Owners should spay every female owned dog unless contract is signed allowing them to breed

It's obvious that my opponent and I are both trying to achieve the same goal here. That goal is a reduction in the canine population. Because we are both achieving the same goal, we must then judge this round based upon who achieves that goal more efficiently, more practically, and by causing less harm. The person who provides the most practical means to achieve this goal should clearly be the winner.Now I will go over my opponents case. My opponents remarks will be italicized to make the distinction clear. Arguments/Rebuttals"My opponents sources are trustworthy, and the facts stated are true, however, a major point is missing in his argument."My opponent agrees with my sources and states that I have provided factual information. Pro has not provided any evidence. If this does not warrant me getting points for sources, I don't know what does. "Sure, neutering is, physically, more efficient, and neutering may be faster, but there is no point to this statement. So what if the procedure takes longer? What's so bad about that?" Pro acknowledges that neutering is more efficient. This is a valid reason for favoring neutering over spaying. We are rational human beings. The more practical solution will typically be the more desirable one. The cons of spaying aren't just in the fact that it takes longer. As I have stated before, spaying is bloodier, involves a longer recovery time, and it requires abdominal surgery! Obviously neutering is the better choice here. "Now, I will not deny that neutering males may be a more efficient and quick process, and it will disenable that particular male dog to impregnate any female dog..."My opponent is just agreeing with me right here. "however, the risks are still high of females to be bred by stray male dogs that are not yet fixed, again, causing unwanted overpopulation of stray dogs."First of all, my opponent has no grounds on which to claim that, "the risks are high." Even if this statement is true, then the reverse is also true. If owned dogs aren't neutered, they can still impregnate stray dogs, thus perpetuating the population problem. In fact, I would say it's better for an owned female dog to become pregnant than a stray female dog. In the case of the owned female dog, the offspring can be efficiently dealt with, however you wish. In the case of the stray female dog becoming pregnant, the offspring will be born and also become strays. This further escalates the population problem. "Female dogs are, undeniably, at lower risk of becoming pregnant if every owned male dog is neutered, but the problem is not completely gone."It would be unreasonable to strive to completely eliminate the problem. Neither of us can possibly achieve this with our case. Simply lowering the risk is what I would consider effective. "Spaying female dogs will completely abolish impregnation of owned female dogs, making spaying the more desirable choice in reducing canine population."I'm confused by this statement. Pro isn't even making a valid argument here. Pro simply states the obvious fact that spaying females will prevent them from becoming pregnant. I don't see how this makes spaying more desirable. "An owner will deal with their pregnant dog in three major ways:[1]Decide that she does not want to have a pregnant dog and put her dog's life at risk, therefore spaying the dog after the eggs have been fertilized, killing completely innocent puppies."Are you saying that pregnancy puts a female dogs life at risk? Do you have evidence for this claim? As for the risk, what kind of risk? Is it a significant risk? Is it a very low risk?"[2] Deal with their dogs pregnancy recklessly and either A) abandon the dog, or B) Not prepare for the puppies arrival putting more dogs onto the streets."I am skeptical that a pet owner would abandon their dog simply because she is pregnant. I am also skeptical that after having these puppies, the owner would simply throw them out into the streets. "[3] Take it calmly and follow through with the pregnancy carefully.The most likely of the 3 to be chosen by humans is either [1] or [2]."This is a bare assertion fallacy. How can you conclusively say that options 1 and 2 are more likely? You have provided neither evidence or logical reasoning to justify your claims. I would argue that option three is the most likely because we are rational, thinking human beings. We are capable of competent problem solving. VotersSecondly, my opponent has provided no evidence to back up any of their claims. I have always done this when it was necessary to do so. Clearly the only way to vote on sources is con. I would also like to remind any potential voters that this is my last round to argue. My opponent can not bring up any new information or new arguments because I would not have a chance to refute those arguments or challenge that information. Quite frankly, this wouldn't be fair for me.So, for these reasons and more, I urge you to vote con! I thank my opponent for this debate. I actually learned a few things.