The Instigator
dandan1251
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

pets

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 5 votes the winner is...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,065 times Debate No: 19814
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (28)
Votes (5)

 

dandan1251

Pro

resolved, people with out allergies should have pets.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

It is pro's belief that people without allergies should have pets, meaning that people with allergies should not have pets.


As this debate is only a single round, and Pro has provided no arguments, as long as I can prove my burden, or even provide a single argument, then I win the debate, as Pro has no arguments.

Burden of Proof:

As side con, I must prove at least one of three things:

Why people with allergies should have pets.
or
Why people without allergies should not have pets.
or
Why all people should be allowed to have pets.

Arguments

1. What allergies?

This is a very vague topic. Pro has not specified what kind of allergies, or what kind of pets, or even what kind of people. This is very necessary.

For example, if you are allergic to peanuts, it is okay for you to have pets, such as dogs, or cats, as that would not affect you in any way.

Then, it would be perfectly okay for you to have a cat as a pet, as opposed to someone who is allergic to cats, and having a cat as a pet. Furthermore, there are certain people who require pets in their daily life.

For example, if you are blind, you would require a seeing eye dog, to help you navigate. These people rely on these pets in order to function normally every day in society. So even if these people have allergies, they should still be allowed to have these seeing eye dogs, so that they can have the mobility to go where they need to go. As a society, we have no right to take away these pets from these people, even if they have allergies, because these pets are vital for their every day lives.

Therefore, I have proven my first burden, why people with allergies should have pets.

2. What pets?

There are many different types of pets.

Google defines pets as: A domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure and treated with care and affection.
http://www.google.ca...

Any animal can be tamed. For example, Mike Tyson has a white tiger as a pet, as it has been tamed and is kept for companionship.

Pro has not defined what pets is, so tigers can be classfied under the definition of a pet.

In this case, people with out allergies should not have pets, as these pets have violent tendencies and should be kept in the wild or zoo. These pets can cause harm and damage to people and property, and they are much better off in the wild or zoo.

As a pet, the owner must feed these pets. These kinds of dangerous pets, such as a tiger, are often carniverous and it would be very difficult to feed and maintain a healthy environment for the animal, which can be easily done with a zoo. These animals require large meals, and it would be costly to maintain.

Therefore, I have proven my second burden, why people without allergies should not have pets.

3. What people?

Pets have are great companions. They have been proven to boost morale and self-esteem. Whether you have a pet rock, or a cat, or even a goldfish, these pets provide people someone to talk to, to share their feelings with, even if they don't respond.

This is why everyone should have a pet. It makes you happy and prevents depression in people. Currently, teen suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the US, for kids aged 10 and over.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I would say that most of these kids did not have pets. If these kids have pets, they can release some of their frustration that causes them to suicide. The reason kids suicide is because they feel alone, that no one will miss them, because they are being abandoned by society, and no one listens to them. However, this can all change if each household had a pet.

These teens would establish a connection to the pet, and it would discourage them from suicide, as there is this pet in the real world that depends on them.

This can correlate to people of all ages, as everyone needs a companion and someone to talk to in order to feel appreciated and not alone in the world.

Therefore, pets generally cause happiness in society, and is positive as a whole.
Therefore, I have proven my third burden, why all people should have pets.

Conclusion:

As side con, I have provided 3 arguments against the notion of why people without allergies should have pets. I have proven all of the things I needed to prove in order to win this debate.

I must remind viewers that Pro has provided no arguments at all. This is a major factor to why I should win.
I have provided 3 arguments that are all relevant and still stand after the debate is over.
He also does not have proper grammer, nor did he provide any sources to prove his stance as I did.

Therefore, vote CON!
If you don't agree with my arguments, just remember, at least I provided arguments!
Also, I have a cool name.

Debate Round No. 1
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
: I think you should drop it and move on, not me.

See you, then.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Wiploc:
"No, that doesn't follow. I like salt on my tomatoes. It does not follow from this that I don't like salt anywhere else."

Those are completely different things! That is what is called a preference. It is completely opinion based, it is your opinion. Now, if you changed it to "Wiploc should put salt on his tomatoes", it would be completely different. Then it would be logical to assume that Wiploc does not put salt on other foods, because that was not included in the resolution. Which is true. Please learn to debate before you judge on other people's debates, wiploc. I have said many times by stipulating that everyone should own pets, it does not concede to Pro's resolution.

The second point about the relevancy, the dangerous pets part. Who is PecaefulChaos you say? Please learn to scroll down.

No, I am not trying to give you a hard time! I just do not feel as though your reasoning is flawed, and Pro does not deserve those points. I am just trying to defend myself here. I believe that I have made no error. I think you should drop it and move on, not me.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Caveat wrote (on my profile page, for some reason, as if we need this discussion to metastaticise thruout the rest of this website):
: Now you totally have to change your vote in that one round debate :D

What's your thinking, Caveat?
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
: I notice that wiploc did not address my second point.

What second point? Where?

: I assume that he agrees that all my arguments are relevant and non contradictory then.

I believe I'm on record as saying the opposite of this.

: So according to PeacefulChaos, I should get those points.

What points? You stipulated that everyone should own pets, so I gave the best-argument points to Pro. There are no points for not having any irrelevant or non-contradictory arguments. I don't know who PeacefulChaos is.

: Please explain if you disagree.

Are you going to give everyone who votes against you a hard time? You are winning 23 to 3? It's not like I'm the swingvote. I've pointed out an error that you can avoid in the future. You should thank me and move on.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Hardcore wrote:
: I believe that it is logical to assume that what Pro meant was that _only_ people without allergies
: should own pets, because then, why didn't he make the resolution, all people should own pets? By
: limiting it to only people with allergies, it is logical to assume that that is the scope of Pro's resolution.

If all people should own pets, then blonds should own pets, tall people should own pets, and people without allergies should own pets.

Had Pro wished to resolve that everyone _but_ people with allergies should own pets, he would have phrased it that way.

: Imagine this:
:
: Resolved: Murder should be illegal for white people.
: By saying this, it is logical to assume that Pro only means that it is illegal only to white people,
: and legal for everyone else, otherwise the resolution would be murder should be illegal, would it not?

No, that doesn't follow. I like salt on my tomatoes. It does not follow from this that I don't like salt anywhere else. And the fact that murder should be illegal for white people does not imply that murder should not be illegal for everyone else.

If you wished to communicate that murder should be illegal _only_ for white people, then you would say that, you would say, "Murder should be illegal only for white people."
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
@wiploc, those are not the same things.
In this resolution there is a condition, people without allergies SHOULD or should not own pets.

I believe that it is logical to assume that what Pro meant was that _only_ people without allergies should own pets, because then, why didn't he make the resolution, all people should own pets? By limiting it to only people with allergies, it is logical to assume that that is the scope of Pro's resolution.

And if you read my previous comment, I believe I did not concede any points to Pro.

Going with your burn example, if you change the wording to should instead of must, it would be very different.

Resolved: Some things should burn.
Pro: Some things should burn.
Con: All things should burn.

As con, I have directly refuted Pro's resolution because I am essentially saying, no, that is not true. Some things should not burn, but all things should burn.

Now let's look at my debate.

Resolved: Some should own pets.
Pro: Some should own pets.
Con: All should own pets.

Basically I have said, all people should own pets, not just people with out allergies. I did not agree with what Pro has said at all.

Imagine this:

Resolved: Murder should be illegal for white people.
By saying this, it is logical to assume that Pro only means that it is illegal only to white people, and legal for everyone else, otherwise the resolution would be murder should be illegal, would it not?

I directly refute this by saying, no, it should be illegal for everyone, not just white people. This would be supporting the resolution at all.

I notice that wiploc did not address my second point.
I assume that he agrees that all my arguments are relevant and non contradictory then. So according to PeacefulChaos, I should get those points.

Please explain if you disagree.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Hardcore, imagine this debate:
===
Resolved: Some things must burn.
Pro: Some things must burn.
Con: Oh, right, well, I concede.
===

Pro didn't manage the burden of proof, but Con conceded, so Pro wins anyway, right?

Now imagine this one:

===
Resolved: Some things must burn.
Pro: Some things must burn.
Con: Some things must burn.
===

Con didn't concede, but he did agree with the resolution. So Pro still wins, even though Pro never made his case.

Now, one more:

===
Resolved: Some things must burn.
Pro: Some things must burn.
Con: All things must burn.
===

Con loses again, right? He didn't use the same language as the resolution, but he did make a claim that, if true, means the resolution is true. That is he, however inadvertently, supported the resolution well enough to win the debate for Pro. If it is true that all things must burn, then it is true that some things must burn.

Now look at your debate:

===
Resolved: Some should own pets.
Pro: Some should own pets.
Con: All should own pets.
===

If all should own pets, then some should own pets. You won the debate for Pro by taking his side.

I understand that you somehow interpret the resolution as meaning that _only_ people without allergies should own pets, but it simply doesn't say that.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
If Con produced contradictory arguments or arguments that were irrelevant to the debate, then arguments should be tied. They should not be given to Pro, because Pro offered no arguments.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
I mean, if you feel sorry for the guy and want to give him extra points, just say so. You don't have to make up some retarded reason.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
@wiploc
First, does it make logical sense to you that a person who provided NO arguments, should have better arguments? It's not possible. No matter how bad my arguments are, it is still better than someone who provided NO arguments.

This is a bad resolution, in general, because of the wording of 'should'. This is entirely opinion based.

1. Pro says that people without allergies should have pets. (see 3.) I am directly clashing with this statement by saying that people with allergies can also have pets. So I don't understand. It is like saying, people who commit treason should be executed. But I say, no, not just that people who commit murder should also be executed. Again, by having this resolution, Pro limits it to only people without allergies. It is essentially "only people without allergies should have pets." That is how I interpreted it.

2. Pro didn't specify that pets would not include dangerous pets. Therefore it is relevant to the topic since tigers as pets would fall under the classification of pets... I explained why people should not have pets in this case.

3. If you read carefully, I did not concede this point. Pro is saying that people without allergies should have pets. But I say that all people should have pets. It is against the resolution because by limiting this resolution to only people without allergies, it is therefore logical to assume what pro means is that only people without allergies should have pets. I directly clash with the resolution because I am saying that all people, not just people without allergies should have pets. It is like saying african americans should not be discriminated against, and I say, no, all people should not be discriminated against. Obviously you are a newbie to debate.

Please answer my first question of arguments. Enlighten me.
I did the best I could with this resolution. Even if my arguments are somehow bad, I still believe bad arguments are better than no arguments.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
dandan1251Hardcore.PwnographyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: WTF, but that was an interesting CON argument. I choose to read it as a tounge in cheek, rather than sincere.
Vote Placed by bcresmer 5 years ago
bcresmer
dandan1251Hardcore.PwnographyTied
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: Read the debate, Pro just sucked
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
dandan1251Hardcore.PwnographyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: better arguments and better grammar than the Pro
Vote Placed by WriterSelbe 5 years ago
WriterSelbe
dandan1251Hardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I love you, wiploc, baby, but Con had more convincing arguments for the following reason: Pro didn't HAVE any arguments, so Con has to get the more convincing arguments point regardless of whether or not he contradicts himself. Spelling and grammar goes to Con even though he had a bigger chance of screwing up. Without is one word. Con had sources whereas Pro didn't, so reliable sources go to Pro. Conduct is tied.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
dandan1251Hardcore.PwnographyTied
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: RFD in comments