On Balance it Would be Beneficial to Society and Animals if no Personal Pet Ownership Existed
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
A much harder version of my pet ownership debate.
Personal pet ownership: adopted by an individual, rather than an organization, conservation, zoo, etc.
Burden of proof is shared. I will argue that if no individual ever owned pets, or can own pets, or will own pets, that it is still more beneficial than detrimental than our current world. For the sake of society and animals.
While I agree with con's conclusion and admire his very concise R1, the R2 forfeiture sealed the debate.
This seems intended to have been an interesting all or nothing debate, in which the damage suffered by certain animals is compared to the benefits received by others. The single contention con offers is there would be a harm to current ones if they were suddenly cast out, whereas pro has gone into exacting detail about the harms currently in place suffered by others.
So pro argues dangers to us and toward exotic animals. He further uses a legal website to defend his case as not a red herring (that the animals in question, do qualify as pets... on sources, this is a key one, but it's like 11 to zero, with no engagement on this level from con).