The Instigator
Horselover3000
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

there should be no horse track racing

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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 71693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Horselover3000

Con

horses are started way too early for track racing some don't even see there 4th birthday
Wylted

Pro

Okay shoot. Give more your arguments for why racing a horse under 4 years old is bad or even bad enough to warrant doing away with a time honored tradition that brings a ton of money into the economy.
Debate Round No. 1
Horselover3000

Con

what no thee should be no horse acing they are started way too young its abuse if you ask me
Wylted

Pro

This is a debate. Your opinion is not as important as how well you argue. Try providing some premises for your beliefs so that people can understand why you feel the way you do. One more chance my friend. We can both make some positive arguments in the last round and make this even. PM a more experienced debater to give you help formulating an argument if you must.
Debate Round No. 2
Horselover3000

Con

your right but it doesn't bring alot of money and i know people like to watch it and truthfully I used too but if you really think about it its kind of abuse i am a farmgirl and i know for a fact that horses are not suposed to be whipped they can be but it harms their structural tissue thats why horsre racing should not be allowed
Wylted

Pro

whipping in racing hurts the horse, but this is untrue. The horse has a very thick hide covered with coarse hair. The whip is basically used to just communicate with the horse.

According to the Guardian, reporter Greg Wood volunteered to be hit with a whip as hard as a jockey would hit a horse and here is what he had to say.

" He hit me three times in quick succession on the palm of the hand yesterday afternoon, the third time "as hard as I'd ever hit a horse" and, thanks to the design of his lightweight, foam-cushioned whip, I scarcely felt a thing.
It has not always been like this. A decade or so ago a fairly gentle swish from a heavy, old-fashioned whip with a loop of leather at its tip would have produced a smack with a real sting. The modern equivalent, though, is all about noise rather than impact.

"A horse wouldn't feel it the same as a human," Crowley said. "They have a tough hide and it's covered with hair. This whip doesn't hurt a human, so it can't hurt a horse and these sticks have been tested and tested to show that they don't hurt the horse.

"There's no way a jockey would want to hurt a horse. The sticks nowadays are fantastic and designed to startle the horse with a loud bang. We use them to create that sound, which is what people don't realise, and that's the problem." http://www.theguardian.com...

My opponent contends that the Horse racing industry brings In very little money, but the evidence would suggest otherwise. It creates almost half a million jobs. It's direct effect on the economy is close to 40 billion dollars and it brings in 2 billion dollars in taxes. http://www.horsecouncil.org...

This is just in America.

I have directly destroyed every premise of my opponent's and showed how horse racing is good for the economy. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
Why is Con arguing for pro ?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Horselover3000WyltedTied
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 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: Just not really seeing much of a case for Con. Animal cruelty really doesn't stand against the points Pro made, and much as they wee in the final round, so was Con's. Simply put, I can quantify Pro's impacts and weigh them, I cannot do the same for Con's. S&G to Pro for some difficult reading on Con's part. Sources to Pro because he's the only one who gave any evidence at all.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Horselover3000WyltedTied
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 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: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Pro. Con had several spelling and grammatical errors throughout the debate, including misspelled words and improper punctuation. I saw no such errors from Pro. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to properly rebut several points raised by Pro including the economic benefits and the young age. Pro, on the other hand, effectively rebutted each point raised by Con as well as having some of his own left standing unchallenged. For this, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Pro did. This is a clear win for Pro.