The Instigator
Saitem
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Owlz
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

animals

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...
Owlz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 53338
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Saitem

Con

we should protect animals so they do not die animals are not just wild they are also our pets do you want our pets to die I mean they are cute and adorible. we do not want to let those die do we.
Owlz

Pro

Wouldn't the Con side be against the statement of "animals"? Whatever. I am assuming Con's (or Pro's?) argument is "humans should protect all animals". This would mean I, as Pro (or Con?), am arguing that "humans should not protect all animals".

Since there was no structure agreed upon before hand, I will be moving straight to rebuttals before making some claims of my own.

Rebuttals:

"we should protect animals so they do not die"
- This is currently impossible. It is possible to extend their life span but humans do not posses the means to prevent death.

"animals are not just wild they are also our pets"
- Some animals are. Such as cats and dogs. But we should keep in mind that most animals ARE WILD and should be kept in the wild.

"do you want our pets to die I mean they are cute and adorible."
- Some house pets such as domesticated cats, dogs, birds, various reptiles, and other mammals can be considered adorable to some peoples' taste. But, "adorable" is an opinion based feeling. Thus this word is very vague and does not always apply. I already mentioned we can extend the lives of animals but not give them immortality. Yes we should let them die. It is completely natural. I would even argue that extending their lives in most situations is HURTFUL to the animals. I'll elaborate on this below.

"we do not want to let those die do we."
- Yes. Yes, we do. Here's why:

Claims:

In regards to domesticated pet animals, it is usually hurtful to extend their lives. Pets, like us humans, have aches and pains that increase as they get older. They are also prone to disease and infections. Pets are usually very stoic about their problems and so most human caretakers do not notice anything is wrong. You could be thinking you are doing the right thing by caring for an animal and extending its life when in actuality you are causing it to go through the living hell of constant pain. Sometimes enough is enough and the pet slips away to die on its own. There are reasons why most of us have to have our pets "put down". We, as caretakers, should care enough about said pet to let it die rather than to keep it suffering. It believe this would be an act of "mercy killing".

We should not mess with animals, wild or pet, in general. This affects their natural evolution process. For the most part, the food chain and natural death take care of everything on their own. If we truly did protect every animal then that would mean we would also have to protect a said animal species from other animal species as well. This leaves the other animals without a food source and thus is counter productive as it means they will then starve and die off.

Humans should honor animals but we should not try to protect them or extend their lives. It is unnatural and can cause entire species to evolve differently or go extinct all together.

I pass to Con. Good luck, I hope for a fun debate.

Sources:
- My elementary school education.
- Common sense. :P
Debate Round No. 1
Saitem

Con

Saitem forfeited this round.
Owlz

Pro

Out of respect for my opponent I will not add to my claims in case he/she comes back.

I have noted that the Con (Pro?) has not been online since he/she created this debate. Being a new member, they may have forgotten their password or forgotten the time limit of the debate. They have yet to see my argument for round one and thus I do not believe they have given up. In other words; I'm giving Con (Pro?) the benefit of the doubt.

Voters, if he/she comes back for round three, I request that you pretend this round never happened. We will continue the debate like normal. Here's to hoping round three happens.
Debate Round No. 2
Saitem

Con

Saitem forfeited this round.
Owlz

Pro

Well then. I believe it is safe to say that Con probably left DDO and wont be coming back under this name. I must say I'm very disappointed. I guess this is it. Vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Saitem

Con

Saitem forfeited this round.
Owlz

Pro

*sigh* Once again, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Saitem

Con

Saitem forfeited this round.
Owlz

Pro

Finally done, you voters would not believe how annoying these waiting periods have been for me. I'm beginning to think they left on purpose. Dang trolls. Anyways, that's off topic. I apologize.

As all my claims stand and as the Con has forfeited Rounds 2 - 5, I implore you to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Owlz 2 years ago
Owlz
Hmm ... checked his profile and I don't think he's been on since creating the debate. I don't think he's read my argument and that he is quitting because of that. Maybe he/she just forgot his/her password. Apparently he/she is only 13 and just made the account the day they started the debate. It wouldn't be all that surprising.
Posted by Owlz 2 years ago
Owlz
Saddening. :'(
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
I think he'll forfeit
Posted by Owlz 2 years ago
Owlz
Anyone know where I can contact Saitem? He's only got an hour and a half left.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
SaitemOwlzTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
SaitemOwlzTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited with no real arguments.