The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

There should be a moratorium on intentional breeding of cats and dogs.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 82595
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Stupidape

Pro

moratorium "1
a : a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation or the payment of a debt
b : a waiting period set by an authority
2
: a suspension of activity " [1].

This is a normative resolution.

Resolution: There should be a moratorium on intentional breeding of cats and dogs.

Pro will contend for and Con against the resolution.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Raisor

Con

I accept this debate. This should be an interesting topic.

Since this is a two round debate the DDO norm against new arguments in the final round should be waived, as each side will only have the final round to rebut opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Claim: Millions of cats and dogs are euthanized each year in the USA alone.

Warrant:

"Average annual number of companion animals that are euthinized at shelters 3.5 million " [1].

"How many euthanized cats are there?

Approximately 3 to 4 million cats and dogs euthanized every year in the US" [2].

Impact: There is an excessive cat and dog population. Intentional breeding must create some of this excess. Temporarily halting intentional breeding would help mitigate the problem.

Links

1. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
2. http://www.numberof.net...
Raisor

Con

A. Moral Framework:

Companion animals are sentient creatures capable of pain and emotion, we therefore are obligated to refrain from inflicting wanton or unnecessary cruelty upon them and individuals have an obligation to give consideration to the well-being of companion animals in their care.

However, companion animals lack the higher functions such as a sense of self, moral autonomy, and innate dignity that imbue humans with a right to life and freedom. Animals thus do not have the same right to life that humans do.

We should prioritize the life, dignity, and freedom of humans over those of animals.

B. Pro’s Advocacy

Pro has not specified any details of a moratorium, so I am assuming the moratorium applies to the US, applies to all cats and dogs, and will last indefinitely.

It is fundamentally unfair for Pro to deviate from this advocacy after I have made my opening arguments, as this makes his position a moving target and allows him to move the goalposts in response to my arguments.

C1. Service Animals

There are as many as 387,000 service dogs in the US.

http://www.servicedogcentral.org...

These dogs help a wide variety of people including the blind, veterans suffering from post-combat PTSD, and children with debilitating illness. These dogs require intense training over the course of years that starts almost the day the dog is born. Certain breeds such as retrievers are best suited for work as service dogs. Organizations that train service dogs often have waiting lists thousands of members long, meaning we already can’t train these dogs fast enough to meet existing need.

http://www.cnn.com...

Pro would eliminate our existing puppy stock, preventing the training of new service dogs. He would also prevent organization from breeding dogs that are best suited for this work.

C2. Police Dogs

Pro would similarly stop the breeding of police dogs, which are used across the US to track suspects, escaped convicts, break up prison riots, detect narcotics and weapons at airports, and many other tasks essential to keeping the civic peace.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

D. Black Markets

Pro’s plan will restrict the supply of pets by shutting down legitimate businesses that are subject to state and federal laws protecting animal welfare.

This will inevitably lead to black market puppy mills that will not follow existing laws. As shown below, there is a LOT of money to be made by breeding and selling pets. It is more expensive to responsibly breed pets than to breed pets and treat them poorly; the resulting black markets will be much worse for animal welfare than existing legal markets.

Additionally, buyers overwhelmingly prefer to buy young animals like kittens and puppies. This means buyers will prefer black market puppies over legal mature shelter dogs.

Animals are extremely easy to breed and upholding animal welfare laws is a low priority item for law enforcement. The moratorium would be nearly impossible to effectively enforce and local police won’t dedicate the resources to enforcing it anyways

E. Economic Impacts

US consumers spend $60 billion annually on pets. A moratorium would destroy the livelihood of thousands of people who depend on the pet market to run their business. Breeders would be forced to give up their career or turn criminal. Individuals should be allowed to responsibly breed animals for a living, restricting breeding unfairly inhibits individual freedom and creativity. We should prioritize the livelihood and well-being of people over that of animals.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

F. Pro Won’t Stop Shelter Kills

Most animals in shelters are strays, not animals abandoned or relinquished to shelters. These animals will continue to breed and reproduce regardless of Pro’s plan, meaning we will kill a huge number of animals regardless.

http://www.shelteranimalscount.org...

Additionally, the black market will continue to produce new animals ripe for abandonment. Illegal puppy mills are more likely to produce sickly dogs or dogs with bad behavioral traits that are more likely to be abandoned to shelters.

Many animals taken in by shelters are unsuitable for adoption. These animals may be aggressive, too feral, or too emotionally disturbed. I personally have worked first hand with shelter animals and have seen dogs that seemed ready for a home but were unable to be adopted out despite time and concentrated effort by volunteers. Even more dogs are simply too wild and unpredictable to be put up for adoption.

G. FREE MARKET SOLVES

The main source of pets in the US is overwhelmingly from the adoption of strays and abandoned animals! More animals are adopted from shelters than are purchased from breeders and less than 5% of cats and dogs come from pet stores.

http://www.humanesociety.org...

The number of animals being taken in by shelters is falling over time, as is the number of euthanized animals.

http://www.shelteranimalscount.org...

There is a concerted effort by many nonprofits to educate the public on puppy mills and responsible pet ownership. These efforts have made huge strides over the years. Even now many states are moving forward on targeted legislation banning cruel puppy mills and other inhumane animal practices. The way forward is a well informed populace and targeted legislation, not a blanket ban that hurts responsible breeders and rewards illegal breeding.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Con has won. Pro will explain why.

A. Moral framework.

Pro does not believe in morals. Therefore, its hypocritical of Pro to enforce morals on others. With Pro having no moral framework Con has the advantage.

B. Pro"s Advocacy

Pro forget that a moratorium could be indefinite. In future debates Pro will be more explicit in what the resolution means in round 1.

C. Service Animals

Again Pro forget about this factor.

D. Black markets

Again Pro forgot about this factor.

E. Economic Impacts

Again Pro forget about this factor. Thanks for the debate.
Raisor

Con

Pro has conceded, please vote Con.

Thanks!

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
StupidapeRaisorTied
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: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters had appropriate conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. While I did note one instance of an improper punctuation mark from Pro in R3, I feel it isn't reasonable to weigh these points in favor of Con. Arguments - Con. Pro conceeded the debate. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources to adequately support claims that necessitated it. For this reason, this is a tie. Ultimately, Con wins due to Pro conceding the debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
StupidapeRaisorTied
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: Pro concedes.