If you can only save one from a dangerous fire, a famous painting is preferable to a cat
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Premise: There is a fire in a museum with unknown causes. You MUST save one, a cat, or a famous painting. Whichever you decide, you are guaranteed to succeed, but the other will be completely destroyed/dead. You are unable to stop the fire. There is nothing else at stake, not other paintings, not other cats, not other people, except your own safety.
Famous: Well known, celebrated, renowned, many people visit this regularly
"You": A regular visitor of the museum
Cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractable claws. It is widely kept as a pet or for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.
Preferable: The benefits would outweigh the negatives, and the majority of the time you should do this
Unless con can prove a cat has cultural, artistic, and economic value more than the famous painting, he loses the debate.
Con contradicts himself here. Our museum famous paintings is a way to preserve our culture even if we go extinct, perhaps future intelligent beings can discover them, if they re-evolve on earth.
yet, we hunt animals very often. We pollute the air and have little care for other animals. We keep them in zoos and constrict their freedom. There are many contradictions to con's argument.
Compared to a stranger, the dogs become more disturbed when their owners leave, and interact with them more when they return. By contrast, Mills' cat experiments — which are still ongoing and haven't yet been published, but were featured in a BBC special last year—haven't come to the same conclusion.
who is more likely to visit the museum? People who value cats above paintings? Or the other way around?
irrelevant. Cats are not endangered. If this was one of the last 100 cats in the world, perhaps it is worth saving, but otherwise
Inaction is not the same as murder. Con gives in to the slippery slope fallacy and assumes that ONE cat will destroy the ecosystem if you let it die.
if there was a dog in the fire, would he save it?
While the humanity extinct does seem like a bleak argument, keep in mind that while we survive, our heritage still lives on. Leonardo da Vinci is dead, but his future lives on.
Secondly, Con tries to assert again using the pets as a special value we hold
But 1/95.6 million cats is an incredibly small number, smaller than the chance of you struck by lightning, or getting in a car crash. Considering the fact that you can list 100 most expensive or influential paintings as my source gives ,but not 100 most valuable cats, it seems evident that paintings are far far more valued by humans than cats
but we STILL think about putting animals "out of their misery" by killing them even faster, like horses that we send to race. And consider THAT is actively killing them rather than inaction or even saving one of human's great culture values. He has not confirmed that humanitarian values outweigh monetary in the millions, culture impact of incredible nature, and inspirational legacy.
He has not established merely ONE animal burning to ashes causes the entire food chain to collapse. The fire death rate for humans are in the millions, yet the food chain has not been destroyed. This generalization fallacy is simply absurd.