, which I have already answered. Until he answers this argument, the pet point does not stand.

Will a scorpion sting send you to the hospital? Most likely, that is not the case. I have already cited Mayo Clinic stating that scorpion stings generally aren't harmless and don't usually require medical attention.

*Con conceded the lethality point.
*Cons own argumentation contradicts itself in regards to playing with a scorpion.
*Cons own sources contradict his argument.
*Con did not answer the 'pets being stung' counter-argument, so it stands.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...

= Ease of Care=

I did not assert that ease of care made scorpions better than other pets. I used that to reinforce the idea that they're good pets in their own right.

Con quotes from an article about taking care of an Emperor scorpion. Emperor scorpions are one out of many species of scorpions. In fact, Emperor scorpions are about 0.05% of all scorpion species. Therefore, his argument is too specific to be relevant to the resolution. General is defined as 'not confined by specialization or careful limitation'. That is exactly what Con did: limit his arguments to specialization and limitation.

(By the way, misting takes a few minutes, and heat mats only need to be adjusted once, barring some technical error. Furthermore, my opening argument stated that 'After you have set up the terrarium for it, it's not a challenge to keep it well-fed and happy.' Hence, terrarium setup is outside of this debate.)

* Cons argument is not general, and therefore has no relevance to the resolution.

=Longevity=

In this argument, I fear that Con has made the same mistake that he did last time: attack arguments that were not made. He is correct in stating that I compared the longevity of scorpions to cats and dogs. However, when he states that I was 'insisting that longevity is what made cats and dogs popular which would make scorpions popular as well. Sadly, that is not an argument I ever made. The only conclusion my longevity point ever made was that 'Scorpions live longer than the most popular pets in the United States of America'. It did not conclude that since popular pets live long, scorpions must be popular as a result.

Con provides no sources in regards to the distinction between people who want long-living pets and people who want short-living pet, so this argument can be dismissed.

= Most Popular Pets=

I argue that using the top ten most popular pets to establish which animals are the most beautiful is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that the most beautify creatures are the most popular. The connection simply does not exist. Furthermore, he tries to prove his standards of beauty aren't subjectve by pointing out he got it from data (the most popular pets). However, what he appeals to--the people--is also a subjective standard. The opinions of the majority mean nothing, unless he wants to make an argument from popularity. By trying to prove his standards are not subjective, he has appealed to something that is also subjective, and is stuck in the same situation he was before.

The resolution states nothing about the general public opinion on scorpions. It states that they are good pets in general. The inclusion of the term 'general' was to prevent Con from using a deathstalker scorpion to prove scorpions were bad pets, and to prevent Pro from using emperor scorpions to prove they're harmless.

Will feeding your scorpion become a banal activity? Possibly, but possibly not. There is no evidence either way. The fact that it may become boring has no bearing on the fact that it's something you can do. Hence, this point stands, and I use this argument in regards to burrowing as well.

Of course pet scorpions are an interesting topic because they're rare and uncommon. That's the entire point. I don't see how this negates that at all.

Con thinks I said you needed gloves to use a scorpion. In fact, I did not state this. I stated that 'Handling it is not impossible at all, and gloves can be worn if you are concerned about your personal safety.' It was only a recommendation for those who are fearful of being stung, not something required for all people interested in handling a scorpion.

I do not see why somebody who is afraid of physical scorpions would be afraid of just talking about them. Even if they wish to move onto another topic, you've lost nothing anyways.

Scorpions are not 'bugs'--they are arachnids.

The resolution is upheld. I guess that's what we're supposed to say after every round?
ConservativePolitico

Con

=Lethality=

My opponent ignores the bulk of my argument regarding the harmful effects of a scorpion sting. The crux of my argument revolved around the fact that scorpion stings are more harmful to elderly people and children.

I never asserted that scorpion stings are dangerous to everyone but to a certain group of people they can be. The Mayo source was being used to show that if children are stung it is advisable to take them to the hospital. My argument in this, which you have largely ignored, is that this eliminates a group of people - those with small children - from likely owning a scorpion. Mother's are very protective of their kids and won't want something that can lead to a hospital visit living in their house.

The resolution is that they are good pets in general. However, they are dangerous to elderly people and young children.

My opponent claims I did not adequately cover the pet point but he dropped my claim about elderly and children.

My opponent claims that elderly and children only make up 33% of the population but that is 33% of the population who might not want a scorpion living around them. That is 1/3 which would cause scorpions to not be good pets in general. But good pets for middle aged people only.

My opponent then claims that scorpions aren't dangerous at all because you shouldn't touch a scorpion at all. Doesn't that eliminate a population of people who want hands on pets? Pets you can touch and deal with? Either you can't touch the scorpion or you touch them and risk getting stung. Either way, those are limiting characteristics.

=Ease of Care=

I used the Emperor scorpion because they are the the most popular and becoming the most common pet scorpion so actually my facts were more general than yours. If you're going to get a pet scorpion chances are you'll be buying an Emperor Scorpion. [1] If you get a pet scorpion there is a larger chance than not that you'll get an Emperor Scorpion therefore my facts were relevant. Also, my opponent can't even refute the facts other than to try and discredit them meaning he concedes that scorpions are not as easy to care for as he made them out.

=Longevity=

If you did not want people to assume popular pets are popular because of their life span why did you draw the comparison? Also, I could not find data outside of personal experience and the data I offered earlier. The most popular pets list is sprinkled with long lived pets (cats, dogs etc) and short lived pets (mice, hamsters etc) meaning that there are those who like long lived pets and there are those who enjoy short lived pets.

If someone wants a short lived pet they'll most likely not want to buy a scorpion and therefore scorpions exclude another group of pet owners.

=Most Popular Pets=

Scorpions share very few traits with the pets on the most popular pets list meaning they probably are not a very good general pet.

My opponent then states that scorpions are arachnids.
Arachnophobia is the fear of arachnids.

50% of all women have Arachnophobia. [2]
10% of all men have Arachnophobia. [2]

This excludes a HUGE percentage of the population from owning a scorpion.
Even if they aren't bugs persay, they hold many common qualities with bugs in:
size
shape
number of legs
type of movement

Bugs or not, many people could view them as such.

=Conclusion=

- Scorpions are dangerous and require medical care if they sting children and elderly people.

- Emperor Scorpions are most popular and common scorpion pet type and they are difficult to care for requiring specific humidity and heat needs.

- Scorpions are arachnids and exclude many people with arachnophobia.

- Scorpions are long living and do not appeal to those who want short lived pets.

Scorpions are not good pets for the general public.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.drsfostersmith.com...
[2] http://frontlinechurch.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Chelicerae

Pro

Con and I agreed not to post anything in Round 5.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
My RFD:

Pro defined "good" as to be desirable.

Pro made the case that Scorpions are easy to take care of and are not lethal, thus being desirable. Con's case was about how the majority of pets, "good" pets are cute, fluffy, etc. and that scorpians do not have that trait. However Pro showed that scorpians can be good in their own way, and they can be interesting, and how Con's case of being fluffy and fluffy is good is subjective.

Interesting debate, Pro won slightly.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
The problem, as many people have said, is defining "good" for pets. I think the general meaning of a "good pet" is one that is viable in terms of being easy to care for and not being unacceptably dangerous. Thus gorillas and tigers are not good pets because they are extremely difficult to care for and are very dangerous, never mind whether they are affectionate or fun to play with. Birds, turtles, and fish are accepted as "good pets" despite being unaffectionate and having a poor repertoire of fun tricks.

Words undefined by the Instigator assume the general meaning. I think the general meaning of "good pet" is well enough established to pass master, although I can't say that it's absolutely clear. Given that standard, Pro makes the case adequately. There are some dangers, but many pets have some dangers. Most bite.

Pro missed an important argument on danger. Cats and dogs are quite dangerous. Bites are painful and inevitable. Pet dogs kill small children regularly, check the internet or one of the convenient tabloid newspapers sold at supermarket check stands.

========

When I moved to New Mexico years ago, I had a small house in the backyard of a family residence. One day, one of the family's children cried, "Mommy, mommy, there is a tarantula in the yard!" To which Mom said, "Give it to Mr. Brown. He wants them to keep the bugs out of his garden." Not a problem.
Posted by jade.braden 4 years ago
jade.braden
Interesting debate. I found that the relevant arguments made by pro and con were focused more on lethality which seemed like pro's side was carried strongly. Con seemed more concern with the exceptions in the argument (i.e., lethality with children and older adults). I didn't agree on the longevity point addressed in the argument since I felt that the averages provided for scorpions were broad whereas the averages provided for dogs and cats were narrowed to x amount of years. There are more sites that argue on the age of cats and dogs averaging to an equal or greater amount of years compared to scorpions.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
CONT: Con's argument on the longevity doesn't make sense to me. He says that cats and dogs are listed as great pets, but doesn't really refute how longevity is a negative attribute to having a pet.
I think longevity also is an important factor, as this is a pet you can grow close to and keep for longer, without having to deal with the loss of it's life at some point early on.
I personally wouldn't get a scorpion, though. I am much more fascinated in snakes.
Posted by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
Great RFD. Thanks.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
My RFD: The votes on this are really going to depend on what the definition of a "good" pet is to people. Pro made the case that Scorpions are easy to take care of and usually arent lethal, however a good pet could be defined as a pet that will defend its owners from intruders, as a pet that you can play with, as a pet that you can travel with, etc etc. From my perspective, if the resolution were that Scorpions arent the worst pets in the world, then Pro would have won. But since the debate is about whether or not scorpions are good pets, overall in my opinion his arguments fell short of convincing me that scorpions are good pets just because they are easy to feed and usually dont kill you.

As for the con's arguments though, he spent most of his time refuting the Pro's arguments and the only argument the con introduced was an argument about the most popular pets and how scorpions are ugly and not similar to other pets. They were good points but the con could have really expanded on them to show that scorpions are not good pets.

Final thought: the majority of this debate focused on the lethality of scorpions, and even though the Pro made the case that most pet scorpions will not kill you, his arguments fell short of convincing me that scorpions are as good as any other pet. Arguments to Con, no difference in spelling or conduct, but the pro did use a crap load of sources. Interesting debate

4 out of 5 stars
Posted by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
CP, I'm confused as to when you said 'Also, my opponent can't even refute the facts other than to try and discredit them meaning he concedes that scorpions are not as easy to care for as he made them out.'. Didn't I explain that what you were pointing out actually wasn't that difficult?
Posted by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
Of course. I just wanted to make a note of it on the comments. Good debate too, by the way.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Up to the voters.
Posted by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
Seriously, I feel kind of cheated with that one. Arachnophobia almost always refers to spiders anyway.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
CheliceraeConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
CheliceraeConservativePoliticoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, but pro did not convince me that scorpions were good pets in general. Con pointed out two things that won him the debate, that scorpions lacked "petlike" qualities, i.e they could not be pet or played with, and that they pose a danger to elderly people an children
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
CheliceraeConservativePoliticoTied
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: see comments
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
CheliceraeConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I read the debate, and arguments where fairly tied. However, when looking through the debate I have similar observations as thett and ima. With no objective definition it's impossible fit pro to fulfill his bop. He could have used a poll, but they don't exist for the subject. Therefore con wins.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
CheliceraeConservativePoliticoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: My vote goes to Con since,like bench said, Pro didnt prove an objective standard on what makes a pet "good". From this it follows that the resolution is negated by default
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
CheliceraeConservativePoliticoTied
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: I am giving args to pro for a couple reasons. The first is that Con operated the debate under the presumption that they are not poisionous, yet are still harmful to the kids and elderly. This is not that big of an issue to me, because as Chel pointed out, they are a minority in harms compared to most pets. Dogs make great pets, but they sometimes bite. Con also said that ease of care doesn't make a difference. I beg to differ, that is the only reason I have a snake. Continued in comments.
Vote Placed by WMdebate 4 years ago
WMdebate
CheliceraeConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had great arguments but he needed to say more about how harmless they are, it's not enough to be non-lethal, they should be generally harmless. This debate left me with the impression that you could be harmed by a scorpion so I wasn't completely won over. Pro had way more sources. Good job by both sides.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
CheliceraeConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments :)