Should we be able to keep Pit Bulls?
Debate Rounds (3)
The term pit bull is an extremely wide term that can be used to refer to a variety of breeds that are a mix between bull dogs and terriers. For the sake of my arguments I will be using a classic example: an American Pit Bull Terrier.
The American Pit Bull Terrier (hereby referred to as 'The Pit Bull") is banned a number of countries around the world, including my country of residence. This dog is the way it is today because of its breeding to perform a particular task. This task is fighting. Its perfectly designed for this - its an extremely powerful dog for its size and when it bites its jaw locks. This mean that those people that have been unlucky enough to be bitten by one of these dogs cannot escape - the dog has to be killed in order for its jaw to be released.
You will argue that, despite this breed being breed to fight, that not all these dogs are dangerous. This is certainly true. However, what is the benefit to society of keeping these animals in our homes above other types of dogs? You have mentioned that they are good guard dogs and 'cuddle buddies' but there are many dogs, that have not been breed to fight, that would serve this function equally as well.
The question "Should we be able to keep Pit Bulls in our home" poses a difficult questions of what would happen if we weren't. I don't advocate the destruction of any dog. Therefore, it would have to be the case that these dogs are removed form the home and put into the care of facilities that will care for these dogs for the remaining of their life. Furthermore, it should be illegal for such dogs to be purchased and those that do purchase them after the enactment of such a ban should be required to pay a fine equal to the upkeep of the dog in the specialist facility. These measures are not ideal but it would be hoped that within a few years there would be very few cases of The Pit Bull within that country.
Note that my opponent has yet the dispute the fact that a pit bull is an inherently danger dog due to its breeding nor that there are other breeds of dog that are less dangerous but still fulfil the positive functions of being a good guard dog and 'cuddle buddy'.
My opponent is of the view that any people should be able to keep whatever dangerous animal in their house. Tigers are given as an example. I can sympathise with the view that people should generally be allowed to assume a risk if they understand the risk fully. However, there are two major problems in applying in this principle to keeping pit bulls:
1) The average dog owners does not understand the risks they assume when buying a dangerous dog, and therefore are not able to freely assume that risk.
2) The choice to own a dangerous dog does not only present a risk to the owner. It also presents a risk to their children, neighbours and other dogs. These people are not able to assume the risk.
In conclusion, it should not be lawful to keep dangerous animals in the home, including pit bulls.
2) Again, as long as they introduce the dog to their children correctly and introduce them when the dog is young enough, there will not be such a problem. I personally know kids who grew up around Pit Bulls and nothing has ever happened to them.
You also keep repeating yourself on everything here. If you want to win, please say something else other than the same old stuff...Thank you.
Lastly, if you don't know what you're doing with your Pit Bull, then yes, they shouldn't be able to keep this breed in their homes. But like I've said before, I've grown up around them and nothing has ever happened to me. I know parents who bring this breed around their young children, and the dog has actually grown on the children. Yes, children can be rambunctious. Puppies are too. And as long as the dog is introduced correctly, I'm 100% positive nothing will happen to your child.
So, please, come up with something a littel better than the same thing you keep saying in all the other arguments. It'd be much appreciated. Pit Bulls are just like any other dog, and should be treated like you would to any other dog you may have in your home. They're just as great as another breed on the planet.
I have presented arguments that a pit bull is a dangerous dog. This argument my opponent has not disputed. In fact it is clear from her arguments that she recognises there are at least some risks to owning a pit bull beyond that of other dog breeds. In her second round argument she states that all dangerous animals should be allowed to be kept in the house (including pit bulls in this) and also states that owners understand the 'risks' when they owning 'this breed'. Although I have not agreed with her arguments, I do agree with the underlying assumption that there is a risk from these dogs
She has presented that a pit bull are save beyond her own personal experience. She states that as she has grown up with a pit bull and his not been killed by it therefore pit bulls are safe. This logic is flawed. If a child grows up playing with knifes and does not hurt themselves, this does not mean children should be allowed to play with knives. It rather means that this child was fortunate.
Note also that throughout the debate she has not disadvantage to choosing another, less dangerous, dog breed to live in your family.
Vote with legislatures around the world that have already banned this dangerous dog. Keep in your homes one of the hundreds of different breeds that are not recognised as 'dangerous dogs'. Dogs that have not been bred to fight.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I have too much bias to give a fair vote.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.