#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Would you rather be respected or be a family pet
Respected = A women/man caring for you and trying to give you all your freedom and needs.
A Family pet = A family that neuter/spay you and gives you nothing more then just baby talk.
Respected
Side Score: 18
|
A family pet
Side Score: 17
|
|
There are lot's of things we don't do to humans. We don't let humans play all day. We don't guarantee shelter for humans. We don't guarantee food for humans. You can't compare the 2. Plus, humans can control their actions even with hormones. It wouldn't have the same effect. Side: A family pet
You can compare the two in a lot of ways and also it's not about controlling your sexual feelings it's about not having sexual feelings, so I say again why not neuter humans. And there are still a lot more reasons not wanting to be a family pet. And still it's there right that we are taking away just because we have the upper advantage. Also there are still a lot of humans that still can't control there actions when they have sexual feelings but we still don't neuter them. Side: Respected
You can compare the two in a lot of ways and also it's not about controlling your sexual feelings it's about not having sexual feelings, so I say again why not neuter humans. If I give you the answer, why ask again? And there are still a lot more reasons not wanting to be a family pet. And still it's there right that we are taking away just because we have the upper advantage. Well, with your definition, of course. You defined household pet as a horrible thing. Also there are still a lot of humans that still can't control there actions when they have sexual feelings but we still don't neuter them. People are their own masters. There are a lot of people we should do that too. Maybe in the future. Side: A family pet
Because you can compare and you said you can't. That is your opinion if you think being a family pet is a bad thing and I am just saying what is most likely to become of you if you want to be a family pet. I say we do it know because there are lots of homeless humans that are dying because they can't even eat and a lot of other reasons too. It's still there right of freedom and we are taking advantage of them. Side: Respected
That is your opinion if you think being a family pet is a bad thing and I am just saying what is most likely to become of you if you want to be a family pet. It isn't my opinion, you are the one who said being a family pet means you only get baby talk. I say we do it know because there are lots of homeless humans that are dying because they can't even eat and a lot of other reasons too. That's nice, but you don't make the rules. It's still there right of freedom and we are taking advantage of them. They don't have rights, they are animals. Rights are a human thing. Side: A family pet
What I put down is not my opinion. That's a lie. Provide a source if it isn't your opinion. No one defines pet as animal you only give baby talk to. The rules are being unfair. Yes, your rules are being unfair, that's why it is great that you aren't in charge. Even if it isn't there right the doing is still wrong. No, it isn't. Dogs have sex solely for procreation. Humans are the only animals that have sex for fun. Someone has to take care of the babies if dogs have sex. If you aren't willing to do that you can't ever let them have sex. So, neutering/spaying has nothing to do with it. Side: A family pet
People may not define it as that because they know it's true. My rules are fair for all and thats why I should be in charge. Yes, it is. Can you prove that because I say otherwise. And I was hoping you would think that I am not just talking sex with there own species also then you shouldn't put to dogs together if you did not want baby's. Also even if it is or isn't for procreation the matter is that it's still wrong. Side: Respected
People may not define it as that because they know it's true. Congratulations, this sentence makes absolutely no sense. My rules are fair for all and thats why I should be in charge. Except for the homeless you want to neuter. And I was hoping you would think that I am not just talking sex with there own species Who are they really supposed to have sex with? also then you shouldn't put to dogs together if you did not want baby's. Hey, you can't use my exact argument against me as if I didn't say it and try to claim it goes against my argument. If you aren't going to let the dog have babies, it doesn't matter if you neuter them or not, you aren't letting them have sex. Also even if it is or isn't for procreation the matter is that it's still wrong. You argued that not letting your dog have sex is wrong, but you just said it was ok to prevent your dog from having sex. Side: A family pet
I am sorry that you can't understand. I don't want to neuter anybody. Anyone that really cares about them. I can use anything against you just like you use anything against me. Animals can use condoms so they can have sex. I argued that neutering is wrong. I said find away to let them have sex but with out having a baby. Side: Respected
I am sorry that you can't understand. Yeah, I am sorry you can't reword it because it makes no sense. You said people don't define it that way because they know it is defined that way. Why would anyone define something the opposite of what they know because that's what they know. No one would do that. They would have to have a different reason. I don't want to neuter anybody. Make up your damn mind. You wanted to make a rule that allows the neutering of humans because there are homeless people. Anyone that really cares about them. I don't neuter my dog to avoid human sex. I can use anything against you just like you use anything against me. Animals can use condoms so they can have sex. No, you can't repeat exactly what I said and expect it to be an argument against me. If I say right now that animals can use condoms, therefore I am right, it wouldn't make sense because you just got through saying animals can use condoms supports your argument. I argued that neutering is wrong. I said find away to let them have sex but with out having a baby. I say you said not letting your dog have sex is wrong, then you respond with you should let your dog have sex. Side: A family pet
Ok yes this is defined by me giving the best accurate thing that would happen to you if you where a pet. Yes if neutering of animals is allowed then yes I would also make it allowed for humans to be neutered too. You can use a person arguments against them in a different way just like you did at the bottom. So I meant to say neutering and not sex sorry. Side: Respected
|
I don't like to question someone who studies dogs but don't males fight over sex rights for the only reason that they want their genes passed on? No I don't study fish, I study domestic animals and animal biology but I have done some work on how dolphins can change the pressure in there body the deeper they go in the water. Side: Respected
fight to the death just to past down there genes because I am sure that's not what there doing it for. Not necessarily just to pass on genes. It can also be a thing of being "top Dog" wolves and dogs have very similar behaviour, so it might also be something with being alpha. Side: Respected
|