The Instigator
repressiveassholessuck
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
ArriKanna
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

dogs are better than cats

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
repressiveassholessuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 88801
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

repressiveassholessuck

Pro

Dogs are loyal, can help the bling, rescue people, and work for the police. Cats have nasty litter boxes, scratch you all over, hiss at you, and if you died in your apartment and the cat had nothing to eat it would eat you. Dogs are scientifically proven to make people feel better, and are used in several hospitals for that reason
http://mentalfloss.com...
ArriKanna

Con

Yes Dogs are better than cats, that is my opinion as well. However just because dogs seem to possess more qualities that are advantageous than cats does not mean that they are mentally superior to cats. Here, I present you an example of the slaves. Well African American slaves did absolutely more work than people. They possessed so many physical qualities that their owners did not possess, however they were still considered inferior to them by their physical appearance
Debate Round No. 1
repressiveassholessuck

Pro

wouldn't you say that in the case of dog vs. cat when the question is which are better it can only truly be accounted for by advantageous traits, seeing as better implies opinion, and opinion cannot be formed on things we do not know. Dogs are stronger and easily develop more muscle, dogs are more susceptible to suggestion, and more domesticated, have more uses in medical, and government jobs. So as pets and as helpers to the community dogs can be seen as better, which is the real argument
ArriKanna

Con

I believe this argument should be voted solely based on impact. I believe who ever has the biggest impact should be the person who wins today's round. According to http://www.dogsbite.org..., there reported more than 30 dog attacks than fatal. Give me an example of an house cat attack that was fatal. This does not mean I don't respect your opinion, I totally do, but when looking at the statistics, dogs have cause more deaths than cats.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FluffyDebater 7 months ago
FluffyDebater
Lets say that its a tie. They are both adorable as well.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: queencoop// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con made a good point about dog attacks being fatal. I feel like Pro repeated the same thing.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has to do more than simply present a point made by Con and say that Pro restated it. The voter has to assess the strength of that argument and compare it with something else (if anything) Pro stated.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: IshanKohli// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Because cats rock.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter doesn't explain any point allocations, instead merely stating personal support for Con.
************************************************************************
Posted by repressiveassholessuck 8 months ago
repressiveassholessuck
No offense you have been a great partner and have had perfect conduct unlike others I was a freshman not too long ago and this is my second debate don't feel like a beginner I think its great that you want to be a part of something like this. the end result of this debate really doesn't matter to me, it was just to qualify me for further voting privileges. Your argument has lots of good points and I admire it :)
Posted by ArriKanna 8 months ago
ArriKanna
I stated this example just to show you that dogs are nice domesticated animals, but after they do things such as this example, then it makes any dog lover hate dogs. I totally agree with the point that cats are just as unpredictable as dogs, but if a dog and a cat goes unpredictable, more fatalities will be caused by dogs.

I would also like to thank you for debating with me. I am a freshman, and this is my first debate, so I apologize if I said something offensive to you.
Posted by repressiveassholessuck 8 months ago
repressiveassholessuck
it's not meant to insult I'm just unsure of what your are trying to say by adding that.
Posted by repressiveassholessuck 8 months ago
repressiveassholessuck
The example I don't think was necessary it adds very little to the argument
Posted by ArriKanna 8 months ago
ArriKanna
For example, if you buy a dog from the pet store, and they say there wasn't any evidence of the dog being abused and it later kills one of your family members, would you still like dogs. This example was from the source I stated earlier.
Posted by repressiveassholessuck 8 months ago
repressiveassholessuck
my percentages are correct there are still many dogs that as you said were shown no harm and still attack and sometimes fatally kill people, but in large scale it is only 10% of dogs which yes IS still a large amount and that is not the argument. However cats are no less prone to violence but are instead less capable of large scale harm http://www.aspca.org... cats are naturally aggressive unlike most dogs who are instinctively loyal and gentle due to years of domesticity and human bonding
Posted by ArriKanna 8 months ago
ArriKanna
The source I stated showed dogs that were shown to o no harm.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
repressiveassholessuckArriKannaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded "dogs are better than cats." in round one.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 8 months ago
Hoppi
repressiveassholessuckArriKannaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded by agreeing that dogs are better than cats. She seemed to suggest that even so, having more good qualities did not make them better, but failed to follow that up with an argument that cats are better. I think she was arguing that in the past slaveowners preferred family members to slaves even though slaves worked harder. Does that mean that the family members of slave owners were better? It was a confusing argument. The argument about dogs causing more deaths than cats was an interesting one, but in the final round so pro could not respond. Pro listed several good qualities of dogs before the concession.