The Instigator
TheDebater35
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

That Dogs Should be Allowed on Hong Kong Public Housing Estates

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 4 votes the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 85989
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

TheDebater35

Con

Good afternoon everyone.
Now, back to my main points.

We believe that if dogs are allowed in Hong Kong public housing estates, they will cause not only a public nuisance, but will lead to further problems. I will now explain the many disturbances of having dogs in public housing estates.

Even the most highly trained dogs cannot resist in barking sometimes, and that can lead to noise pollution. Even in places where houses are widely spread, it is a big problem. And it would be much worse in public housing estates, as they are more cramped. The banning of dogs in Hong Kong public housing estates would greatly reduce the amount of noise pollution, something which most people want.

Furthermore, dogs frequently shed fur everywhere. There is no known way to prevent this from happening. As a result, the residents of the public housing estates have to suffer from the indignity of stepping over dog fur. Why should they have to do so when they have done nothing wrong? It is simply and utterly inconsiderate to leave dog fur everywhere while blocking others" paths.
All in all, we strongly believe that if dogs are allowed in Hong Kong public housing estates, they will cause not only a public nuisance, but will lead to further problems, and that this motion must fall. Thank you.
Hayd

Pro

Firstly, thank you to my opponent for instigating this debate on such an intriguing topic! Since Con instigated the debate, the topic is a claim, and it is a proposed change to the status quo; the BoP is fully on Con. Thus, I will start right away with refuting his/her case.

Con's first argument is that dogs will bark; which results in noise pollution.

This problem is easily solved by my counter-plan; require all dogs to be "de-barked". This procedure costs less than $100 dollars, and is covered by most insurances [1]. Thus, families can happily enjoy their family pets while avoiding noise pollution.

Con's second argument is that dogs shed hair, and thus the resident's have to deal with this nuisance.

There are actually several ways to eliminate shedding. Such as; brushing regularly, feed appropriate pet food, feed a vitamin supplement like VitacoatPlus, and bathe regularly in the summer [2]. Families can also shave off all the dog's hair, eliminating this problem, while letting families enjoy animal companionship.

[1] http://www.whattoexpect.com...
[2] http://www.drsfostersmith.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheDebater35

Con

TheDebater35 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheDebater35

Con

TheDebater35 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
I was a little disappointed that Con didn't mention an allergy angle from the fur argument, which I think would have been more difficult to counter. It's one thing to put the grooming responsibility on the dog owner, it would have been trickier to claim something such as every non-dog owner would need to take allergy meds.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
TheDebater35HaydTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: 2 Round forfeit by Con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
TheDebater35HaydTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
TheDebater35HaydTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con abandoned the debate and Pro stuck around so conduct point to Pro. Unlike Con, Pro references sources , therefore sources points to Pro. I also felt that Pro thoroughly refuted both of Cons points, offering a de-barking option (which to me sounds like animal cruelty but I digress) to counter the noise pollution and grooming options to counter the fur angle. Therefore I don't believe that Con was able to support a BoP, resulting in more convincing argument point to Pro.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
TheDebater35HaydTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF