The Instigator
Julian-Harker
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Elias_is_the_llama
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should a dog license be implemented?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Elias_is_the_llama
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 234 times Debate No: 91191
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Julian-Harker

Con

I believe a dog license would bring up many fatal flaws. For example, it would be targeting a majority of our society who have criminal records and you're taking the right from them to have dogs. They could've been at the wrong place at the wrong time or it could of been a very minor criminal tag. Prisoners have been liberated for a reason, they can be trusted and are given the right to have another chance; which should go for dog licenses..

Not only this, but you can't always guarantee a safe dog if you have a dog license. Their reactions are based on the actions you give that intimidate the dog. If a dog license was warranted, it's pretty much saying that a dog and a human have their minds connected or something, that doesn't work.
Elias_is_the_llama

Pro

First of all, I'd like to say thank you for creating this debate, now, I'll begin:

I'm not entirely convinced that your criminal record argument is, as you say, a fatal flaw.
Firstly, it doesn't seem to problematic to implement a system in place that prevents people who have a violent crime conviction to obtain a dog, while someone who simply has a traffic conviction can get a dog.

As a second point, surely the safety and security of a living, sentient being is important enough to prevent it from going to a potentially dangerous owner?

Finally, you say that you can never guarantee the dog's safety, this is correct in the same way that you can't guarantee someone who buys a gun won't kill anyone with it, but we still do background checks. Since some level of prevention is better than none.
Debate Round No. 1
Julian-Harker

Con

First of all, I'm going to retaliate with some rebuttal, based on this part of your argument:

'surely the safety and security of a living, sentient being is important enough to prevent it from going to a potentially dangerous owner?'

The first half of this quoted text is pretty much implying that a dog's matters and life are more important than infamy of a human being. A dog's behaviour depends mainly on primal instinct, which you cannot change; obedience only alters a dog's behaviour slightly.

Here onwards the argument is resumed. Think outside the box, what are the costs for implementing a dog license? One example I can provide for this is someone who is near the edge of being poor that has a dog that he already needs to pay alot of his money on dog food, hygiene and health needs, and now to top that, a dog license heavily pushing the bounds of money, which I render unnecessary. If a dog was a menacing figure but the dog owner was perfectly fine, it won't work out, as even though the human is trained, the dog won't comply to the human's orders as the dog is a menacing figure. It doesn't depend on the human's training, and it's not fair to blame the human for the dog's misdeeds, it's all because of the dog's instinct.

Sure, some dog's upbringings can alter their way of seeing things, but if a human treats a dog badly, it persuades the dog to understand that the human is the apex predator and all the dog can do is try defend for itself, but if the human treats the dog like a king, it will make the dog believe that itself is the higher predator, having power. If you base the dog's personalities on the conditions the human has made it live in, you're slightly right, as there are no better way to treat a dog, as the outcome will always be the same as I just explained.

But instead of a dog license, I suggest having a test before your raise a dog to check if the dog is fit and safe to be a companion for humans, to ensure the safety of others.

Just wanting to compliment this quoted text here:

'Finally, you say that you can never guarantee the dog's safety, this is correct in the same way that you can't guarantee someone who buys a gun won't kill anyone with it, but we still do background checks. Since some level of prevention is better than none.'

This is a really good part of your argument, it convinced me quite well and it was astonishing how you portrayed the model.

Good debate so far, hopefully the outcome will be fair!
Elias_is_the_llama

Pro

Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I do not believe that dogs are of equal value, But I do believe that it would still be morally wrong to bring harm on a dog, or any creature for that matter.

Now, your next argument was about the economical impact on a poorer owner. You say that "he already needs to pay alot of his money on dog food, hygiene and health needs, and now to top that, a dog license heavily pushing the bounds of money"
I can see your point and I was stumped by this one at first. However, I would argue that Someone who is already.I buying all of those things should be able to save up and buy the license and if they can't, then clearly they don't have the means to support themselves and their dog if their financial situation got any worse.

Additionally, you state that a dog's behaviour has little to nothing to do with it's upbringing, this point is followed by you saying that "If you base the dog's personalities on the conditions the human has made it live in, you're slightly right, as there are no better way to treat a dog, as the outcome will always be the same as I just explained." I disagree entirely for several reasons. One, the source at the bottom of my argument says otherwise, two, you state that either way a dog will be aggressive. However, this is a bit of a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to look after a dog without abusing it or spoiling it. Three, earlier on you state that their behaviour is based on instinct, therefore it cannot be changed that much. We can and have significantly changed the behaviour of many dogs through puppy schools and obedience training.

Your final point, about testing the dogs, I see no reason why that shouldn't be implemented, in fact I think it's a great idea, well done.

I agree, this has been good so far.
https://paws4udogs.wordpress.com... (please see the "about Sara" page to see her experience in working with dogs)
Debate Round No. 2
Julian-Harker

Con

I forfeit, I don't have the time to continue with this debating session, although you'd win regardless. Damn you're good, I'm just beginning though. Good debate!
Elias_is_the_llama

Pro

You did well, in fact if you focused more on my last post you could have easily defeated my entire argument. I'd tell you how but then I'd be bringing attention to a major mistake.

Regardless, thank you for the debate, it was entertaining and well fought
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CAHAL101 9 months ago
CAHAL101
Julian-HarkerElias_is_the_llamaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con said that he forfeited this debate and Pro put up a very good debate