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

it should be illegal to have pets of all the types

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,296 times Debate No: 33180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




ill prove why pets are evil, and should be excucted emmediately, just watch me.


I accept and await your argument.
Debate Round No. 1


pets trick everyone by being so cute, but they just take your money because they want to eat alll the time. thats why i stopped feeding my cat a year ago, becasue he was just stealing from me. he died, and now i money to buy more food for me and my family, we also get to buy clothes, because we wear out of them very fast. also, pets cause allegeries in people, that means they hurt others. if u hurt others, u need to go away, that means pets are evil, that means that NOONE should can have them, if they have them, then the pet is taken away and turned into food so the person can eat food.


I can see that my opponent has argued that we should turn all pets into food because we originally had to feed them. So, from this, the conclusion would be that it should be illegal to have pets because we need to turn them into food, otherwise they will "eat all the time" and "steal [sic] from [us]". The argument assumes that:

1. Animals are evil in 'making this decision'
2. We can't choose to eat other things OR we don't have enough things to eat to sustain life
3. The suffering inflicted on these animals is of no consequence
4. Already imposed legislation (in virtually every first world country) prohibiting the mistreatment of pets should be abolished to avoid contradiction

I believe these rebuttals will suffessfully counter-argue a major contention of Pro's argument. Should my rebuttals be successful, my opponent's argument cannot assume that animals are "evil" (and hence, the argument will fall apart).


Pets do not choose which actions they perform

Evil necessitates that there is a choice between good and evil.In the absence of being able to make a decision, neither good nor evil can be used as labels. For example, a tree that falls on a house cannot be called evil as it had no choice in the matter, despite its action being to cause of great suffering. A pet, say a dog, is not capable of thinking what consequences their actions have other than what use the actions will have in regards to their needs. The dog will, perhaps instinctively, perform based on what needs it has.

Pets are unable to understand that their actions can hurt other creatures

According to an article from 'Animal Welfare and the Moral Value of Nonhuman Animals', "animals are not self-aware and live in an eternal present"[1]. Seeing as they are not self-aware (at least to a substantial extent), animals are unable to understand that their actions can have negative impacts on other animals. Animals can understand that attacking other animals may result in the other animal attacking him or her back, but this is the limit of understanding in regards to action and consequences for animals.

Animals are not evil because they are incapable of making decisions based on the harm to other enitities (other than self-interest). Therefore, the resolution is negated.

[1] Law, Culture and the HumanitiesFebruary 2010 vol. 6 no. 1 24-36

Debate Round No. 2


Sanfran forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
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: Pro's arguments were painful to read. Con had better arguments, spelling and grammar, conduct (as Pro forfeited a round), and sources, as she was the only one who used sources.