The Instigator
isaacthemaniac
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

a dog is not befitting of the title man's best friend.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 393 times Debate No: 90436
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

isaacthemaniac

Pro

round 1 acceptance
2 and 3 debates and rebuttals
PowerPikachu21

Con

I accept this debate. I will be arguing that a dog is indeed Man's Best Friend. I wonder what Pro will say in regards to dogs not being man's friend.
Debate Round No. 1
isaacthemaniac

Pro

A best friend by definition is by definition a person's closest friend. In the context of outside's man realm, the saying that A dog is man's best friend is a term coined by dog lovers who will not accept anything short of attributing to a dog this status, as perhaps a reward for the loyalty or companionship or usefulness that a dog may or may not show to man.
I contend that this notion is ridiculous and shows the lengths to which (western man especially and specifically the dog owning man) has gone to justify his oppression of another creature. It is tantamount to saying that because man finds so much use in dogs, (mind you dogs can be used for companionship, for protection, for food, for abuse as seen with Dog fighting) he has chosen to reward the dog for his humiliation of it.
I contend that man's best friend if taken from an animal point of view would be a cow or buffalo or horses or chicken. Despite the lack of loyalty skills, these animals particularly cows have been fundamental to man's well being, they were with man when he had no tractors nor tanks, carried his burdens to places where dogs could only bark, and it was the horses on which man begun his conquest of other men and by extension the earth, dogs had no say in the matter. For man to reach this point where he feeling self sufficient rewards a dog with a reward that does not befit it is a form of injustice.
Dogs as a species are not known for there hygiene unlike cats, many are the dogs that have attacked passersby and there owners. I am not saying that dogs are useless but to be attributed the title man's best friend should call for a more objective analysis. If one human death is caused because of one dog's aggression, this is enough to disqualify dogs from this honor that they have been granted arbitrarily .
And a dog is not like a cow or horse , all perform functions that the other may never be able to do naturally, a dog can be trained to kill white/black people on sight , a horse or cow can not. Is this the reason a dog is considered man's best friend?
Rather it is a title that some dog loving far from reality elitist coined out of his or her unjustified emotional attachment to their dog.
it is for this reason that people make movies solely praising dogs, an emotional reaction that has no firm basis in logic. if it was not for man's training would any dog be able to sniff bombs or do the things that man so diligently praises about dogs, dogs are what man makes them, is this the reason why this creatures have been termed as man's best friend? is this not the worst form of domination?
Dogs are eaten in some parts of the world, including China and are treated as mere beasts in many other parts of the world, is it that you eat your best friend or abuse him further as you desire? Granted cows are eaten to, but from them cows milk, clothing, farming help, peace and serenity, they are a source of wealth, have you seen a man that has acres of land filled with dogs that would find that as wealth? I certainly have not seen any.
another gift of dogs is rabies and many like diseases, yes many animals spread disease, but rabies is spread by a dog bite, and mad cow disease by consumption not cow bite, why would my best friend bite me? I have read many a story of dogs doing many things worth mentioning and many not worth even mentioning, but for man to fool himself into calling his domination of another species friendship is Ludacris and deserves condemnation. If dogs are man's best friend, why then have dogs killed men or eaten faces of others when hungry or killed babies in cribs where intentionally or unintentionally ( I don't know)? Why are not chicken, harmless animals that man consumes with great pleasure considered his best friend, they sacrifice their young( egg form) to man without question and serve as his meat whenever he desires, they do not attack nor protect him, is the condition of being a best friend that one should be able to protect you? Why not cows and there incomparable uses compared to dogs? We have wild dogs but not wild cows, are wild dogs not man's best friend yet they too are just dogs? or is it that because man failed to tame them he considers them wild and as such they are not his best friends? Rather a dog should be considered man's useful creature and not his best friend, indeed one human life was lost since the beginning of time to one dog( which has happened), then we can not consider a dog as man's best friend, unless of course we refuse to acknowledge the human life lost, and this lack of empathy explains why many a man treat their dogs better than other human beings and as such have the audacity to call a dog man's best friend.
PowerPikachu21

Con

I think Pro for his argument. I'll rebut his arguments, then carry on to why a dog is man's best friend.

Rebuttal:

Point 1; Are dogs worthy?

"A dog is man's best friend is a term coined by dog lovers who will not accept anything short of attributing to a dog this status" So you say this title was given because man felt pity? This needs to be backed up. There are numerous things dogs can bring, which I'll discuss in my argument.

"I contend that this notion is ridiculous and shows the lengths to which (western man especially and specifically the dog owning man) has gone to justify his oppression of another creature. It is tantamount to saying that because man finds so much use in dogs, (mind you dogs can be used for companionship, for protection, for food, for abuse as seen with Dog fighting) he has chosen to reward the dog for his humiliation of it." So you're saying we're using dogs like tools; like slaves; like Pok"mon? Whose to say the dogs don't like being useful?

There's a such thing as hunting dogs [1]. What obligates them to murder innocent animals for the sake of his master? It obviously can't be blackmail, since dogs wouldn't have anything to blackmail with, and I doubt they understand the concept. It can't be threatening, since the dog would probably run off. It can only be a close bond between man and dog... Man's Best Friend.

Onto the rest of the rebuttal.

Point 2: Replacements.

"I contend that man's best friend if taken from an animal point of view would be a cow or buffalo or horses or chicken." A cow... beef. Buffalo... I guess its fur? Horses to ride into war, and race (There's dog racing as well, except you don't exactly ride them). Chicken, to eat it.

3 out of the 4 animals Pro has presented are good solely for hunting them. You can't really be friends with your dinner, can you? And apparently this is from the farm animals' point of view. I don't think they like being hunted. I'll go into detail later about how dogs outclass these animals.

"Despite the lack of loyalty skills, these animals particularly cows have been fundamental to man's well being," I know that people say things like "this map will be your friend when going through that cave", and you could say this goes in with the definition of friend (at least the one we will be using): "a favored companion" (Merriam Webster).

A favored companion can be either be useful, a buddy, or both. Dogs can be both useful and a buddy. And you can't claim that someone is your buddy if they don't like you. Buddies must show affection for each other, to show that they are indeed buddies. As for usefulness, I'll let the voters decide if dinner counts as being useful (they probably will say that, though).

Back to the rebuttal.

"[Cows] were with man when he had no tractors nor tanks" We're talking about the cows from farms, right? I don't think you can ride them like horses.

"carried his burdens to places where dogs could only bark" By "burden" I think he means "troubles". To where dogs could only bark would mean... dogs can speak? Man's best friend confirmed! We can talk! ... This is probably figurative speech, though.

"For man to reach this point where he feeling self sufficient rewards a dog with a reward that does not befit it is a form of injustice." Again, this is claiming man felt pity for the dog, which needs to be backed up.

I'll leave my rebuttal here. I'll need the remaining characters to present my own argument.

Argument:

Point 1; A useful buddy

Pro is heavily suggesting that a "best friend" is a work horse... literally, actually. But a "best friend" could also mean, well, a friend. Do you use your human friends? Are they willing to be used? Chances are, they'd rather just be a buddy. A dog, however, is fine with being used for things, since they find these things fun. If they're having fun with you, they'd count as a buddy too. Which is the criteria I set in place.

In order to claim the title "Man's Best Friend", you must be:

A: The most Useful.
B: The best buddy.

Pro most likely agrees with criteria A. If he doesn't agree with criteria B, he should say so, and point out why it's flawed.

Point 2; Best Buddy

For simplicity's sake, I'll compare a dog to the animals Pro addressed; Chicken, Cow, and Horse.

Unlike most animals, especially a chicken and a cow, you are able to play with your dog. Everyone knows a good dog loves to play catch with a tennis ball or a Frisbee. Or a stick. You can also teach your dog tricks, like Sit, Stay, Roll Over, Speak, and more.

According to Time for Kids, here are the 5 most popular pets in America:

1. Dogs: 46.3 million
2. Cats: 38.9 million
3. Fish: 12.6 million.
4. Birds: 5.7 million.
5. Small animals: 5 million.

Over 45 million pet dogs solely in America! If that doesn't say that dogs are great buddies, I have no idea what does! (Note that this is about 9 times 4th and 5th place, separately.)

Point 3: Useful

Dogs have been used for a few things in the past, as well as today. Here's a few things dogs have been used for:

Hunting:

I have said this earlier; there are some breeds of dogs that are good for hunting. Labrador Retrievers are great for seeking
water animals, like ducks and fish. The English Setter is for hunting Grouse. The Beagle kills rabbits for you. The list has some more, and I'm sure you get the point by now.

Police Force [3]:

Dogs have amazing smell, so we can train them to track certain scents. Police mainly use them to track drug dealers, and sometimes arsonists. Dogs can also be fast and vicious; perfect for chasing down robbers!

Conclusion:

Dogs outclass the animals Pro has chosen in terms of being a buddy, and being useful. You can play with dogs, unlike most other animals, and dogs can be used for hunting, and police force, unlike horses, cows, and chickens. Let's see my opponent's response.

Sources:

1 [Hunting Dogs]: http://www.outdoorlife.com...
2 [Dogs are popular]: http://www.thedogtrainingsecret.com...
3 [Police dogs]: http://www.dogbreeds.net...
Debate Round No. 2
isaacthemaniac

Pro

My argument is not that dogs are unworthy as animals. Rather it is that to be considered man's best friend, an animal must offer something that is and has been extremely critical to man's needs, to this effect, I am only showing that blind compassion for dogs does not make them man's best friend.
Yes, there is not an animal on this earth but a man uses as a tool, to your example, yes hunting dogs are the tools of the hunters, they are trained to hunt not for themselves but for their master and who is to say that cows and horses do not like being useful? Using cows , horses and sheep was an attempt to show that judging an animal's worth should be based on the values we attribute to a best friend, how can one be your best friend when he/ she can kill if trained or for survival? The notion that dogs hunt for man because of the bond with man is shallow, mind you wild dogs hunt... for food ! it is in the nature of dogs to hunt and thus can be trained, you can't train a cat to hunt food for you because it is not in its nature to hunt for man, i am not saying its impossible. In Dubai, Cheetahs are trained to hunt for men , are you saying it is because of the close bond with man? yet a cheetah is a wild animal capable of great harm! it can only be because it is in a dog's nature to be trained like this, the same way you can train a crow to do things that over birds can't, what does that have to do with a bond with man?
What do you mean you can't be friends with your dinner? What does friendship have to do with dinner, plus dogs are eaten in some parts of the world and what does that have to do with being man's best friend? are you saying that people do not have pets like pigs and chicken? I find this argument deeply irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Dogs are useful and a buddy? Do dogs provide milk or food? do dogs provide warm clothing? A buddy? what! are you saying that just because you can be a bu(ally)ddy to a dog all men are capable of the same fit? A dog may be useful for travel but that is within the parameters of its use; this can't be used a tool to judge if it counts for being a buddy or not, mind you a chihuahua being a dog, can not be a favored companion while useful at the sometime, clearly your reasoning excludes such breeds.
No, by burdens i mean heavy loads, how can a cow carry trouble, your use of such tactics to undermine my arguments is unreasonable.What use is a barking dog in battle compared to a horse/calvary?
How can i back up my claim that man rewards a dog by the title man's best friend out of pity? am i supposed to present a scientific full proof study? Rather i have presented the notion that to a dog the title man's best friend is empty and worthless, it does not comprehend and as such does not care, but it is man who comprehends and as such it is man that benefits from referring to a dog as such, instead of dismissing my assertion by demanding evidence why don't you dispute it and reveal its flaws?
Rebuttal
A useful buddy:
I never suggested that a work horse is a useful buddy, this is a forgery on your end to justify your views at my expense. Where do you get the audacity to claim that a dog enjoys being used for dog fighting, in fact a recent study found (http://news.nationalpost.com...) that hugging dogs causes STRESS for them. is this the buddy you said enjoys having fun with man when even a simple act of affection like hugs induces stress. There is no way a human being can be used and treated like a dog and he or she would be okay with it, your comparison is clearly meant exclusively for argument.
If they are having fun with you ( even though a hug causes stress) then they are a buddy too?? Really and a best friend can mean friend too? Does using a person or an animal as you see fit make them a friend? no thats barbaric
In order to claim the title man's best friend you must be
1. Most useful: Overall a cow is more useful than a dog, period. More people depend on cow products than on dogs in the world
2. The best buddy: We are talking about animals here, they lack the ability to comprehend as humans do, as such we can never judge them as we judge humans hence the second condition should be the "least dangerous" - again cows are less dangerous than dogs, i have not heard of a stray cow causing as much trouble as a stray dog. the second criteria is subjective, what constitutes a buddy? Using dog lover terms to justify your feelings about dogs does not change the relevant facts, dogs can be trained to be extremely violent killers and loyal to the trainers; they are not a buddy to the human that they have been assigned to intimidate ( ask the victims of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq). We can't reach a consensus because a dog may be a buddy to con , but a killer to others, so how can you condemn mankind to the hands of this violent buddy?
How can you compare a dog to a chicken? a chicken can not be used as a dog can, but a chicken is not dangerous and is food, man has no need to fear a chicken however well trained. it is like comparing a chair to a table, they have different uses! using these examples was an attempt to show that these animals have 1. most use to man 2. least dangerous to man, as that was my criteria. Con's buddy system attempts to disregard all of this and he seems intent on justifying his views in anyway, can we say that because we can humiliate a dog by making it play catch an such games, it is a buddy over other animals which are capable of things of more importance that dogs can never be trained to do? come on!!
Dogs will never outclass cows because cows provide hides, milk,meat and are even worshipped by some men. It is a recognition that since the dawn of man a cow has been and will continue to be the most useful creature he uses, as it provides basic needs to him. If you were the only person left on earth and you had to choose between staying with 2 dogs or 2 cows( that can procreate) what would you choose? you would definitely not be thinking about tennis balls but survival
PowerPikachu21

Con

I thank Pro for his rebuttal. I will defend my case first.

Rebuttals and Defense:

"it is that to be considered man's best friend, an animal must offer something that is and has been extremely critical to man's needs," Like dogs being able to hunt for man?

" I am only showing that blind compassion for dogs does not make them man's best friend." Pro is dropping my arguments showing what a "Best Friend" would be. I'm using both Pro's definition of a friend (usefulness) and the main definition of a friend (buddy). Pro is not contesting with either of these definitions, rather just saying they're false.

"hunting dogs are the tools of the hunters, they are trained to hunt not for themselves but for their master" Yes, for their master's desires. Isn't this what you're attributing as a necessity to being a Best Friend?

Pro then says "and who is to say that cows and horses do not like being useful?" Dogs clearly show affection towards the owner for being helpful to him. Cows are meat. Would you like being eaten for the sake of a hungry lion? Didn't think so. Horses, I concede they might enjoy helping, but what do we use them for today? Racing? Like I said, there is also dog races. Plus, can a horse track drugs? That's why dogs are chosen for police work.

"Using cows , horses and sheep was an attempt to show that judging an animal's worth should be based on the values we attribute to a best friend," Wait. The attributes WE assign for being a Best Friend? Who is 'we'? I'm guessing 'we' means the debaters, and the voters. If so, they can very well accept my definitions of Best Friend over Pro's. I've shown quite a bit over Pro, I believe.

"how can one be your best friend when he/ she can kill if trained or for survival?" I don't believe you said that in your Round 2. In fact, you were saying things about cows being useful. Mmm... Beef... So Beef is not Man's Best Friend anymore, since we're using it to survive?

So how can one be Man's Friend if we're killing it? Actually, that was my point. We are not killing dogs, however. Why would we hunt using dogs? Because they're happy to help.

"The notion that dogs hunt for man because of the bond with man is shallow," Because? "mind you wild dogs hunt... for food!" Food for themselves. Hunting dogs are trained for their owner's desires.

"you can't train a cat to hunt food for you because it is not in its nature to hunt for man" Oh? So it's in Dogs' nature to hunt for man? Useful for hunting confirmed!

"Cheetahs are trained to hunt for men , are you saying it is because of the close bond with man? yet a cheetah is a wild animal capable of great harm!" It's not a friend because it is dangerous. This statement just seems fallacious. Besides, is it in these Cheetahs' nature to hunt alongside man, like Dog?

Training a crow? How do you even catch one to begin with? Last time I checked, crows are scared of anything potentially dangerous, like humans.

"are you saying that people do not have pets like pigs and chicken?" I guess some people have pet farm animals, outside of the farm. Pro suggests that friends with dinner is irrelevant. What I meant was that meat can't be attributed to the 2nd term of Best Friend; buddy. You can't be friends with your dinner. That would just be weird.

Here's the part where Pro attempts to directly rebut my arguments. Let's see how strong they are.

"Do dogs provide milk or food?" I think you said dogs are eaten in some parts of the world. I concede that dogs don't have the same benefits as a cow, but dogs have other benefits a cow doesn't have.
"do dogs provide warm clothing" Dogs do other things, like hunting FOR said material.

"A buddy? what! are you saying that just because you can be a bu(ally)ddy to a dog all men are capable of the same fit?" I believe Pro's saying we abuse dogs. Do we, really? Pro failed to provide a link to this ridiculous claim. Some people use dogs, but we don't abuse them. Most dogs are bought solely for pet purposes.

"A dog may be useful for travel but that is within the parameters of its use; this can't be used a tool to judge if it counts for being a buddy or not," So dogs have to be useful and a buddy at the same time, same situation? None of us said that before. Are you actually friends with your beef, Pro? None of the animals Pro suggested really fit this part either.

"mind you a chihuahua being a dog, can not be a favored companion while useful at the sometime, clearly your reasoning excludes such breeds." Yes, a chihuahua isn't too useful, but does this mean the dogs I mentioned Round 2 are useless as well? Of course not! No one said ALL dogs must be useful, just they they are useful... most of them, I mean. The dogs that aren't police or hunters are bought solely for pet purposes.

"your use of such tactics to undermine my arguments is unreasonable" Well excuse me for being unable to see meanings of something that isn't quite specific! How was I supposed to know? Anyways, this is off topic.

"What use is a barking dog in battle compared to a horse/calvary?" Battle as in war, I'd just say let the tanks and sub- machine guns do the killing. We don't really use horses for much in 2016. Dogs are capable of injuring a small group, since they have fierce jaws you don't want to get too close to.

"How can i back up my claim that man rewards a dog by the title man's best friend out of pity?" Hmm... Good question, actually. Still, it kind of expects evidence.

"Rather i have presented the notion that to a dog the title man's best friend is empty and worthless, it does not comprehend and as such does not care," So because the dog doesn't understand what a title is, the title's worthless? WHAT? It was man who gave the title, not dog. After all, they're OUR best friend.

"it is man who comprehends and as such it is man that benefits from referring to a dog as such," So because we're benefiting, and the dog doesn't care, the title's irrelevant? Is that what you're saying? Tell that to the horse, he's useless.

So if the title is irrelevant, then why are we still debating this? I'd say dogs are Man's Best Friend, and leave it with my evidence.

"I never suggested that a work horse is a useful buddy, this is a forgery on your end to justify your views at my expense." 1) I think the term you were looking for it "straw manning" or "misinterpreting" your argument. 2) It seemed like that's what were were suggesting, albeit not directly.

Cows more useful than a dog? Well, we eat cows, but dogs can catch criminals, and hunt for our food.
I agree that dogs can be dangerous, but we can play with them, unlike any other animal, really. Plus, dogs are the most popular pet. Not exactly subjective when lots of people buy a pet dog over a pet horse or chicken!

"hugging dogs causes STRESS for them" it might hurt them, sure.

"If they are having fun with you ( even though a hug causes stress) then they are a buddy too??" Pro is quote mining and straw manning his own source. The source also says "It is clearly better from the dog"s point of view if you express your fondness for your pet with a pat, a kind word, and maybe a treat"

Think of it this way; would you want to be snuggled as a cutsey wustey animal, or would you want a simple belly rub?

"Overall a cow is more useful than a dog, period. More people depend on cow products than on dogs in the world" True, everyone eats beef. But cows are lazy. They'd hardly be considered a buddy. Dogs can be used multiple times, and cows can only be eaten once.

"We are talking about animals here, they lack the ability to comprehend as humans do, as such we can never judge them as we judge humans" What do you want the animals to comprehend? Animals, such as wolves and fish, know the concept of friendship, as they're social animals, and can be seen close together. Dogs are closely related to wolves. Therefore, dogs understand friendship. If you have a dog, he can be happy. He can be sad.

Every animal, including humans and dogs, have emotions. We like whatever makes us happy. Dogs make humans happy, and (good) humans make dogs happy. Therefore, we're buddies!

Pro suggests the best buddy should be "least dangerous" instead. But I've demonstrated that happy = buddy.

"dogs can be trained to be extremely violent killers and loyal to the trainers; they are not a buddy to the human that they have been assigned to intimidate" Hmm... I can't really argue against this notion. Dogs CAN be weapons. But, how common is this, to be honest? How many people turn their dogs into killers? Sure, some humans are jerks to their pets, and the pet rebels. But then it's the human who's not the buddy; it's his/her fault!

Arguments:

Usefulness:

I have shown that dogs can be trained to hunt for you... actually, I think most people use guns now, don't they? Well, anyways, if you wanted to, you could have your dog hunt your food, then you'd cook it.

Most people don't ride horses to take down knights anymore. There's drug dealers nowadays, selling drugs that, sometimes, aren't even legal. How do we bring these criminals to justice? Practically the only animal capable of being trained to follow the scent of illegal drugs, are dogs. Dogs can also be used to track gasoline to find arsonists, as well as whatever else you'd need a dog to follow the scent of.

Buddy;

I've shown that dogs are capable of experiencing emotions, therefore friendship. From this fact, we can conclude dogs share a strong bond with their owners. Pro kind of drops this argument, demanding it to be replaced with the least dangerous animal. So should we make corn Man's Best Friend? It's helpful, and defenseless! Yeah, at least dogs are entertaining.

Closing thoughts:

I can see where Pro is coming from, and I respect this. And I'm glad to have been his opponent, and show that dogs are worthy of this title. When voting on this debate, please go into detail on whose argument was better, and why. Thank you for reading, and vote the winner!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Danielle// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is that in order to be considered man's best friend, an animal must offer something that is and has been extremely critical to man's needs. However Con rightfully argued that a critical need is not a necessary standard to qualify as (every) man's best friend, and Pro did not defend this assertion. Con argued that companionship is valued by others - for example humans can have other people as best friends without "needing" them. Con also pointed out that dogs can assist with needs like hunting, and Pro's examples of other animals being superior do not necessarily hold water vs. a dog's well rounded utility. While Pro pointed out that other animals can provide things that dogs cannot, Con replied that likewise dogs can do other things that different animals cannot. Overall Pro's contentions did not withstand Con's scrutiny, and Con explained how some people can in fact value the things that dogs in particular can/do offer. And the sources point is self-explanatory.

[*Reason for removal*] While arguments are more than sufficiently explained, the voter fails to explain the source point allocation. This must be clear " stating that they are "self-explanatory" is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
And it seems isaac has yet to do a debate which is not a forfeiture. I promise him that I won't back down easily.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
I took a look at isaacthemaniac's debates, and he seems pretty skilled. Let's see how this debate goes.
No votes have been placed for this debate.