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

Horses Should be Used Widely in the US

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,058 times Debate No: 60134
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




In this debate I will be arguing that (domesticated) horses should be used for various purposes (besides things like parades, tourism, and mounted police) in the United States today. I will argue that they should be used for transportation, deliveries (of goods that are not too heavy), and perhaps some other stuff.
I hate doing this, but I accept the Burden of Proof during this debate. First Round is for Acceptance.
Definition of Horse:


I'll accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
Before I begin, I would like to make a certain clarification.
This debate is NOT titled "Horses Should Replace Cars in the US". It simply says that horses should be widely used, regardless of whether or not cars are also used.
That having been said, I will begin now.

Advantages of Cars over Horses:

-Cars move faster than horses. And when a horse does reach a speed of about 25 miles, it cannot maintain that speed for more than a mile or two. Then it has to rest.
-Horses, as living creatures, do not always do what their rider wants them to do. They can be frightened or just plain stubborn.
-Horses poop.
-Horses can be dangerous.
-Horses get sick or old and they die.
-Some people may be allergic to horses.
-To accommodate horses on roads, new roads/paths would have to be built, which is expensive.
-While Cars Can be Manufactured with Ease, horses have to be bred and raised.

This list would probably be the bulk of my opponent's arguments, though I cannot know this for a fact.
So why should horses be used instead of cars?

1. In Absence of Fuel, the Horses Rule

There is a very real scenario where oil reserves run out. This is known as "Peak Oil".
If the oil runs out, countless vehicles will come to a grinding halt and become completely useless.
Also, in the 1970s there was something called the 1973 Oil Crisis, which caused oil prices to spike due to an oil embargo by Middle Eastern oil producing nations.
Something like this happening again would skyrocket already high gas prices beyond the range of what the average American could afford. And all it'd take would be a single decision in the Middle East which makes the Arab nations mad, or another major war in the Middle East.
Speaking of already high oil prices, oil prices have been steadily rising during the past few decades.
Soon enough oil will be too high for the average American to afford pumping gas into their car regularly.

So what's the point in pointing all this out? Well, what I'm trying to say that cars that run on fossil fuels will soon be rendered useless.
You will need an alternative to gas-powered cars.
So then you might say, "What about Ethanol?" After all, Ethanol fuel is the perfect alternative to gasoline, right?
Well, not really. In truth, cars do not generally run on 100% ethanol. The probable reason for this is that Ethanol Fuel is not as efficient as gasoline.
Also, many cars are not designed to run on 100% ethanol.

But here's where the real problem kicks in: the world population is rising, at a rapid rate. As this happens, farmers will not be wasting precious food reserves on making ethanol. Also, as ethanol is basically alcohol, some Muslim nations may have a problem with producing alcohol, which the Quran is against.
Thus, you won't be able to import ethanol from certain nations, as they won't be producing it.
So why isn't it grown here? Well, farming is hard work. The number of farmers has decreased in recent years and decades.
Expect this trend to continue as the urbanization of America continues. The point is, Ethanol is not a viable substitute for Petroleum.

Then, my opponent may say, "What about Solar Power?" After all, cars can run on solar power, right?
Well, that's true, but Solar Power is not a viable solution to the energy crisis either.
You see, Solar Powered vehicles are not commercially available in most places. A very small minority of vehicles run entirely on solar power. Also, they are inefficient.
I would go on, but by this point you probably understand why solar powered cars are not the future either.

Having explained why these many types of cars either will not survive or won't replace mainstream cars, I now move on to...horses.
Horses need several things to survive.
A. Water
In Western nations water treatment is not a problem. Either way, horse water doesn't have to be quite as sterile as human water.
B. Oxygen
This one obviously is not a problem.
C. . Food
Grass is everywhere, even in big cities. Though some leaves are toxic to horses, many other kinds of leaves are perfectly edible to horses. And since trees are also everywhere, so are tree leaves, meaning that horses have a very common and replenishing "fuel". And you don't have to chop the trees down to take their leaves.

So in regards to fuel, Horses are ultimately superior and they may even be needed one day.

2. The Four Horses of the Apocalypse

So let's say that you manage to develop a common and replenishing fuel for cars and you have a car paradise. Well, that'll all come crashing down the second some hostile nation uses an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) generating weapon, which would eliminate the effectiveness of almost all technology, including cars.
You may scoff and say, "That is an utterly ridiculous thought! EMPs my left foot!" Well, actually, such a thing is possible with current levels of technology.
In fact, there are even internet sources that'll tell you how to make one.
Besides that, there's such thing as a Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse.
Guess what: North Korea hates us and they have a nuclear program now.
So, if the cars fail because of an EMP, then it's either horses, bikes, or walking. Other than that I don't know of any additional methods of transportation in this situation. Horses, if properly trained, are the best out of these three options, as:
A. They go faster than a person can walk or run (unless perhaps you're Usain Bolt)
B. A bike can get stuck in the mud. Also, it's difficult to use a bike going uphill.

3. Horse Paths
Horse Paths can be made out of dirt, in contrast to Asphalt roads for vehicles. Making a dirt road isn't all that difficult. Also, they can run through the woods, providing a more scenic route.

4. Horses and Popular Sentiment
Here's the way it is: people usually like horses. Movies for young prepubescent girls are made about horses. A TV Show about cartoon ponies is quite popular among young girls and gay men of all ages.

5. Poop is Good
Horse manure can be used for various purposes.

6. Danger of Horses is not as Severe as Danger of Cars
Average Weight of a Horse:
1500-2000 at most
Average Weight of a Car:
A lot more than a horse.
It's reasonable to conclude that if a horse and a car collided, the car would not be as badly hurt as the car.
Also, while horses misbehave at times, cars malfunction while you're driving them and sometimes they'll set on fire and even explode!

7. Horses are Cheaper than Cars
Average Price of a Horse:
If it's not a racehorse or a thoroughbred horse, about 300 dollars or so. Counting things like the Saddles, around 2000-3000 dollars, I'd guess.
Average Price of a Car:
About 30,000 dollars for a new car.

Conclusion: Hopefully I have shown that horses could still have use in today's United States for practical purposes. I await my opponent's response.


Thank you for posting your argument so quickly. As you have brought up cars, I will begin with these points.

I'd like to start by quickly clarifying that "Peak Oil" does not refer to when oil runs out, but when oil will begin to diminish. As there are ongoing debates about whether this has already occurred, and if not when it will occur, we can assume it will be relatively soon, and we will need an alternative to petrol.

Although an alternative is needed, there are better options than horses. For instance, all-electric vehicles like the ones currently being produced, which will only get better with technological advances. Currently, the best selling cars in the United States are midsized sedans, one of the most popular examples of which is the Toyota Camry.

When you compare the performance, MPG, and operating cost of the Camry to the best-selling all-electric vehicle, the mid-sized Nissan Leaf, you see numbers that favor the Leaf in several categories. First, the starting price of the Camry and Leaf are just a few hundred dollars apart. Second, the MPG of the Leaf is far superior to that of the Camry, with 126 city, 101 highway, compared to 25 city, 35 highway. Annual fuel cost for the Leaf is approximately $550, as opposed to the Camry's $2000 a year. My opponent mentioned the top speed of a horse at about 25 mph, and clearly the Leaf can go much faster, up to about 93 mph.

My opponent also mentioned EMPs rendering any type of cars useless, however the chance of an EMP being used is far less than the chance of a severe drought, during which grass and food for horses would be severely limited.

I'll now move on to briefly discuss allergies to horses. According to the Allergy and Asthma Association of America, 15% to 30% of Americans are allergic to animals, and according to Everyday Health, horses are the third worst animals to cause allergies.

In addition to the slower speed of horses, horses also do not provide protection from weather, and riding and raising them requires extensive training and skill, unlike driving.

My opponent mentioned that additional paths would need to be created for horses, to allow for the continued use of cars, but doing so would cost tax payer money, and those that do not know how to ride horses, and certainly those allergic to them, might not be willing to pay these.

Finally, I'm going to bring up animal cruelty. Currently, one of the most well-known uses of horses in the United States is horse-drawn carriages in major cities such as New York. In recent years, more and more people have chosen to stop supporting these, and it is likely that they would be an integral part of transportation for those that are not familiar with riding horses, should they be used more. Due to long working periods, hot temperatures, painful concrete, and heavy loads, many horses have died in New York City, and many handlers have been convicted of animal cruelty.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for clearing up the definition of "Peak Oil". However, the scenario that I mentioned (with the oil running out) will eventually happen, as my opponent has admitted. As I suspected he would, he suggested alternatives to fossil fuels as a good substitute to them. I thought that I got them all (aside from the theoretical ones like Hydrogen or saltwater). I thank my opponent for bringing up another source of energy: electricity.
He mentioned electricity-powered cars, many of which are commercially available and fairly cheap.
But here's where his argument falls short: electricity needs to be generated by something else.
According to these statistics, the large percentage of electricity in the United States is supplied by non-renewable energy sources, such as natural gas and other fossil fuels. Only a small percentage of electricity is produced by renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind power, and solar power.
So really, if the fossil fuels run out, electricity will run out in a lot of places too.

My opponent mentions the fact that a drought (which could kill horses) is much more likely than an EMP Attack (which would wipe out cars). I admit that this is true.
HOWEVER, a drought that covers the entire United States would be needed to wipe out all horses. And even then, if Americans were not all killed off by the drought, then they could share the water with horses. However, also considering that there are underwater sources of water which we have the technology and resources to access, this wouldn't be much of a problem anyway.
Let's contrast an EMP and its widespread effect on vehicles. Perhaps 3 or 4 EMPs (or less) being used on the United States could incapacitate the entire nation, excluding certain military devices that are designed to withstand such attacks.
Interestingly, this article also mentions geomagnetic storms being capable of having the same effect. Such a (minor) storm happened in 1989, leaving 6 million Americans and Canadians without power for 12 hours. A considerably bigger storm like this one could completely wipe out power for millions of Americans.

Then, my opponent mentions allergies to horses.
This is true; not everyone can ride a horse. But I didn't say that everyone should ride horses. I'm saying that they should be used as a backup, for a small percentage of the population until disaster hits (then they'll be used on a larger scale).
However, since you brought the subject up...
Some cars have leather seats.
Many cars are made out of plastic.
Sometimes that "New Car Smell" can be deadly.

My opponent turns proceeds to bring up the fact that horses do not provide shelter from the rain.
I will just say this: getting a little wet or being outside in fairly high temperatures usually won't kill you. It'll provide discomfort, but if it actually does provide a health hazard, you can just get back inside your car.

As stated before, horse paths would actually be quite cheap to make. I live near a woods and I can make a small dirt path in those woods by kicking straw to the sides and uprooting some small plants. It's easy, really (or at least compared to building an asphalt road).

Finally, animal cruelty:
A. A path in the woods will likely be shaded.
B. Horses walk on concrete during parades, so they can withstand walking on it to an extent.
C. The horse paths would be in the woods anyway.
D. There are horses that are bred for carrying heavy loads.
Or, you can use a mule for that.
E. Most of these places where horses are used would be away from big cities like New York.

Oh, and here's another thing about horses which I forgot to mention last time: They are environmentally friendly.
No sources needed to back up that claim.


Currently, electricity in the United States is mainly generated by coal and natural gas. First, I should mention that coal is not oil, but even leaving this out of the equation, nuclear power and renewable energy sources add up to 32% of energy sources, only a little behind coal.

As this percentage is only getting larger, and coal will not run out at the same time as oil, the chance of America losing power is slim.

Although my opponent was correct in stating that a drought that covers the entire country to kill all horses would be unlikely, this does not mean that a large number of horses won't be killed in a smaller drought, and the cost of transporting horses from unaffected areas makes that also unlikely. My opponent mentioned that humans could share water with horses to keep them from dying, however if there was only enough water to sustain one life, most humans would not choose the horse. Finally, my opponent mentioned that the chance of a major drought is unlikely thanks to underwater sources of water, but if this were the case, the extreme water shortages in California like the one mentioned in the article would not occur.

While an EMP such as a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere would be crippling to some of the United States, the chance of one being successfully used is unlikely. The most likely type of EMP would come from a nuclear bomb of missile, something that could be detected early, and shot down by the National Missile Defense program.

Large geomagnetic storms are very unlikely, and the only one that would post a severe problem to modern civilization occurred in 1859.

In response to my point about allergies to horses, my opponent said "I didn't say that everyone should ride horses. I'm saying that they should be used as a backup, for a small percentage of the population until disaster hits," however using horses as a backup does not go along with horses being widely used. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of widely is, "to a great extent : a lot," or, "by a large number of people."

It would not be possible to suddenly "produce more horses" after cars are rendered inoperative, and having that many horses just as a backup is not feasible.

Although some people are allergic to leather and plastic, there are plenty of options for the small percentage of people that are allergic to these materials when purchasing a car, unlike horses.

My opponent was obviously correct in stating that getting wet while riding a horse will not cause health problems, but it would not be comfortable, and in such a developed country, most people will not want to ride a horse if they will get wet.

In response to my opponent's points about animal cruelty, paths will not always be in the woods, as there are not woods everywhere, horses routinely walk on concrete, but this does not mean it's good for them, horses might be bred for carrying heavy loads but the provided evidence does not support that claim, and mules do not fall under the definition pro provided at the beginning of this debate.

Finally, while horses are clearly environmentally friendly, so are electric cars.
Debate Round No. 3


Here are two things to take into consideration about nuclear power:
1. Nuclear Power is not renewable energy.
2. A nuclear reactor meltdown, as has happened multiple times during the Nuclear Age, can be devastating to an effected environment.

Conclusion: nuclear power isn't a good source of electricity, nor is it sustainable.

With coal, natural gas, and nuclear power (which according to my opponent's provided source provides more than 80% of power in the U.S.) ultimately destined to fail, the other sources of power simply won't be able to provide for the whole nation. Pre-Industrial sources of power and transportation (including horses) may have to be brought back.

Now, let us see what the worst drought in U.S. history was.
And it was...probably the Dust Bowl, an environmental disaster of the 1930s. 7000 people died.
Now, back then in the 1930s they weren't as well equipped for fighting drought as we are today. So it'd make sense that if a drought of such a large scale was repeated in the United States today, very few people, or horses for that matter, would die of starvation or thirst.
ACTUALLY, this talk of drought and famine helps my case, because desperate people can eat their horses in order to survive. It's happened many times in history. Consumption of horses is actually pretty common in some nations. In fact, here's a website dedicated to eating horses:

My opponent (probably) debunked the idea of a nuclear EMP attack. But non-nuclear EM Pulse Weapons can be made by anyone who learns how, as one of my earlier sources has shown.

Then, my opponent made the claim that horses serving as a "backup" is inconsistent with the debate resolution that horses should be used widely.
Well, consider it. If 3% of the population used horses, that'd still be over 9 million people, meaning that horses would still be used "widely". Also, oil prices are already high enough that we can find ways to use horses for commercial purposes. I mean, they can ride in the grass and drink from whatever lake you find, or perhaps "pitstops" for horses can be set up along their established routes, providing food and water for horses. Already they have the potential for being used commercially and widely. And in 5 years oil prices will be higher, making the use of horses even more appealing.

Horses cannot be mass-produced instantly. That's why we need to start now.
And actually, people can develop immunity to allergies to horses.

Also, riding on a horse provides a sense of oneness with nature and a joy that doesn't come from riding a car. No source needed.

Then, my opponent said that riding horses can be uncomfortable. I will just say this: Americans are too comfortable anyway.

As for areas where there are no woods, dirt paths can still be made and hay can be brought with you on your trip, as can water. But anyhow, I admit that there are places where horses cannot be used effectively. But that shouldn't negate their potential in areas that are ideal for their use.

Finally, the environment friendliness of electric cars is overhyped. Besides the fact that their power comes from polluting power plants, Electric Car batteries produce Sulfur Dioxide.
Sulfur Dioxide is harmful.

"Solar cells" in Electric Cars produce Sulfur Hexafluoride, which has 23,000 times as much global warming potential as CO2.
Consider this argument a reason why solar power cannot be used in Electric cars, and why solar power is just plain bad.

Therefore, all this being said, one can rationally only come to this conclusion:
1. There are no viable substitute power sources out there that are currently known/utilized.
2. Electric Car are not the solution to the downfall of vehicles by means of depletion of their fuels.
3. Horses are not as bad an idea as people think, and they come with many benefits as well.

Vote for Pro! Thank you and have a good night.


Calling nuclear power "not a good source of energy," is rather ridiculous. Not only is nuclear power a more environmentally friendly solution, despite not being renewable, which I did not claim it to be, but the chance of a major meltdown is not likely. While it has occurred in the past, three times to be exact, safety has improved, and as long as profits are not prioritized, a disaster will not happen.

Nuclear energy is a safe, environmentally friendly, and efficient,

My opponent mentioned that in case of a drought horses could be eaten, however not only is the thought of eating horses unappealing to many Americans, but the slaughter of horses has just been banned again in the United States! The website my opponent has provided is simply not correct.

Not only is the chance of an EMP reaching the US unlikely, but making them requires a high level of skill and a considerable budget. Sure, anyone can make a device that emits the same pulse, but not at the level that will disable sophisticated electronic equipment.

Calling Americans "too comfortable anyway," is an arbitrary statement, and while it is true that Americans are very overweight and "comfortable," this only damages your case, as it will be difficult to convince Americans to ride horses.

My opponent went on to suggest that solar cells produce Sulfur Hexafluoride, however solar power is not used in electric cars. I'm rather confused as to where my opponent got this idea from.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to show adequate evidence for horses being widely used in the United States. Although he has suggested several uses for horses, he has not been able to defend them, and his points regarding alternatives, such as electric cars, were not valid. For these reasons, I hope you vote con.

Thank you to my opponent for a fun debate, and thank you to the readers and voters.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
I don't. In rural parts of the country, I think there's a benefit, but horses are often widely used in those areas. In cities and suburbs, the infrastructure just isn't there, and it would require a dramatic change to implement such a large shift. Though, again, it's hard to tell what exactly you're proposing here. The shift could be smaller than I perceive it.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 7 years ago
Thank you for the extremely long RFD.
Personally, though, do you think it's a good idea?
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
No problem.
Posted by ldow2000 7 years ago
Thank you for a well though out and detailed RFD, whiteflame.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago

A few notes before I launch in.

To both debaters, a link is not a substitute for warrants. Pro was more guilty of this than Con, I'll just use one example from each of you. "Nuclear Power is not renewable energy." Much as it's true, this statement stands without warrants from Pro's R4, and is simply followed on with three links. While I'm sure those links afford you the evidence you need to affirm that point, you need to actually provide the basis for it in your own words, or at the very least quote a section out of one of these that starts to explain why this is a problem.

Meanwhile, from Con, "while horses are clearly environmentally friendly, so are electric cars." It's not hard to warrant that statement, and it seems like you had plenty of room to do so. Yet all I see after it is a single link.

The reason I mention this is that you're letting the articles do the arguing for you. Not only is that lazy, but it also extends the word limit of your arguments beyond what's provided for each round, and thus you could run into some issues with conduct if you do this regularly. Beyond that, I don't much like the scattershot approach both of you bring to citing. It doesn't help to cite a multitude of articles all saying basically the same thing, especially when many of those aticles (,, various blogs and wiki.answers) aren't helpful sources of information anyway. I can't remember ever saying this before, but tone it down on the citations. Focus on picking quality articles to cite and use those alone. The other links just waste time and damage the credibility of your points.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
Aside from that, Pro needs to be careful of new rebuttals to old points in the final round. The arguments about the batteries of electric cars and solar cells releasing certain harmful gasses is true, but it comes up far too late to be counted as part of the debate, and it's not a response to anything stated by Con in the previous round.

So let's look through the arguments. This debate was a little aggravating from the outset, mainly because I see the first arguments being made by Pro as entirely defensive (so not establishing a positive case until well into his first round), not to mention actively presenting possible harms, few of which Con decides to actually run with. I'm sure Pro was trying to preempt these arguments, but looking through his first round, he does an incomplete job of it, and leaves a number of holes that Con could easily have exploited, particularly on the danger issue (he's essentially assuming that everyone's going to be a well-trained rider), the defecation problem (not everyone is going to have a garden to fertilize), and breeding issues (are there even enough horses to go around right now? How long would it take to reach that point? Wouldn't the expense of acquiring a horse increase? How about the expense of housing and feeding that horse?). There were a number of issues that were left out as well, like the basic problem of shoeing each of these horses, of ensuring their proper care (the cruelty issue was massively understated and actually has more to do with neglect than anything else), and a number of other general cost issues.

So what was discussed?
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
1) Fuel

This probably got the most back and forth, though I'm surprised that fuel costs for keeping horses alive was basically tossed aside in favor of water demands. Given that, I'm led to believe that feeding horses is an easy thing that won't require tremendous input, but that cars will. I'm again surprised that the issue of transition to electric vehicles is never explored (the costs of acquisition would skyrocket if demand ballooned as Con suggests, not to mention there's not enough charging stations anywhere for such an undertaking), but rather the focus seems to be on basic availability of fossil fuels. I think it's rather difficult to show how long it will take to run out of fossil fuels, especially following such a transition. Pro never really shows that we're on the verge of running out of coal, which is the prime resource by which electricity is generated. He could have argued that pollution is a big problem, but I don't see any impacts to that argument being stated (no climate change points, no air or water quality issues), so that's not what is at issue. Instead, the focus seems to be on whether or not nuclear energy will suffice, but while I see many of Pro's points about the dangers inherent to that, it doesn't really matter, since I don't see much harm at all to using coal. So Con wins this point, but realistically it's more of a tie, since I don't see a reason why horses or cars are better in this department.

2) Shutdown

This is probably the weirder of the points made. Yes, an EMP attack is possible, but I don't think Pro ever proved it to be probable. Con establishes that droughts are far more likely, though perhaps not as deadly. The extremely low likelihood has me weighing this argument poorly, and the low impact of drought as that pretty low on my list as well. This is essentially a wash.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
3) Horse paths

I'm just not seeing a major harm here. Con keeps talking about costs and people not liking them, but never impacts that out for me to explain why I should care within the context of this debate. I buy that dirt roads are simple enough to make, but I also think it's most likely that horses are going to be ridden on major roads if they are more widely used. Hence an argument about the need for shoeing would have done very well here, but I don't see it. So it's a non-issue.

4) Popular sentiment

This is never argued all that well to begin with. If people want horses, they'll acquire them now. If they don't, they won't. Whether they like them or not isn't supporting the "should" in this resolution.

5) Poop

Con never argues this, so it's a win for Pro.

6) Dangers

Con never argues this either, much to my surprise. Another win for Pro.

7) Cheaper

I can't believe this went unaddressed, but it does. It goes to Pro.

8) Allergies

As he's not forcing everyone to use horses, I don't know how much of an issue this is. I buy that there might be some small increase in allergies just from their general presence, but that's not much of an impact. This is basically a wash.

9) Creature comforts

Again, I'm not sure how much this matters. People won't like riding them on certain days in certain weather so... they won't? That doesn't mean that the horses won't be owned, it just means that they won't be used all days of the year. I agree with Con that what Pro meant by "widely used" isn't clear by the end of the debate, but what's clear enough is that it doesn't require constant usage in order to meet his burden. So while this might decrease incentive, it's not a lot of harm to Pro's case.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
10) Slower

I'm really just surprised this wasn't an issue. It's one of the arguments Pro brought up in R2 that just never got argued much. He mentioned that he's not replacing cars, yet talks about how we have to make a transition. He says that they would solely be used as a backup, and yet says they should be ridden widely now. It's a confusing case, and I think this is the point where it could have been brought to bear. If Con had talked about the near certain economic slump that would accompany such a change or how long distance travelers would be at a dramatic disadvantage, this might have been huge. But it doesn't get covered, so I move on.

11) Animal cruelty

To be honest, I thought this was Con's strongest point, and his sole piece of offense in the debate that actually had weight behind it. Sadly, it's only partially explained in R2, and even that piece drops out of the debate in the following round. I think there are a lot of good arguments to be had about how untrained and inexperienced people might treat their animals. I think there are a lot of good points about how the lack of infrastructure for dealing with a large influx of these animals into cities would also cause them undue pain and suffering. Many people don't have a backyard " where are they going to tether these animals? Stables will be dramatically overburdened, and even if not, the cost of sending them to stables will be tremendous as demand increases. Most people won't be able to afford that.

But this argument largely goes away, and I think that's the defining point where Pro takes this debate. Much as both he and Con made a number of points that could have destroyed their chances at winning this, Con simply didn't take the opportunities presented and often let his best points drop out of the debate. Hence, while it's only based on a few dropped points that are only explained in R2, I vote Pro.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 7 years ago
Yeah, I originally thought that solar batteries were used in electric cars. When I realized that they weren't, I realized that I would have a difficult time moving the text to the above part of my argument, so I just left it there.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 7 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.

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