Instigator / Con
7
1498
rating
5
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Pitbulls should be banned in the entire United States

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
0
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
0

With 1 vote and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

TheUnderdog
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Pro
1
1411
rating
32
debates
23.44%
won
Description
~ 98 / 5,000

Rules:

1) I waive the first round and my opponent waives the last round.
2) No ad hommin attacks.

Round 1
Con
Per the big girl rules of this debate, I waive this round.
Pro
I just realized this debate was unrated. I ask that the underdog resends me an appropriately rated debate and does not attempt this trickery again. 
Round 2
Con
I just realized this debate was unrated. I ask that the underdog resends me an appropriately rated debate and does not attempt this trickery again. 

I do not have the courage to do a rated debate with anybody I think is going to respond.  Moreover, I am going to post my case for the legalization of pitbulls.

Contention 1: Freedom of choice

Some people don't like pitbulls.  Some people don't like dogs in general.  I personally never want a dog.  For these individuals, them not getting a pitbull is their right. 

However, some people enjoy the company of pitbulls.  These people should be allowed to get pitbulls as it is a right protected by the Declaration of independence which protects the people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (1).  Banning pitbulls goes against the declaration of independence's pursuit to form a more perfect union and to give people the right to the liberty to own pitbulls and the pursuit of happiness of owning a pitbull.

Contention 2: The Burden of Proof

The burden of proof rests upon those advocating for authority because everything and every action should be legal unless there is good reason for that thing or action to not be legal.  The burden of proof isn't upon me to prove that something should be legal, but the burden of proof rests upon those advocating for the prohibition or mandatorization of a status such as owning a pitbull  Since my opponent is advocating for authority, he needs to present the burden of proof as to why pitbulls should be banned.  He has had 1 round to do this and he has not presented his burden of proof as to why pitbulls should be banned.  If my opponent wishes to ban pitbulls, he needs to state why which he has yet to do.

Contention 3: Punishing people who own dogs

My opponent has yet to state a punishment and why this punishment would be imposed for having a pitbull.

Contention 4: Economic benefits

Millions of dollars a year are made worldwide through the selling of pitbulls.  By banning them, you cause part of an entire industry to lose it's revenue.  This causes less money, less capitalism, this causes people to lose their jobs.

Contention 5: The 10th amendment

The goalposts for this debate is, "Pitbulls should be banned in the entire United States".  This not only goes against the declaration of independence, but it violates the 10th amendment as well, which allows for states to make their own policies(2).  Pro has to prove that we should disregard the 10th amendment and implement a federal law that bans pitbulls.

Contention 6: The lack of places that have tried this policy and succeeded.

Unless Pro cites an example of a place that has banned pitbulls, I think it is safe to assume that they are legal to own everywhere.

Conclusion:

With the burden of proof being on my opponent (a BoP that he has yet to fulfill), a punishment request that my opponent has yet to state with a justification, the economic benefits that pitbulls bring to the economy from dog selling and pet food, and Pro's proposal would restrict people's inherit right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I fail to see why the entire US should ban pitbulls.  This is a violation of the 10th amendment and this idea has yet to be implemented anywhere in the world to the best of my knowledge.  Henceforth, we ought to keep pitbulls legal to own.

Sources:

Pro
Pitbulls are responsible for the majority of dog attack deaths in the United States. Banning the would literally save the lives of hundreds of people a year. If you want a better argument, make the debate rated
Round 3
Con
Pitbulls are responsible for the majority of dog attack deaths in the United States. Banning the would literally save the lives of hundreds of people a year. If you want a better argument, make the debate rated
While doing the research, (1) states that in 13 years, pitbulls killed only 284 people.  This is roughly 20 deaths per year.  For reference, the average number of annual deaths from lightning in the US from 2009 to 2018 is 27 deaths per year on average.  Unless you never leave the house because of a fear of being striked by lightning, you shouldn't be scared of dying from a pitbull.  If your so scared of dying from pitbulls that you advocate for them being banned, this would be like saying that everyone should wear an anti lightning hat and suit everywhere they go in order to prevent people from dying of lightning strikes. 

Here is a video about why just because an idea would save some people, this doesn't mean it should be a law if people's freedoms get violated too much.


Your claiming that we should ban pitbulls because such a policy would save 20 lives a year.  Yet 27 Americans die a year from lightning, over 30000 Americans die a year from car accidents (3), 95000 Americans a year die from alcohol consumption (4), and 9 million people a year die of starvation worldwide (5).  Unless Pro is in favor of not only mandating anti lightning suits and hats, but unless Pro is also against car legalization, wants to ban alcohol, and unless Pro wants to force every home to take care of a starving 3rd worlder so they don't die of starvation, I would argue that the freedom of hundreds of millions of Americans to own pitbulls outweighs the 20 pitbull deaths that happen each year.  Freedom is a trade off.  If Pro disagrees with this, his profile says he is libetarian, so he should change his profile ideology to something else.

Also something else I would like to point out:

There are around 4.5 million pitbulls in the US (6)).  If pitbulls are only responsible for 20 deaths a year, this means that the homicide rate for pitbulls is roughly .44 per 100,000.  For reference, the homicide rate for US humans is about 5 per 100,000(7).  Unless you propose making it illegal for everybody to reproduce because the person they reproduce might be a murderer (I know you don't believe this as you claimed in a recent post that you oppose forced sterilization)(8, post 49), it should seem that even though some people die from the freedom to do something, freedom is often a trade off that has to be considered.  If we aren't going to make it illegal for every living person to reproduce on the grounds that their kid might grow up to be a murderer, we shouldn't ban pitbulls when they have a roughly 10% chance of killing someone as an American.

Sources:
Pro
he offered new arguments in the final round, please support my policy that would save lives and vote against my opponent who is okay with 20 kids dying a year, and award me conduct because of his new arguments in the final round shenanigans