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

There should be a government regulated service dog registry

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 618 times Debate No: 103822
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




First off, I will describe how such a system would work.

*The handler must show proof of some kind of disability or substantial mental illness.
*The dog must pass a basic public access test (High distraction environment, must show no aggression, be able to ignore food, people, other dogs, and remain in the handler's control)

I am currently in the midst of training an autism assistance dog for myself, and having an official registry would make it less likely people would assume Asher a fake service dog, and would make it easier to spot and prosecute fake dogs and handlers.


First of all, I"d like to thank Arganger for making this debate.

As the pro side is proposing change to the status quo, I believe that the burden of proof on such a system proposed will be only on the Pro. As Con, I support the status quo. Therefore, if I can prove either his model causes more inconvenience or negative things for the people in need of service dogs, then I shall win.

Now I"d like to point out a few things that doesn"t make sense in Pro"s ideal system:

1.) In the status quo, the majority of citizens who get service dogs need them for whatever reason. So why is a test needed to show that they are disabled? This just adds inconvenience for the person since he/she already has a lot of burden dealing with his/her burdens.

2.) Pro has also stated that dogs must pass a basic health assessment test. People aren"t idiots. When somebody needs a service dog or a household pet, they"re inclined in societies like the U.S to check the health of the pet they"re considering to buy. Therefore, adding another test is both redundant and inconvenient for the person.

Furthermore, the bedrock goal that Pro aims to provide are for the most part, already fully existent in the status quo. All dogs that are legally licensed to serve as service dogs or pets are required a licence by law (the licence includes things like health condition of the dog).

For all the above reasons I strongly disagree and is proud to affirm the Con side. As both the model that the Pro is proposing is very similar to the status quo and I have proved why the model simply isn"t needed.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to mention that I am referring to US laws, so if you are referring to the laws of a different nation you need to switch focus.

America has no form of registry for service dogs, under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) a service animals is defined as, dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.

No kind of registration is required, and no proof of the animals abilities or owners disabilities unless taken to a court of law. Read about it here:

Proof of disability can be as little as a note from a doctor or physiatrist.

I said nothing of a health assessment, as that would put unnecessary pressure on teams with adopted dogs in particular. I desire an assessment of the dogs ability to work under stress, with basic access.

There is no registry in the us of any kind, for the most part it's a trust system unless challenged. I am proposing a basic test to gain an ID that shows the dog fit to work, in the same way you would get a handicap parking permit, or a drivers licence.


Starting with a few rebuttals:

Even according to US laws, any dog is brought under as a pet, service dog or whatever people need dogs for, needs a basic licence. The licence is essentially just a dog licence where the dog"s health and other areas are tested.

What Pro is essentially stating this idea of a new licence that "dogs must be under control". He has rebutted to nothing about what I said on my 1st point and just stated his opening remarks again. Nevertheless, even if I take him at his best: The system he"s proposing is the Status Quo. Even according to his own source(1) that he stated in his previous argument, it states "Service animals must be under control" and things like "All service animals must be leashes, threatened".. e.t.c". This is literally evidence that goes against him

On a more personal level of the problem he is stating. Nothing has been rebutted to the inconveniences or what humans do in the status quo. Therefore, his thought of and reasoning of getting a licence simply fails to prove so. Furthermore, if the change he is proposing both doesn"t add benefits to the status quo and adds inconvenience for many people, then his claims just simply supports my framework.

Now onto some arguments:

Pro has centred around this idea that: the ID system he"s proposing is "better" somehow. However, he has used no evidence what soever that getting these licences will benefit the life of the disabled person.

Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of service dogs. If pro is proposing such a change for new licence things, it needs to prove that these lessons are necessary as I"ve clearly proved that it can create more burdens for citizens in need of these service dogs.

Anyways, with that said that there are a lot of service dogs. If people want a new service dog or are considering to get a service dog, they will choose a dog that fits their needs. Therefore, people already can choose service dogs for themselves with good success at bonding of the dog. So "unqualified" service dogs don"t cause a hassle and there haven"t been any huge proportional complaints that such a system is needed.

Furthermore, Pro has stated in round one quote: "I am currently in the midst of training an autism assistance dog for myself" so why do you need a license from a government to prove that it"s a service dog? Even in the status quo, and according to the source you provided source(1), employees at places where people bring their service dogs have universally agreed that a service dog is authentic.

With all of that said, I hope the con side has proven clearly to you why I system simple isn"t needed. Therefore, I"m proud to stand con.

Debate Round No. 2


The licence you are talking about is a simple pet licence that apples to all dogs and is not at all what I am talking about.

A licence proving a service dog to be Legitimate would prevent service dogs from being refused access, especially for people with disabilities that are not as obvious, some examples of not as obvious would include: PTSD, Diabetic alert, TBI, Autism, hearing, some mobility dogs. I am not for the most part talking about in a place of work, but rather in any areas needing access, like a movie or a grocery store.

I am a girl.

Faked service dogs, are currently a big problem throughout the us, an ID system for service dogs would prevent businesses from mistaking actual service dogs from these fakes, and there for keep real teams from being refused, making going out into public at all far easier.

You will find with even a quick lookup that the vast majority of teams want some kind of ID system do to the excess of fakes that harm there independence.

One of the main reasons an ID is so important is because currently there is no way to prove if a service dog is legitimate or not, meaning businesses are left guessing and teams pay the price, being turned away.

Though it is illegal to turn away a service dog team, it does still happen all the time. It is a huge nuisance for teams everywhere.


Starting off with a brief clarification:

Yes, I"m talking about the pet licence. The point I"m simply trying to make is that health is not a concern for dogs, and your licence and proposition won"t add health benefits.

Now onto some rebuttals:

For the past 2 rounds (where we had arguments) the only problem that still stands that pro is proposing is that "service dogs" get rejected too often. (Since every other point provides no evidence and has been rebutted). Anyways, the pro side also admitted that it is abiding with the law for employees to recognize a service dog.

These are a few reasons why his last arguments simply don"t stand:

1.) if your only problem (I mentioned earlier) with the status quo is an illegal action for somebody to reject service dogs. Then I have already won this debate. People doing illegal actions that causes problems, is not the focus, as

i) there"s few of them (the people who violate this)

ii) proportionally with the hundreds of service dogs Pro has failed to prove that this is even an issue proportionally

Even if I take you at your best, making it clear to these public corporations which are usually owned by large corporations, like a governmental welfare station or the target down the street. So fourth, it is much easier for a universal statement solving this solution to be passed through that then what Pro is proposing.

Now onto my case:

As the debate is coming to an end, it"s important to analyse the clashes and who will provide a better world. Let"s start with Pro

Pro"s alternative to the status quo is a system that causes burdens and extra hassle for citizens, this will happen because Pro has failed to provide "why" it won"t happen or responded to that argument.

The main focus of this debate is service dogs. And I (con) believe that since service dogs stand to serve mainly physically disabled people, it is important not to cause more hassles on people who already have enough burdens.

So fourth, since Pro has no framework, I"ll use my own for measures.

My framework simply states: if I can prove either his model causes more inconvenience or negative things for the people in need of service dogs, then I shall win.

Hence, I"ve successfully proven so with my first round and previous argument, and Pro failed to respond.

All in all, I"ve clearly proved my framework to stand, and backed it up with arguments. The question of the debate is the benefits Pro is stating to negative effects and the status quo. Pro has stated no benefits for the main stakeholder what so ever: The Person who uses the service dog. As I"ve clearly proved this system he"s proposing gives no benefits to the status quo and even causes extra burdens for the main stakeholder.

And for all the following reasons stated above, I"ve clearly proved why Con shall win this debate

Therefore, I"m proud to stand Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Arganger 2 years ago
@What50 Yes, but you are required no proof of training or disability which is why fake service dogs are such a big problem.
Posted by What50 2 years ago
Don't your dog have to be trained to be a service dog?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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