The Instigator
tennis47
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Inquisitive
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should we have pets?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,714 times Debate No: 29874
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

tennis47

Con

You go first ;)
Inquisitive

Pro

We should have pets because that animal gives no one joy when they are not pets and we have specially bred specific pedigree dogs and domesticated cats/rabbits (and other rodents... You get the idea) for the sole purpose of being a pet.

Pets such as poodles and Siamese cats would no longer be seen with skinny rich white 'ladies of leisure'. They would become extinct with no market at all destroying not only the economy but the amount of love such beautiful creatures could receive as our fellow mammals on this Earth.

Pets such as German Shepherds serve as the best guard dogs in the history of this Earth. Bloodhounds (and often for financial reason German Shepherds) serve as great 'pets' so to say for policing of drugs and dead bodies which are found much faster if you can use smell (which unlike sight can transfer travel through walls). Training the dogs is cruel, it merely makes them feel useful as it is done via giving the dog a treat every time it finds the drugs or dead body.

Rabbits, when let loose will reproduce like hell. Evidence is that of Australia's Case.

Here is what I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Rabbits are extremely prolific creatures, and spread rapidly across the southern parts of the country. Australia had ideal conditions for a rabbit population explosion. With mild winters, rabbits were able to breed the entire year. With widespread farming, areas that may have been scrub or woodlands were instead turned into vast areas with low vegetations, creating ideal habitats for rabbits.

In a classic example of unintended consequences, within ten years of their introduction in 1859, rabbits had become so prevalent that two million could be shot or trapped annually without having any noticeable effect on the population. It was the fastest spread ever recorded of any mammal anywhere in the world. Today, rabbits are entrenched in the southern and central areas of the country, with scattered populations in the northern deserts.

Although the rabbit is a notorious pest, it proved useful to many people during the depressions of the 1890s and 1930s, and during wartime. Trapping rabbits helped farmers, stockmen and stationhands by providing something to eat and extra income, and in some cases helped pay off farming debts. Rabbits were fed to working dogs, and boiled to be fed to the poultry. Later, frozen rabbit carcases were traded locally and exported. Pelts, too, were used in the fur trade and are still used in the felt-hat industry."

If it wasn't for strict caging and domestication of rabbits we'd be ending up having to kill all of the poor things! They reproduce like a virus gone mammal!

I look forward to the case of con.

Debate Round No. 1
tennis47

Con

Well, Inquisitive's account has been closed, so he basically forfeited the debate!

Besides, animals should be free! All the adorable baby animals that you see in pet stores have all been kidnapped away from their parents, just for YOUR entertainment! That is SO unfair!

;)
Inquisitive

Pro

Inquisitive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tennis47

Con

All living souls were born to be free! That includes animals too!
Inquisitive

Pro

Inquisitive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tennis47

Con

Think about snakes. Frogs. Lizards. Scorpions. Even bunny rabbits! In the pet store, they aren't where they belong. Snakes
who need heat lamps belong in the desert. Frogs need a fresh and natural habitat -the wetlands-, not a tiny container! Lizards belong in jungles or deserts. Scorpions belong in the desert. Even bunny rabbits are trapped inside tiny little cages while they should be free, in the forest!
Don't even get me started on puppies. Or kittens or any type of baby animals.
They have families that loved and cared for them! ANIMAL families! Animals and humans don't mix. You can't teach an animal to behave like a human! It has natural instincts that protect it! Not human instincts!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! ;)
Inquisitive

Pro

Inquisitive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tennis47

Con

ALL LIVING THINGS WERE BORN TO BE FREE!
Inquisitive isn't coming back! He forfeited!

Vote for me! ;)
Inquisitive

Pro

Inquisitive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
you are a highly irritating person.
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
the opponent never defined we as everyone.

I can easily argue that the most sensible definition of we is those who could feasibly have pets as to discuss anyone else makes it undebatable.
Posted by muffin8or 4 years ago
muffin8or
It's 'we'. It's an inclusive term meaning everyone
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
The question is should people, not one person in particular, have pets.
Posted by muffin8or 4 years ago
muffin8or
You have agreed to the validity of my argument. Good point, though easily countered. Simply invent a person that is allergic to all domesticated animals. That person shouldn't have animals. Imposing a should in spite of this possibility would be wrong.

Or for something more plausible try replacing the health argument with 'doing what you like'. Some people hate all animals (they certainly exist), they shouldn't have animals etc. Or some people are neglectful of animals, they shouldn't have them etc. Or some people simply don't want them, they shouldn't have them etc. Uphill struggle to argue pro, really.
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
Yes muffin8or because that definitely gave a single justification for people having pets they are not allergic to. *facepalm*
Posted by muffin8or 4 years ago
muffin8or
Go for the semantic argument.

P1: Health is better than illness
P2: Some people are allergic to pets
C: Those who are allergic to pets should not have them (Health > Sickness, No pets> Pets)

PA: Those who are allergic to pets should not have them.
PB: We (everyone) should have pets.
C: Those who shouldn't have pets should have pets. (FALSE)

Reductio ad absurdum; as PA has been proven, PB must be false.
No votes have been placed for this debate.