Dog fighting (See initial argument)

I appreciate Pro's arguments and the citations he brings forward to support them, though I find more than a few troubling spots here. So, to start, I think I need to take a step back from the line by line and address a couple of overarching issues that I see with your responses and arguments. To start, I need to get into this issue of morality and thoroughly address it. I appreciate that my opponent questions my perspective on morality, as it is often subjective. However, my view is that there are objectively sound moral values. I think we can all agree on at least two fronts as to what is moral: we should value life, and we should value the quality of that life. If Pro has a problem with either of those being standards by which we judge a moral harm or a moral benefit, then he may express them in his next post. Social acceptability doesn't affect this. The relative value of life that some people attributed to slaves in the past doesn't change the moral importance of that life in any time frame based off of these two principles. They chose to ignore the importance of life and its quality, but that doesn't make it less objective. Secondly, this this argument of hypocrisy, which seems to be a common thread in Pro's arguments. I'll make a stand here and now: I don't condone much of what Pro has stated as being similar in his arguments. Sports aimed at injury that lack appropriate protective measures for those involved should also be banned, since they are also blood sport. Hence, boxing is a blood sport. Football is not. I could refer to all the specific instances my opponent brings up, but the main distinction as I see it between what is and is not blood sport isn't the level of violence involved, it's any sport that is meant to cause bloodshed. That's all that's required, and I can take a stance against all of it in this debate and not show the hypocrisy you're discussing. The other portion of your hypocrisy argument is that other options are worse for these dogs. I have multiple contentions against this argument. One, stray or feral is still better than in a ring fighting with other dogs without consent. At least in these situations, the dogs in question have a measure of autonomy to their lives. Being thrown into a ring to fight other dogs is no such thing. Two, putting a dog down is still better than being thrown into a ring. At least in these cases, they don't suffer through grievous injuries and multiple fights (I'll get to the links on that on the line by line). I would argue that this continuous loss of quality of life, with almost certain early death included, is worse. Three, I can be against all of these things at once. I can be against the system that utilizes puppy mills to make purebred dogs for sale, which is a large part of the reason why so many people don't adopt. I can be against euthanizing so many dogs and advocate for more money to the Humane Society and other related organizations. I can also be against the way people treat feral dogs, which leads them to being aggressive. We need not pretend that these are absolutes. I want to dig further into this feral vs. domestic argument, though. Realize that Pro is arguing that it's fine to breed and train dogs for violent behaviors, but leaving some of them to acquire those natures in the wild is harmful. The only situation in which a dog is certain to become violent and aggressive is when they're trained to do so. Thirdly, we have this argument regarding legalization being a better alternative. I've already stated on the first point that legalized blood sport isn't moral. Blood sport is blood sport, whether it's regulated or not, and it should be spurned. There are two main problems with the transition from illegal to legal. The first major problem is that it invites more people into dog fighting? Why? It increases the number of people who will bet on it by availability, and improves access, making it easier to get into and more widespread. Beyond that, even if there is some benefit to dogs involved in this fighting, society as a whole needs to take a stand against blood sport like this. I'd make a slippery slope argument here, but on a basic level, this is just plunging us into a moral abyss, saying that we're OK with activities we recognize as harmful to the rights of animals. No amount of regulations will make this completely safe and still allow the practice in any similar form to what it is now. So we would be accepting legalized animal abuse. We don't allow people to beat in their own homes, but suddenly, we will allow them to throw their animals into a ring to attack each other for a live crowd? I'll get into the harms of this more on my final point. But let's get into the arguments proper. 1. I can protest overcrowded prisons, the extent of homelessness, and the way veterans are treated and still protest dog fighting. It's neither arbitrary nor hypocritical " I'm saying these are all harmful, this is just the topic we're discussing now. I don't see this sort of protest as a waste of resources either. These examples are all related to human beings, and while they should be addressed, animal rights should not be shelved to do so. Their lives matter too. I would also like to know exactly who Pro thinks will be running dog fighting if it were legalized. Are you suggesting that criminals suddenly going to drop their enterprises because it's legal? Or are you instead suggesting that there are legal enterprises that have been waiting for this moment and would be happy to take it up themselves? Both seem relatively unlikely, especially when criminals can suddenly run legit with larger audiences and more bets. I doubt they'll be outcompeted, and therefore criminal enterprises will only grow. On death - First, death isn't the only outcome we should care about. Injury is practically guaranteed, and is often permanent. Many dogs could develop terrible infections, lose the use of a limb or be mentally damaged. Second, dogs do often die of blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion, or infection hours or even days after the fight.[1] Numbers are difficult to find, but some have been pursued.[2] Approx. 250,000 dogs in fighting pits nationwide. We can't possibly know how many have died from these fights, as they haven't been documented, but every single one of them gets injured, and many die. It doesn't matter if its hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands. Those lives matter. Third, though Pro didn't respond to them, I did make several arguments about their abuse outside of the ring (which can also lead to death), their being killed when they can no longer fight, and the loss of bait animals, which are taken from loving homes and always killed. 2. Pro refers to instances where dogs are treated well outside the ring. I'd like to point out that he doesn't cite this argument, and it's not at all realistic. As I pointed out in my initial argument, sending these animals into the ring makes them a commodity. It's no different than the cruelty that results from horse racing, where horses that don't make the grade are slaughtered for meat or enter a downward spiral of neglect.[3] 3. I've already responded to these arguments. What we currently accept isn't a reason to accept this. 4. This response was given in the comments, but yes, it is more wrong. Nature is messy, but that doesn't mean we have to actively participate in doing this. And since, in this case, it's not being used for food to feed a wild animal and instead just to showcase the dogs' violent tendencies, it's incredibly senseless. What's more, when you say in your own post how important it is that dogs have a good home, and yet ignore the fact that these animals often do have a good home, you're contradicting the importance of that home life. 5. Similarly in the comments, I'd say that any of the consent issues you're discussing here are very different from the ones seen in dog fighting. None of these thrust dogs into dangerous situations. None of them force injury upon them. None of them commoditize that animal based on its fighting capacity. Consent is an issue in all of these cases, but there's a different level of harm, and each of these cases simply involve the issues of cohabitation rather than issues of money. 6. You left this one out. Desensitized children engage in more animal cruelty and violence against humans. Those with a history of animal cruelty often engage in spousal abuse and child abuse.[4] This is not small, and legalizing furthers this problem, desensitizing the entire nation to these harms by condoning them. 1. http://www.humanesociety.org... 2. http://www.orangecountyfl.net... 3. http://www.animalaid.org.uk... 4. http://www.humanesociety.org...