The Instigator
G3Mii
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xxdarkxx
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

why should dog have to be mico chipped

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 4 votes the winner is...
xxdarkxx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,082 times Debate No: 11373
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

G3Mii

Con

i don't think that dogs should be mirco chipped if a dogh has a good owner it shouldn't want to run away and not everybody can afford to have a dog, food, insurace, etc so i don't think that should HAVE to have it
xxdarkxx

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for setting up this interesting debate.

---------------
Rebuttal
---------------

My opponent makes the point that if a dog has a good owner then they should not want to run away. Not only is this not a valid enough point to prevent micro chipping dogs, but it is highly unreasonable. Simply because an someone is a good owner or master to their dog is not going to stop a dog from running away. Many, many dogs run away every year, it is unreasonable to believe that every dog had a bad owner. Animals simply crave being free. Also quite often a dog will not even know that they are running away. As animals are not sentient they are unable to decide between right and wrong, they don't know that running away is wrong so there is nothing a "good owner" could do to prevent it in the realm of simply being a good owner.

Also you bring up the point of money. "not everybody can afford to have a dog, food, insurace, etc" If someone is unable to afford to have a dog then why should they be worried about having a dog micro chipped. Thus, this is an invalid point.

Furthermore, it is highly reasonable for all dogs to be micro chipped. Not only do many dogs go missing every year, but many dogs are either stolen or never returned when they are found. If all dogs were micro chipped then not only would dogs that have gone missing be able to be found, but also those people that are stealing dogs will be caught and prosecuted. Dogs need to be micro chipped.
Debate Round No. 1
G3Mii

Con

back to the not being able to afford to have a dog, if you already have a dog and are struggleing to keep it but do not want to give it to a home becuase the animal shelters are brimming, then making it law that dogs have to be micro-chipped is awful, if you are just buying a new dog then fair enough this is a precaution.
However if they made micro-chipping free insead if makeing it between �20-�30 then yes by all means make it law but the fact that they are making it law and you have to put your own money in your back pocket to do this as well as pay for everything else is criminal.
overall i think that mico chipping is a good idea what i'm trying to get across is that it should not be made law and if it does it should be free of charge
xxdarkxx

Pro

-----------------
Rebuttal
-----------------

My opponent has failed to respond in anyway to my point that making micro chipping mandatory would furthermore reduce the number of lost dogs, and also provide a way to capture those people who decide to steal them.

My opponent states that if one is able to keep a dog in there house even though they are short on money that it is awful for them to be required to pay the small amount of money to have a dog micro chipped. However if a owner of a dog truly does value the pet then this mere amount of money should come at no problem. Pets are owned by people because the provide companionship. If a owner truly does care about there dog then there is no reason not to spend a little amount of money to have them micro chipped.

My opponent also states that if this were to be made a law that it should be free of charge. However if this were to be law it is highly unreasonable to make it free of charge. It would take a large amount of money to enforce this kind of law and this money would easily be taken from the small fee needed to micro chip the dog. Also the government does not have the money to simply fork over all the needed money to put the research, and implementation of these micro chips into place.
Debate Round No. 2
G3Mii

Con

as was said if the goverment cannot afford it then it should not be made law it should be advised but not made law. if u already have a dog then you should not have to if you don't want to, but if you rae buying a new dog then you should want to micro chip your dog but if not then you have no one to blame but your self.
all that i am really trying to say is that;
- it should not be made law
-people who are buying new dogs should be highly advised to
-people already owning dog should not have to do anything
-and to me a person whos low on money �20-�30 is what i get a week so thats alot of money to someones who would rather buy things they need than spend it on somthing they feel they don't need.
another point made as my opponant said dog just want to be free and they do not know right from wrong. but so do small children when they are playing in the garden they want to escape they long to be free they don'y know what they are doing does this mean that we should micro chip our children as well?
xxdarkxx

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent argues that since children playing in a garden also have the desire to be free that if we micro chip dogs that we should also micro chip the children. However children are humans, they are a direct part of society and at one point in there life they will be sentient if they are not yet. Humans have an obligation to protect other humans. Also a parent does not simply let there child run off if they are not at an age in which they can be trusted to be on there own. Stating that since a child can run off just like a dog is an invalid point to state that dogs should not be micro chipped.

A governments main source of income is from taxes and the such. This is not a matter of whether the government has money to put this in place or not its the matter that if it was put in place the government would simply be throwing away money. A cost is required not only to put money back to the government but also to keep the economy in a positive cycle.

My opponent has provided no definite points as to why micro chipping should not be law. They have simply stated how it will be costly for some, and that dogs should not run away, if they have a good master.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dawatticus 7 years ago
dawatticus
I know for a fact my dog was a sentient being.

She knew right from wrong, and when she done wrong she'd act guilty - even before we found out.
She was in tune with the emotions of the family, and knew exactly what was going on at all times.

When she died, she hugged into me, and died peacefully.

Dogs are sentient.
Posted by dollydo 7 years ago
dollydo
G3Mii claims that if micro-chipping a dog should be legal, so then should the micro-chipping of small children. Dogs and children are both sentient beings, but both lack moral reasoning. A dog and a child both could be lost. xxdarkxx claims that humans have an obligation to protect their own kind. This claim has not been supported. Why do humans have an obligation to protect their own kind? If there was a "so-called" obligation, wouldn't that obligation outweigh the obligation to micro-chip? Couldn't one assume, from this claim, that "monkey straps" should be legal. Since protecting children is the utmost concern. Regardless of the parents ethical position or monetary means. xxdarkxx also attempted to distinguish between a dog that runs away and a child that is lost. Whether or not a dog runs away or a child is lost, both are missing, and micro-chipping would be an adequate device used for locating either.

Some parents view monkey straps as unethical, claiming that they feel as though they are imprisoning their child. In the same light, many dog owners view micro-chips as unethical, claiming that they feel as though they are imprisoning their pet. Forcing dog owners to micro-chip their dogs, is asking them to do something against their ethics and will.

I believe it should be something that is encouraged, but ultimately left up to the dog-owners personal preference.
Posted by dollydo 7 years ago
dollydo
xxdarkxx states,
"As animals are not sentient they are unable to decide between right and wrong."

This statement is false. A "sentient" being is not defined as a creature capable of moral reasoning. While the definition of "conscious" and/or "consciousness" describes many aspects, one aspect being the ability to reason, this is not the sole criteria. Like I will reiterate, you picked out the criteria that best suited your claim.
Posted by dollydo 7 years ago
dollydo
xxdarkxx gives the definition of "sentient" in a previous debate...
"Sentient-http://dictionary.reference.com......
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness."

How can one still believe that animals are not "sentient" creatures? Last time I recalled my beloved dog was CONSCIOUS. He also had the basic SENSES of smell, taste, touch, see, and hear.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Why are points being awarded for conduct in this debate? Neither debator was uncivil.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
G3MiixxdarkxxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by cactusbin 7 years ago
cactusbin
G3MiixxdarkxxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by DavidSSabb94 7 years ago
DavidSSabb94
G3MiixxdarkxxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
G3MiixxdarkxxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04