The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Dogs and Dolls: Animals should not be forced into clothing.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 10 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,599 times Debate No: 16295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




No one should buy pets just as dolls and toys in the first place. Pets have feelings and comfort zones as we do. If I were to stuff my cat into a ridiculous blue sailor suit purchased at a thrift store, he'd be uncomfortable and humiliated. If I know cats, he'd run around the house meowing until someone took it off. He even hates wearing a collar! He'll scrape against every piece of furniture in the house to get it off. Some people buy animals as dress-up dolls, and that is wrong. Abusing animals and not giving them the proper care can lead to malnutrition and deadly disease. If you keep your pet around only for entertainment and for show, you do not deserve to be an owner. The only piece of clothing I'd suggest is a life jacket. You can never be too safe, especially when it concerns our furry friends.


I thank my opponent for the debate:

My opponent claims that animals do not enjoy wearing clothes. I'd like for PRO to show evidence that animals wearing clothing has serious mental health effects on the animal. Like, how many animals killed themselves cause they had to live with the shame of wearing clothes? At the very best it could just be a moderate inconvenience for the animal. Just like its a moderate inconvenience for me to wear pants. They restrict movement and I like to feel a breeze on my balls. However, the law states I can't expose my penis.

Second off, animals in clothing look awesome. Just look at these cute pictures:
There so cute and provide joy to both pet owners and persons viewing the pictures. If PRO's resolution were passed, we never would have seen these adorable pictures.

Third, animals often have to go through much worse harm then just being forced into clothing. Animals are eaten, used in experiments, and farmed. PRO would have to disagree with all these practices in order to truly believes animals should not be forced into clothing.

Fourth, how much "rights" should animals receive at the expensive of the owner? Should animals not be neutered since it would hurt the animal? Should pets receive more toys, be allowed to roam around in the streets, be required to have a playmate?

Pro states: "Abusing animals and not giving them the proper care can lead to malnutrition and deadly disease"

This is a non-sequiter. Forcing animals into clothing does not lead to malnutrition or deadly disease. PRO has to show otherwise.
Debate Round No. 1


First off, thank you for the adorable pictures. It is true. Not all animals do not enjoy wearing clothes. As stated in my topic, I am looking specifically at animals who DO NOT enjoy wearing these outfits, such as my own cat. There are many animals that do not desire to wear such styles. There are pets too comfortable and safe living with us that they do not feel the need to try on clothing. They know we'd never put them through that. Also, there are animals, like my friend's cat, that are less domesticated and could not be tamed for long enough to be put into an outfit against their will. There's something about the your opening statement that makes me falter in my choice. I respect you for that. But I still stand strong in my beliefs. Most animals, whatever type, do not wish to be dressed.

You say: "Forcing animals into clothing does not lead to malnutrition or deadly disease."

I am leading up to a much bigger topic. As you probably know, I said that people who treat pets like dolls are less likely to care for them well. Some may care only about showing off their fancy pets to friends, and not give them real love. Dressing animals may sometimes lead to this. If people who dress their pets do what I think they will, the animals could be malnourished and sick in the blink of an eye. Behold, the counter-links:

Do you think these animals look happy? Seriously, some dogs need to fight to walk in those booties! The bird doesn't look too happy either. Tell me your opinion on these pics.


To reiterate my opponent hasn't address a single argument I made: I will summarize them:

-My opponent has shown no evidence that animals that wear clothes have any mental health deficient. As children, there were probably quite a bit of humans that were against wearing clothes, yet we have adapted to the environment
-My opponent concedes that the pictures are cute, however believes that these animals were likely happy to wear the clothes. However, these animals might have originally disliked wearing the clothes and were likely conditioned to enjoy or tolerate them.
-My opponent has not explained why it is morally wrong to allow animals to be forced to wear clothing yet does not explain her moral stance on: eating meat, experimentation on animals, or farming animals. My opponent should also note that pets are in fact OWNED, which by definition restricts their freedom. Pets are not free to choose what food to eat, or wear to move around. Being forced to wear clothing is just one of the many freedoms pets lose. PRO has to explain why pets can have certain freedoms restricted, but forcing animals to wear clothing somehow is "going to far".

PRO again has only made assertions, not evidence that animals are more likely to be mistreated if they are forced to wear clothing. Not only is the information not confirmed, it is also irrelevent. The argument is about whether persons should force animals to wear clothes, not whether an owner should feed their own pets.

It's like stating that religious people are more likely to commit crimes, so therefore religion should be banned.
Debate Round No. 2


First, "owned" is a general term. I apologize for my misuse of the word. A pet being owned is treating a pet like personal property. the term, "cared for" is a better replacement. i thank my opponent for pointing this out.

Also, good owners let the pet decide what food to eat. If my cat doesn't seem to enjoy his food, I change it to a different brand and try it out. My cat is also let outside whenever he wishes. Many pets are given these freedoms. When pets are given a loving home, they cope with the loss of freedom with exceptions to their losses. You could call it loopholes. It's these small loopholes that separate "owned" from "cared for". But the humility of being forced into clothing is not a characteristic of being "cared for". Am I correct in this statement?

My opponent has failed to state that my argument is based on pets. When I say that, I don't count farms. Apartment and house pets are what my words are directed to. Experimentation on animals is even more wrong than dressing them. No animal should be forced to do anything they do not want to do.

If it comes to conditioning animals to enjoy wearing outfits to get a good picture, than so be it. If the animals are happy, So will everyone else. But if the animals still dislike wearing the clothing, they should not be forced to wear them.

My opponent has not responded to my pictures on the subject. I consulted a veterinarian. She stated that dogs usually dislike wearing shoes and booties. They are mostly uncomfortable. But she also said that some dogs will be happy to wear a comfortable sweater on a cold night. I agree with this statement, though I am mainly speaking of frilly uncomfortable costumes put on pets. Unnecessary clothing will not do an animal much good.


PRO has tried to weasel out by stating she misused the word "owed". Nonetheless, the word "owned" is the perfect way to describe pets. Let's be clear here, pets have very little right. They are sold for money. The owner is the master. People state they own a pet. As long as animals are nourished, not beaten and no beastality occurs, the owners can do what they want with the animal. Most of them get neutered. Can you imagine something as devastating as getting your balls or ovaries removed? I doubt any animals would "enjoy" this procedure. Yet it is a common procedure. I addressed this in Round 2, yet my opponent does not respond.

PRO then goes on to state that owners should decide what food pet should eat. This is absurd. A dog might enjoy eating steak, yet should the dog be fed steak all the time? Absolutely not. The owner has the right to do what he/she wants with his/her pet. People buy pets to make them happy, not the other way around. The convince of the owner should come before the pet, since the owner pays for the pets care and paid for the pet. Also, it is self-evident that the utility of a human is greater than the utility of another animal.

PRO then goes on to state that their should be a distinction between "farm" animals and pets? Why make this distinction? This is absurd. They are both animals. Why is morally permissible for a chicken to live in a cage with no freedom to even move, and live a short and miserable life while it is immoral to dress other animals up? My opponent then makes an even more absurd statement "No animal should be forced to do anything they do not want to do."
One must notice this big cognitive dissonance and many problems associated with this. Should a pet not be trained since it is in not in the best interest of the pet? Again, the owners interest come before the pet.

PRO then concedes that "If it comes to conditioning animals to enjoy wearing outfits to get a good picture, than so be it." This is a concede. The animals were at one point forced to wear clothing, thus negating the resolution.

PRO states I have not responded to the counter-links. There's really nothing to say about them. The animals look fine. None of them looked starved or are putting a gun to their head.

PRO then states she consulted a veterinarian. That doesn't mean anything, since I have no proof but her word. I need actually PHYSICAL EVIDENCE! I consulted a veterinarian too, and dogs usually like wearing shoes and booties. Nor does it confirm her mistaken belief that those that dress animals up will also abuse their pets.

I have made many arguments that have gone un-refuted. I therefore urge a strong vote for CON!
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 MontyKarl91 10 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was not an incredibly convincing argument either way. However, due to Con's condescending attitude during this debate, I am awarding Kaytee 3 points to 1.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 10 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have thought that Pro would press on "force" as it is critical to the resolution as it implies the animals are resisting. They also failed to address many points raised by Con which would all have to be considered dropped and therefore conceded. Note Con's profile picture is ironic.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.