The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points

(Tourney #22) Cats are the greatest animal known to man.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,680 times Debate No: 3462
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (48)
Votes (24)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

I'd like to thank Logical-Master for accepting this debate and our judge… for judging.

Anyway, I affirm the resolution, "Cats are the greatest animal known to man."

First, I'd like to define some key terms that will be important in this round.

•A ‘cat' does not simply mean a domestic cat, but any animal in the felidae (feline) family.
•I'd like to define animal as any organism in the kingdom animala besides homo sapiens.

With that out of the way, I will move onto my points as to why cats are the greatest animal known to man.

1.Cats are independent and can take care of themselves. Cats can groom themselves, hunt for themselves, and even open doors and windows. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

2.Cats are very smart. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Cats can communicate with one another, learn tricks, reach hard to reach things, use the toilet, and can even predict death (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) and Presidential caucauses (http://youtube.com...)

3.Cats have amazing physical abilities. Domestic cats can jump 3X their height, the cheetah can run at the fastest speed of any animal, and some can let out booming roars. Cats like lions and tigers can also kill furiously and have been known to kill or attack humans.

4.Domestic cats are cute, cuddly, and graceful. Good luck cuddling with a dog and not getting slobbered on, or a bird and chocking it to death, or a snake and not getting bitten.

5.Cats are subject to ‘LOLCATZ', which is extreme hilarity.

6.Cats are very similar to humans, even more so than dogs. Also, they have several quirks and things that make them unique and more lovable. (http://www.xmission.com...)

Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response.
Logical-Master

Con

First, I am going to address the definitions:

I believe my opponent's definition of human is erroneous, thus, I will provide a superior definition.

Oxford English Dictionary: Human:

"1. a. A living being; a member of the higher of the two series of organized beings, of which the typical forms are endowed with life, sensation, and voluntary motion, but of which the lowest forms are hardly distinguishable from the lowest vegetable forms by any more certain marks than their evident relationship to other animal forms, and thus to the animal series as a whole rather than to the vegetable series.

[1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. XVIII. i. (1495) 735 All that is comprehendyd of flesshe and of spyryte of lyfe..is callyd Animall, a beest. 1513 DOUGLAS ´┐Żneis Comm. (1839) 1 As for animal and homo..undyr animal beyn contenyt all mankynd, beist, byrd, fowll, fisch, serpent, and all other sik thingis. 1594 T. B. La Primaudaye's Fr. Acad. II. 581 Many men, by reason of their ignorance in the Latine tongue, think that Animal is a beast, whereas it signifieth a liuing creature.] 1602 SHAKES. Ham. II. ii. 20 What a piece of work is a man!..the Parragon of Animals. 1667 MILTON P.L. IV. 621 Man hath his daily work..While other Animals unactive range. 1678 CUDWORTH Intell. Syst. 75 The Deity is generally supposed to be a Perfectly Happy Animal, Incorruptible and Immortal. 1736 BUTLER Anal. I. iii. 82 Man is the acknowledged governing animal upon the earth. 1860 OWEN Pal´┐Żont. 4 When an organism receives nutritive matter by a mouth, inhales oxygen and exhales carbonic acid, and developes tissues, the proximate principles of which are quaternary compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, it is called an animal. 1869 HUXLEY in Fortn. Rev. Feb. 138 An animal cannot make protoplasm, but takes it ready made from some other..animal..or from some plant."

As you'll note, this definition does not by any means exclude homo sapiens, contrary to the idea my opponent gives you. You must consider my definition as being superior to his definition for two reasons:

1)It is provided by an unbiased source (or rather in the context of this debate, I did not craft this definition).
2)Oxford English Dictionary is one of the most credible dictionaries in the country.

Furthermore, even by the source which my opponent condones (wikipedia), humans are insinuated as animals: "Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes)"- http://en.wikipedia.org...

As for my opponent's definition of cat, I have no problem with it and hence accept it as the standard definition for the remainder of this debate.

In this debate, I insist that humans are the greatest animal known to man. I will start by rebutting my opponent's arguments.

1) Humans can be independent and take care of themselves. However, they also can choose to be dependent on other humans. In other words, humans can act in whichever means is more beneficial to their environment. Also, humans can do everything else which my opponent has brought up here. Finally, most of the domestic cats in the US are actually DEPENDENT on humans for survival,

2) Humans are by far superior to cats in the department of intellectualism. Whereas it may be considered intelligent for cats to communicate with one another, learn tricks, use toilets, predict death and presidential caucuses, these are merely feats which a human toddler can accomplish with ease. In fact, the intelligence of a human goes much further. Humans have shown themselves able to solve complex equations, cure diseases, travel to space, and create technology to make life easier. Also, humans surpass cats in that they can maintain more memories and information. So in terms of intelligence, humans clearly surpass cats.

3) Although certain cats may be able to travel at amazing speeds or jump 3 time their height, humans match or surpass any record made by cats with technology they have created. Sure, a cheetah can run 70 miles per hour, but a human can build a car and easily drive double that speed. Whereas cats can merely jump 3 times their height, humans can use their technology to travel past the earth's gravitational pull and into space itself.

As for humans having been killed by cats, humans have managed to do far worse damage to the cat population. It is because of humans that tigers are close to being extinct. In other countries, cats are even considered a delicacy. With our weapons, we can instantly eliminate any kind of cat with a single pull of the index finger (in other words, a gun).

As for booming roars, a human can easily produce a louder sound with a megaphone or an aircraft.

As for opening doors and windows, humans invented doors and windows and have thus been doing this far longer than cats have. Not to mention that such feats aren't considered anything special to humans.

4) My opponent suggest that all domestic cats are cute, cuddly, and graceful, but do these cats look that way to you?

http://img524.imageshack.us...

http://img241.imageshack.us...

http://img507.imageshack.us...

Furthermore, since this is under a human perspective, he insinuates that humans have the ultimate authority on what is to be considered cute, cuddly, and graceful. Thus, I insist that human babies are certainly more cute, cuddly, and graceful. Chances are, when you cuddle with one, you won't get scratched or bitten. Also, when we take adult humans into perspective, well, as a heterosexual male . . .

http://www.victoriassecretreviews.com...

Yowzer! :D

5) Humans created this brand of humor in the first place, thus the most credit goes to humans. Again, this is suggesting that humans have the ultimate authority on something. Speaking of humor, humans are responsible for comedy centric programs and films, so most of our humor is indeed crafted by humans.

6) I'm willing to grant the notion that cats have some similarities to humans, but all this manages to do is concede to my case as it would suggest that cats are inferior to humans.

As for my own reason:

Humans have something which other animals can't even began to utilize in comparison; we humans utilize both knowledge and technology to compensate for any of our natural limits. With the two aforementioned qualities, we've managed to go to the moon, we've managed to create a means of traveling from one side of the planet to the other within hours, we've created devices which can literally level city size landscapes within seconds, we managed to create a means of communicating with each other on opposite sides of the planet, and we've tamed nearly every other animal we know of. What have cats done that can even come close to comparing to these feats created by humans?

With all of this being noted, I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

First, I will attack my opponents arguments, then I will move onto line by line with reasons why cats are better.

Very well, I will accept that humans are animals.

ALTHOUGH, homo sapiens are possibly THE WORST animal known to man. HUMANS DESTROY OTHER HUMANS, THE EARTH, AND ARE CRUEL TO CATS THEMSELVES.
Humans are responsible for war, the greatest plague faced in civilization. As put in Edward Starr's words, "War-what is it good for? Absolutely nothing." Humanity has failed itself and will inevitable destroy itself through war. Not meaning for this debate to be about war philosophy, I contend that humanity is killing itself through killing one another, while cats have not.

Secondly, humans have destroyed their habitat, and, if left unchecked, will destroy the earth. In the short term, global warming will cause the ice caps to melt, raise the ocean, flood Florida, etc. But in the long run, the problem will be the Earth's core exploding. The core of our earth is a ‘nuclear reactor,' and could likely explode, ending life as we know it. (http://bioresonant.com...)
"It seems that the currently adopted doctrine of a "crystalline inner core of Earth" is more dangerous for humanity than all weapons of mass destruction taken together, because it prevents us from imagining, predicting and preventing truly global disasters."

Third, humans, since the beginning of their existence, have been cruel to animals. From sacrifices to dog fighting, humans have always thought of themselves as the elite race, and have never cease to destroy thousands of species.

With that out of the way, let's look at the clash on the six preliminary issues:
1)While humans can take care of themselves, cats can to. Humans are not MORE independent than cats; in fact, it's the other way around. If each human were to receive no assistance from any other human, most would die because they lack either food, shelter, strength, etc. On the contrary, cats have been living by themselves forever. Cats find their own food and could very well survive in nature, as most already do.
Secondly, I'd like to say that domestic cats were brought into a home by a human. Although they are now dependent because they were always treated that way, if this assistance was never there they could survive.

2)While humans may be more intellectual now, cats are still evolving. There can be no clear proof that cats will not be one day right where humans are. Scientific studies have shown that brain size does not matter in smarts, so the feline brain could very well evolve to where humans are.
Cats have all of skills I mentioned above, such as communicating, usage of toilet, etc., so the argument still stands. Furthermore, my opponent can not argue that humans use the toilet better, communicate better, open things better, etc., it is simply the way cats have adapted to their environment, so they are equal in these departments.

3)Although humans can use their technology, that is not the human. The greatness comes from the animal itself, not what it can use. Furthermore, a lion could use a megaphone and the roar would still be 10X louder than that of a human. As for the killing argument, I'll bet a human with no equipment could never survive pitted against a lion. Jaguars can still run faster than humans by themselves, cats can jump higher than humans themselves, and lions and tigers are louder than humans themselves. THAT'S why cats are superior to humans.

4)First let me say that the first and third pictures are of cute cats- they are just taken in bad positions and lighting. The second one (comments) obviously is not what a real cat looks like all of the time and the picture was probably taken for a certain purpose and doctored. Same reason here: (http://sellingtobigcompanies.blogs.com...)
Secondly, one can not sleep or snuggle (did I just say that?) with a human baby. Most of them cry seemingly non-stop, not to mention that you would probably suffocate them. Also, the fur of a cat trumps the human baby. The cuddliness of a cat comes with its warm fur, something you can not get from a human baby.
Lastly, our sex drives tell us that we are attracted to females- it's no different with cats (cat to cat that is, lolz.)

5)Yes, but lolcats would not be there if it weren't for cats. The human took images of the cat, where the true comedy is coming from. Also, watch this to appreciate these brave cats: (http://youtube.com...) and this (http://youtube.com...)

6)Yes, this argument is somewhat pointless seeing as how my opponent is defending humans, but it shows how well we relate to cats.

I have reasonably proved that cats are better than humans by themselves, and I urge you to vote PRO in this debate.
Logical-Master

Con

Time for round 2.

Re Definition: PRO begins his round by conceding to my refutation of his own definition of animals. Keep in mind that he was urging the exact opposite in the previous round.

Re "Humans are bad:

1) Contrary to what PRO stated he would do at the beginning of the previous round, he did not address my argument which concerned the greatness of humanity. Rather than actually responding to my argument on human knowledge/technology, he pursues a different argument that concerns the "evil" of human kind. Since PRO has dropped the argument which I presented without any warrant whatsoever, you're free to extend it to this round.

2) I will label the 3 arguments on this point as a, b, and c.

a) Humans may kill other humans, but cats (or most other species) are no different in this department. Cats have been known to devour their own offspring as well as devour other cats. Contrary to homo sapiens, cannibalism is quite common for cats to endorse. As for humans being cruel to cats, keep in mind that PRO was the one to brag about tigers having killed many humans.

As for war, it can serve many purposes. Looking at war from a logical perspective, this is the chance for nations to increase their own resources through conquering and plundering other nations. To add more fuel to the fire, war is efficient in that it decreases the human population. Since humans are at the top of the food chain, it would only be detrimental not to have a means of keeping our population balanced.

b) The link which PRO provides you with is not credible. This is due to the fact that none of this information has been favored and supported by majority in peer reviewed journals. Most scientist conclude that global warming will actually bring about the next ice age. Detonation of the earth is not expressed as a conclusion by the majority. There is a reason the author of that page tells you to forward this info to other scientist and that is because this information has NOT received majority support via peer review.

Furthermore, the effects of global warming are not intentional on humanity's part. Its effects are an unintended consequence of our attempt to make life better for everyone. Not to mention that PRO leaves out the fact that not only can global warming be prevented by our technology, but that many are currently working towards preventing it. Contrary to animals, we try to clean up after ourselves.

c) Definition:

Cruel: 1. Of persons (also transf. and fig. of things): Disposed to inflict suffering; indifferent to or taking pleasure in another's pain or distress; destitute of kindness or compassion; merciless, pitiless, hard-hearted - Oxford English Dictionary.

With that being noted, cats are indifferent to ending their preys' lives all the time; they will kill their prey without hesitation, regardless of the circumstances.Furthermore, domestic cats take great pleasure in torturing their prey: http://books.google.com... oC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=cats+torture+their+prey&source=web&ots=_rEPP5cInh&sig=KIAgVwgb9GKIWoH3qOtqkfCf9Ik&hl=en They will catch mice without actually being hungry and torture them out of mere amusement. In terms of the cruelty department, humans differ in that many are inclined to uphold morals before causing someone or something else to suffer without so much as a guilty conscience

Re Six Points:

1) First, it must be pointed out that dependence is not a bad thing. Working together rather than working apart makes the stability of homo sapiens more likely. Second, PRO introduced a straw man argument just now as I never said anything about humans being more independent than cats; I said humans possess both qualities. Dismiss this rebuttal.

As for domestic cats relying on humans, PROt misunderstands the intention of this argument. The fact of the matter is that cats rely on HUMANS. As the greater animal, you'd think they'd be able have more control over their lives. Furthermore, you'd think these cats would put their efforts into escaping their human masters for the sake of their independence. But what do they do? They stay in their human homes, sleep most of the day, and eat tuna. So much so, that this has even become something for us humans to poke fun at: http://www.oook.cz...

2) This point has no relevance. First, this is conjecture on the PRO's part. As far as he knows, cats will be extinct before they have such an opportunity to evolve the level he refers to. Second, we're discussing the present; we're discussing what is observable. Right now, humans dominate cats when it comes to intellect. As for the skills which PRO brought up, even if we were to conclude that humans were equal to cats on that limited list he provided, this would do nothing for PRO's case; at best, this is just him confessing that he brought up a point which did nothing to show that cats are the greatest of animals.

3) Humans CREATED the technology, so technology is thus considered an extension of the human; technology comes from humans themselves, therefore citing it is valid in a debate such as this. Furthermore, how would a lion gain access to a megaphone, much less figure out how to use one? And if a lion were to use a megaphone, it would be using a MAN MADE invention, hence the credit for such a feat would go to humans. All this point manages to do is hurt PRO's case.

4) First, it must be noted that PRO concedes to those pictures of cats not looking cute. If I counter his lighting/bad position argument, this point will be mine. The ugliness in the first picture comes from the color of the cats fur. As you'll note, there is no pattern. It's basically random blotches of black, brown, and beige. We humans prefer there to be some artistic symmetry in what we consider cute. Lighting/position could do nothing to change that. As for third picture, you'll notice that there is no lighting whatsoever. Furthermore, it's the cats fur that attributes to its ugliness. Finally, PRO's counter against this is baseless conjecture at best. The wrinkles and the poor diet is what make that cat look ugly. Both factors are indeed possible. The PRO attempts to discredit the picture by comparing it to a picture which obviously has an adult male's face photoshopped onto an infant, but sadly, our pictures simply don't compare.

Secondly, I beg to differ with PRO. Observe the following photo with a father and daughter: http://rowena.typepad.com... One doesn't need to snuggle with the baby as the baby can accomplish acts of snuggling on his/her own. Thus, there is an unintended advantage here as you likely wouldn't have to put any work into acts of snuggling (considering that you'd be snuggled instead). On the other hand, a cat is likely to scratch when snuggled. Not to mention that cats have a higher chance of spreading a disease (via scratching) than human babies do. Furthermore, this warm fur from cats is hardly substantial, not to mention that cars often shed their fur when their masters come into such contact with them.

Furthermore, what PRO says is false as we are not attracted to ALL females (or males, depending on sexuality). Not to mention that since PRO conceded to human's having the ultimate authority on cuteness, this isn't even an issue.

5) No they wouldn't, but as insinuated in the previous round, the main source of comedy isn't provided by lolcats, thus the loss of lolcats wouldn't even be an issue. In fact, we'd probably have lolllamas instead. Even though I don't have to address the links, I can't help but point out that PRO's second link had nothing to do with cats.

6) The argument introduced in round 1 implied that animals (specifically cats) are inferior to humans, hence being one of the main reasons you should vote against PRO. Not only that, but these traits which PRO insinuates are all traits which humans have superior forms of

I now await PROs final rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

First CON's statement about the definition: A definition is COMPLETELY not a voter, as CON states it is. I simply realized that humans to fall under the umbrella of an animal, but that in no way is abusive to CON and does not contradict my case.

The second observation is blatantly wrong. I CLEARLY responded to the technology argument under point three. Also, I created offensive points on why humans are the worst animal, trumping his arguments.

With that said, let's look at the arguments made in CON's last round:

A.Killing.
CON states that cats are cannibals. I urge him to prove to you with evidence that this is true. Moreover, even if some cats do, it is WAY less than humans. According to the FBI, there were 16,137 murders in the United States alone, NOT counting accidents, suicides, and ‘necessary' murders. Also, take the War in Iraq for example. US soldiers have killed around 50,000 Iraqi civilians. This is unjustifiable. US was trying to find nuclear weapons to protect ourselves, and have destroyed a whole country in the process. THAT'S why war can not be had in our world.

Plus, the Iraq War is miniscule to other wars. Take WWII, where a SINGLE MAN ordered 11 million ‘lesser people' to be killed. The total cost of life in about 5 years was 72,707,700. Humanity has failed itself.

My opponent suggests that colonialism is good. Inevitably, this statement is wrong. VICTIM NATIONS OF COLONIALISM ARE INFINITELY SUSCEPTIBLE TO CIVIL\INTERNATIONAL WARS, INSECURITY AND GANGSTERS. (see comments)

He also suggests that killing is good because it controls the population. This statement is not only wrong but unmoralistic. What has humanity become that we must justify killing to better and prolong our lives? We can not even be certain that overpopulation will ever become a problem. All in all, humans have destroyed themselves and their morals through killing, while cats have not.

B.Global Warming.
My opponent suggests that my earth explosion argument is not credible. But, here's is another credible source that says the earth can explode (http://nujournal.net...). This is a credible source, as it comes from a PhD mathematician, even if it comes from a journal. Plus, just because it is not widely acceptable does not mean it is not correct. The majority of people thought the earth was flat, but that was later disproven. Fact is, this is backed by scientific evidence and mathematics. I challenge my opponent to disprove this with scientific reason.
He also goes on to say that Global Warming will cause an Ice Age. But still, that COULD STILL LEAD TO HUMAN EXTINCTION.
Whatever the impact, global warming could lead to more than 1 million species extinction in the short term. (http://www.nrdc.org...) and (http://www.newscientist.com...)
My opponent then concedes that GW is caused by humans, and says that it was unintentional. This clinches MY WIN ON THIS ARGUMENT; he concedes that humans have caused GW while cats have not. Furthermore, whether or not humans tried to cause this, THEY STILL DID! They will inevitably destroy the planet and millions of species along with it.
The last argument is that humans can fix global warming. I challenge my opponent to prove that we can stop these millions of species from dying. There have been no major programs to date to stop global warming, and it seems the government does not care about stopping global warming, as we can see from the US not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol. I guess we will be addicted forever.

C.Cruelness.
My opponent's argument here is that cats torture too. I urge you to actually read this book. It says, "Such habits can not be considered blamable except in the case of man- the most viscously and knowingly cruel of living creatures." This only proves my case. This is also abusive because he is not saying what the article says. That leads me to the conclusion even if cats do this, IT DOESN'T COMPARE TO WHAT HUMANS DO! Humans have always thought of themselves as an elite race. Multiple animals have been sacrificial since the beginning of time. Even the CON's arguments are re-enforcing this vicious discourse. Take these (http://stupid-ideas.blogspot.com...), (http://www.endanimalcruelty.com...), and (http://www.rescuetheanimals.org...). Just look at dog fighting, where a dog is killed if he loses a fight. Humans are unmoralistic and cruel because of this. WAY worse than killing a mouse.

You must vote PRO on these arguments. The facts are there, and you must avoid the elitism that Logical creates.

Now onto the six main contentions:
1) First, my opponent says that dependence is not a bad thing. Neglecting the fact that this argument is new, the same thing can be said about cats. Moreover, CON contradicts himself in saying that cats are dependent and dependence is good.
Neglecting THAT, he says that cats rely on humans. But, as I have proven, this is not always true. I stated that if cats were never brought in by humans, they could survive. The dependent ones were brought into the home by humans, and have had everything supplied for them, hence they get dependent.

2) My opponent argues that we can only look at what is observable. But, we can observe that evolution is taking its course. Granted, humans are smarter, and are more highly developed, but CON never argues that humans are evolving. So, from what we can observe from the evolution of cats, it can reasonably be concluded that cats could be as smart as humans one day. That IS drawing conclusive evidence from something we can observe, and is COMPLETELY a reason why cats are superior than humans.

3) This argument is completely favored in my side. He argues that technology is ‘part of the human' but that is simply not the case. Although humans created the technology and that may be a feat, using it is NOT THE HUMAN. In the case of cats, the fact that they can run faster and jumper higher than any human with Converses simply PROVES that cats are in fact the greatest animal there is. This argument can also moot out the fact that humans are smarter, as both abilities are amazing, but intelligence is unquantifiable.

4) First, even if these three cats are ugly, that does not represent the entire population of cats. Second, as I have stated ‘A' Cat is in bad lighting, as you can see its eyes are facing a light. Furthermore, I urge my opponent to prove that humans like patterns more than blotches. The second cat obviously is doctored and screaming or something. The final cat is yawning, but has beautiful fur. This proves that cats are beautiful; as these 3 are the ugliest CON could come up with. Now look at these beautiful ones: (http://puppycatragdolls.com...) (http://imeleon.com...) (http://www.for-the-love-of-cats.com...)
As for the human baby, while you can sit with them for a little while, they will inevitably start crying and they need to go in their crib. Not to mention, you can only snuggle with a child for a few years, while cats can be a companion for the cat's lifetime. y opponent suggests that the fur is not substantial and states that cars shed their fur. First, cat's fur is warm and soft, just what you're looking for when you want to lay down. Secondly, the claim about cars is irrelevant.

5) This is a wash. I have said the comedy comes from the cats, he has said it comes from the humans. Inevitably, neither of us gain an advantage, so at this point you can not weigh this.

6) This argument does not matter because I was trying to prove cats are more like us than any other animal, and CON decided to say that we are better. Thus, this argument is moot because it proves nothing for either case
Logical-Master

Con

Re Definition: This definition hinged on his case in R1. As you can see in his R1 points #2 and #6, PRO relied on presenting cat feats which were underdeveloped versions of feats which humans performed. Especially in point 6, the implication is clearly that cats are great because their similarities put them near the level of humans. PRO saw no way past my definitions, so he swapped modes w/ his argument.

Re: Humans are bad:

1) No, PRO did not address this contention in point 3. Point 3 referred to technology not being allowed to be mentioned for physical feat comparison. In no way did it critique the fact that humans are the masters of knowledge/technology. Thus, PRO did drop my knowledge/technology argument.

2) A, B, C.

A: Evidence for cannibal cats: http://www.messybeast.com.... About cats eating other cats less than humans: PRO cites a few random numbers that concern human deaths, but this tactic is fallacious for two reasons:

1) The number of humans and the number of cats on the planet are far apart, thus comparison would have to rely on ratios (which PRO doesn't bring up).
2) The numbers are irrelevant. PRO was simply establishing that humans kill other humans. Me showing that cats kill other cats would negate this point. So PROs "even if CON is right . . ." deserves no more attention as that would be conceded to me.

I'll address "Colonialism" in the comment section, as did PRO.

As for no morals, make sure to look back at what PRO's quote said in R2. It stated that there was NO GOOD to come out of war. W/ everything comes goods and evils. I proved PRO's quote false by listing a good that came from war. As for overpopulation never becoming a problem, false: http://en.wikipedia.org... (citations provided).

B: PRO attempts to have me waste word quota in disproving a scientific idea that holds no real weight to this debate. Thus, I will focus on the point which I made.

Since PRO concedes that it is not idea which is widely accepted, all I have to do is disprove his "majority" analogy. People believed ridiculous notions like the earth being flat due to religious biases. Heck, Galileo got arrested over by the Church over this. Today, the scientific community is more objective and scientifically secular, so they are certainly astronomically more credible than they were back then.

Just because I agreed that humans have some blame for global warming, it doesn't mean you should buy into the slippery slope which PRO uses. He openly states that humans will inevitably destroy the planet, but provides no evidence to show that the current methods taken up by humans won't be enough to prevent GW from becoming catastrophic. That being the case, all I have to do now is provide evidence to show that major programs have been created to stop global warming.

For my evidence which PRO asked me to present in R3, I'll use the Kyoto Protocol. Please take the time to observe this list of countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org.... Notice how a large majority of the countries have signed/accepted the KP. w/ this noted, the majority of the planet has declared its efforts to combat global warming. Countries which oppose the KP are in the minority, so PRO's mentioning of merely ONE works against him in this debate. Also, this piece of evidence lists major programs which both the US and Canada have:: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca...

As for proving whether or not these programs can stop millions of species from dying, the burden of proof rests on PRO since he initiated this point in the first place.

Cats not having caused Global Warming: This goes back to R2 point. GW was inadvertently caused due to humans wishing to make life better for other humans. But cats? They have no interest in providing a better life for their species and are only concerned w/ their individual desires. This is why humans are able to remain as #1.

C: Whether or not one can say that it's blamable for man is subjective and irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that I've shown that cats also torture. This was an idea which PRO was against in R2. All he manages to do here is change his argument to cover this fact.

Please remember that I also insisted that all cats were prone to cruelty due to indifference during killing. PRO drops this point in R3, so extend it to this one.

The unmoral argument here is new, but works in my favor. Since when have cats possessed morals? If cats are amoral as well, this argument has no impact on this debate.

6 POINTS:

1) A: Me saying that dependence was not a bad thing is clarification on the fact that I didn't say it was a bad thing during R1 either. B: The same thing being said about cats hinders PRO's case as he originally declared that all cats as independent. C: As you can see in my R1, I said that humans were both dependent and independent. My argument was that cats merely possess one quality or the other, thus making them inferior when it comes to benefits of these two qualities. Thus, there is no contradiction.

PRO saying that cats could survive w/o the help from humans doesn't negate my point that cats put their survival in human hands. As shown, what makes cats relying on humans different than humans relying on humans is the fact that cats are completely submitting to a species which PRO suggests is inferior.

2) A: We observe evolution taking course due to the fact that we're observing PAST elements. What PRO is insisting is that we are observing the future, which is no more than science fiction. B: The resolution states "Are the greatest", thus proof that the future does not weigh on this debate. C: PRO ignores my claim that this argument is baseless conjecture and presents no evidence to suggest that cats will become smarter than humans. D: PRO drops his argument on the many skills of cats.

3) A: PRO drops his "lion/megaphone" argument. B: PRO says that usage is not human, but I believe I sufficiently answered this in R2. Since greatness is determined by the species themselves , humans being able to outdo cats on all of their feats through applying their brains rather than their brawn would make them greater than cats. This is what I meant by suggesting that whatever the humans create is to be considered a part of them. C: PRO is telling you to dismiss his second contention since he believes that intelligence is immeasurable. Dismiss this because PRO never bothers proving how intelligence is immeasurable when comparing cats and humans.

4) A: PRO is attempting to change his argument as he never argued anything about representation of the population in R2. B: He didn't address my claim that he was referring to ALL cats when he made his cuteness argument, yet another reason as to why my R2 response is warranted. C: The lighting on Cat "A" was not what I was referring to, so this is red herring argument. D: I don't have to prove that humans prefer patterns to blotches as this is a strawman crafted by PRO. I said that humans prefer ARTISTIC symmetry to RANDOM blotches. E: PRO ignores my criticisms on the other two cats and simply repeats himself in saying that they are beautiful.

Human babies: Crying is easy to solve and doesn't compare to getting scratched and getting a disease. And there's nothing to stop one from snuggling w/ another human for their entire life time ( I had mentioned adults too). Cats fur may be soft, but shedding is detrimental. Also, PRO states that it's just what you need when you're trying to lay down, but this is unsound; the average cat is far smaller than the average human.

PRO drops his "sex drive" point, so pull that to R3.

5) PRO did not object to my claim that humans have ultimate authority on comedy, thus I win this point. And even if the situation were as he described, he'd lose this point as the burden of proof belongs to him.

6) See "Definition." for R3.

Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
ha! I lost but I won. How'd that happen? I'd like to see someones RFD for voting for me.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Revisionists voters are afoot.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
What a HORRIBLE debate topic.

Points to both off you for having any points at all.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Wow, I completly agree with the RFD and that's exactly what I said would happen- I win human offense, con wins 6 main points, judge favors con. The only thing I didn't agree with was that he said neither of us had voters, but I did under my offense on humans.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Scenario: Winner's bracket finalist vs. One-loss bracket finalist, One-loss finalist wins.

So both people have one loss, yet the guy who got through more of the tourney undefeated loses? Just doesn't make much sense to me, that's all.

Everyone else needs to lose twice to not be able to win, but he can't win with only one loss?
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
there IS a point... it's not the losers bracket it's the "one-loss" bracket... The first finalist will be determined by whoever makes it through the winners bracket without a loss and the other will be the last one standing in the "one-loss" bracket... then there is one final round for the winner
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Is there a point to the losers bracket? Isn't the winner going to be the one who goes through the winners bracket with no losses?
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
actually scratch that... if you try to figure out who is going against each other in the bracket I'm sure you'll mess up because there are certain bye's I had to do randomly...

P.S.- iq_two already lost and is getting the bye in the "one-loss" bracket...
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
Pluto... the people that forfeit still have a chance to debate... it only counts as one loss. There are literally two people that forfeited going against each other. And by the way, if you want to figure out the bracket (at least kind of) it is simply made out of the ORDER of people going against each other. SO the first two debates, winners "hit" and losers "hit"... (which continues)
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Did you just pit me against Beem0r next round!?

I can't believe I lost my round, I'm going to go cry!
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by GenEd 9 years ago
GenEd
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Issa 9 years ago
Issa
Pluto2493Logical-MasterTied
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