The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

We shouldn't keep pets.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/25/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 688 times Debate No: 75754
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I believe that we, as a species, should not keep pets when we can't even keep our own population alive and healthy. In the year of 2014, U.S.A. citizens spent a total of $58.04 billion on pets. Thats enough money to feed 20152700 people for a year based on a $240 grocery cost per month. Surely, this huge spending on pets would be better put to use looking after our own species, and only then can we begin putting resources towards pets.



We should keep pets. There are a number a good reaons for keeping pets such as.

Having a pet at home will reduce the chances of
kids developing allergies later in life. The study was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The study showed the results in the blood of newborn babies and compared it to samples from the same participants a year later.

Cats and dogs can be great for people suffering from high blood pressure and stress.
A study showed that pet owners would do better in stressful situations than people who never adopted a pet, according to Blair Justice, Ph.D., from University of Texas School of Public Health. The benefits can be seen in people with stressful careers and even in those that are coping with different types of illnesses.

A study published by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and conducted by psychologists at St. Louis University and Miami University found that having pets provided their humans with a great deal of psychological benefits. They found that pet owners had great emotional returns, and pets can also help get over feelings of exclusion. The study also found that dog owners are healthier because they have to frequently take theirdogs for walks.

The American Heart Association published the results of a study in their journal Circulation. This study showed that pet owners usually have lower cholesterol and blood pressure levels. They also have lower chances of being obese, all of which contribute to lowering the risk of heart disease. The authors do point out, however, that the amazingness of what cats and dogs can do for their humans is partly because pet owners themselves tend to be more active.

So we already know that having a pet may lower your risk of developing heart disease, but studies from the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that having a pet can help your heart health in general.It will lower your triglyceride levels, cholesterol and blood pressure, and all these elements combine to reduce your future risk of heart attacks. Some studies even show that having a pet will help you recover from a heart attack more quickly.

The combonation of the above surely saves lives and a monumental amount of cash thus , being superior to the alternative, no pets, we should surely keep pets.

Debate Round No. 1


To start off, you state many health benefits to keeping pets. These can easily be refuted by the fact that pets can carry many diseases, such as roundworm, bird flu, and sore mouth, to name a few. You can find a full list below.

Also, many of your arguments raise the benefits for humans, but is it really just as beneficial for the pet? Estimates at the number of stray cats alone range up to 70 million meaning that, despite the apparent benefits, many pet owners are still not satisfied with their animal and feel the need to abandon them. On top of this, approximately 7.6 million companion animals enter animal shelters in the U.S. per year, and more than half remain there until death. Surely, the small benefits to human health for having a pet are vastly outweighed by the cruelty caused by the breeding and distribution of animals for pets.

To conclude my counter argument, I believe that since we, humans, bred these animals to be our workers, or companions, then we should be able to take full responsibility for their wellbeing and care. Clearly, however, as the statistics show; we are not capable of fulfilling this responsibility and should attempt to limit the keeping of animals as pets.

Disease list:
Other Sources


Although pets may carry some potential risks , the benefits greatly outwheigh those , refer to round 1.

Futher Pro's argument with regards to animal cruelty is absolutely irrlevant. This is a red herring fallacy.

The resolution before us clearly states. WE. Refering to Humans.

We shouldn't keep pets.

Further the happiness of human beings is superior and more valuable than an animal's.
Vote con.

My arguments stand
Debate Round No. 2


wg4568 forfeited this round.


Extend all.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
>Reported vote: imsmarterthanyou98 // Moderator action: Removed<

1 point to Pro (S&G), 6 points to Con (everything else). Reasons for voting decision: PRO ff. Further Con had better arguments , he outlined how pets could have beneficial effects.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Failure to explain sources and S&G. (2) Arguments. Merely repeating one of Con's arguments is not sufficient. You have to explain *why* it was convincing.
No votes have been placed for this debate.