The Instigator
zoomer12121
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should dogs have muzzles on every day of their lives?

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 2 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 207 times Debate No: 91091
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

zoomer12121

Con

No, I don't believe that dogs should have a muzzle on everyday of their life. I say no because dogs need to eat, drink, and sleep.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for the debate Con.

I affirm that dogs should have a muzzle on everyday of their life, because without a muzzle, a dog CANNOT eat, drink, or sleep.

You see, the muzzle is the projecting part of the face, including the nose and mouth, of a dog.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Without the nose and mouth of a dog, a dog cannot smell, eat, or drink.
This would complicate their lives, so dogs should have a muzzle on their face everyday of their life, so that they may stay alive, breathing air and consuming food/water.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 9 months ago
famousdebater
zoomer12121MagicAintRealTied
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: Con's only arguments are that dogs need to eat, drink and sleep. Pro then refutes by defining the muzzle as a part of the face including the nose and the mouth. He then uses this definition to show that in order to eat dogs need a muzzle every day of their life. This not only works in his favor since it shows the necessity of a muzzle but it also negates Con's only argument. Therefore Pro wins the arguments points.
Vote Placed by Peepette 9 months ago
Peepette
zoomer12121MagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CON: contends no muzzle so the dog can drink and eat. PRO is pro muzzle, so they can eat and drink to survive. By PROs definition, a muzzle is an anatomical feature of the dog that enables it to eat and drink. Debate to PRO, lacking the anatomy of a muzzle is contrary to an animal's ability to survive. Conduct tied, both were respectful. S&P: tied, neither had readability issues. Sources: Although PRO did use a cit. it had negligible effect.