The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should dog and cat owners have a payed license required, and a record check for the owner?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DebateMaster706 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 452 times Debate No: 102053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




We are in a day where dogs and cats should have a license. First of all, dogs can be trained to be a weapon, this opens opportunities for enemies. Another reason is cats, cats can also be trained, they just lack motivation to be easily trained. Dogs and Cats can be used any many other ways to. Including, tracking, covering tracks, disguises, and distractions. This could lower crime activity and make us live safer. This provides people with a clean record to have protection, punishing the people who have done bad. This could protect your house even more having the enemy -1 weapon. Dogs can be used as weapons, therefore are weapons and need a license.n


The dominant problem to your argument is that literally anything can be used as a weapon. Unless you will next propose that I need a license to breathe in oxygen from the atmosphere, or be required to show my permit when I purchase a new pair of boots at the newest shoe store.
Requiring a license to own a dog or cat will also not give a significant reduction to the number of crimes that happen with dogs or cats, for 2 major reasons:
1) There are hardly any crimes already committed with the assistance of dogs or cats
2) People can still commit crimes with a license. A person having enough money to purchase a license does not make them free of committing crime.
The purpose of a record check in this situation is pointless, as in the majority of the states in the U.S. already perform record checks on those who purchase an animal.

Another situation you seem to misunderstand is that dogs are typically used for the people's benefit, rather than their harm. The only dogs that I've ever heard used as weapons are: K-9 Police Dogs, Airport Employed Dogs (for bomb detection), Border Patrol Dogs, and dogs used to search school lockers.
In the articles I've read for this debate, I've only heard positive stories about dogs. I have yet to read one situation in which a dog was used for criminal purposes.

I would also like to request clarification on your statement: "This could protect your house even more having the enemy -1 weapon." By my understanding of the previous statement, you are saying that by requiring licenses on dogs, you are taking a weapon away from home intruders. If I have the correct understanding of the statement, please present an example of a case in which a criminal has intruded someone's home with the help of a dog.

Overall, the opposing argument is irrelevant, because you seem to be attacking arguments that don't exist. Until you can prove that dogs are used for harm and should require a mandatory license and background check, your argument is baseless.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jammie 2 years ago
Pretty much any tool that can be picked up from a hardware store could be viewed as a weapon, should be have to have a licence for those as well?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.