Instigator / Pro
7
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2793

On Balance it Would be Beneficial to Society and Animals if no Personal Pet Ownership Existed

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1706
rating
561
debates
68.09%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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).