Cats are better than dogs

My opponent continues to insist that the ability to kill represents a lack of benefit, and not only completely ignored the statistics, but urges the readers to ignore the statistics because somehow they will not be fair to my side of the argument. I will point out to my opponent that I am a breeder, trainer, and advocate of UKC registered American Pitbull Terriers cross registered with the AKC as American Staffordshire Terriers. In other words, I raise "real" Pitbulls as opposed to pit bulls which can be any mix of Mastiff, Bull terrier, and/or Pitbull- but the point is they are mixes. The reason I bring up pit bulls is because my statistics specifically identified pit bulls as being responsible for 70% of reported bites, as well as 70% of bites resulting in death. Even with the most dangerous breed, someone like me can find much more benefit in owning this supposedly dangerous dog as opposed to cats. I have also owned cats, and contrary to my dog, they dug up plants around my house and defecated wherever they perceived was a spot as good as the litter box, they stunk up the litter box, one of them left hair balls everywhere, they always fought, etc. There was no benefit in owning these cats. I always had to clean up after them, always had to bathe them (contrary to what my opponent states about not needing to wash cats... that is very unsanitary!), and they never did a thing for me. My dogs, on the other hand, besides the fact that each trained two year old dog can earn me $2,000 or more depending on the extent of training, my dogs can protect your family, your home, can perform in dog shows, impress your friends, keep you company, fetch things like your shoes, newspaper, ANYTHING, and can do a myriad of other tasks they are trained to perform. My dogs can be trained as guards that will not attack unless ordered to, and when ordered to will only go as far as they owner will order them to- in other words they can hold someone captive without hurting them, rather they can hold an intruder down until the police arrive. I have access to some of the best trainers, and have never met one that can train a cat. My opponent misunderstood my point about owning a car, and dismissed it because of this misunderstanding. In comparing a cat to a dog, my opponent compares two completely different classes of pets. I will bring up owning a car, and will compare it to owning an alternative form of transportation. A bike is as comparable to a cat as a car is to a dog. A bike requires much less care than a dog, cannot kill you as easily as a car accident, and doesn't require much attention. Even so, it does not benefit the owner in as many ways as owning a car does. Hundreds of millions of people would rather pay $300 or so per month for their car payment, $50 or so for their insurance, plus the high price of gas rather than riding a bike to work. When the benefits outweigh the risks, the lack of risk cannot be considered a benefit when looking at the alternative. My opponent completely disregarded some points I made about the cost of ownership of a dog. Again- poor people have dogs and can feed them without buying dog food, and often care for them without a vet and many of these dogs are in perfect health. Even if they had a vet the cost is the same as it would be for a cat (especially if you have pet health insurance which costs about $20 per month or more depending on your plan). Even if I've made the point that costs can be comparable depending on the owner, again, the risks do not outweigh the benefits, and what my opponent is pointing out is the risk of owning a dog, not the benefit of owning a cat. My opponent rebuts my claims of the benefits dogs provide by appealing to pets rights arguments. I can assure you that training a pet to complete a task is no more harmful to the pet, and actually may be more beneficial to the pet itself, than simply owning a pet and letting it sit around your house. My animals are healthy. They are not lethargic good for nothings that sit around the house doing absolutely nothing beneficial to anyone. The fact that dogs perform according to their training does not stop just there- I pointed out instances in which dogs performed beyond their training. They saved lives in two World Wars and in Vietnam and earned medals of valor- not for performing as trained but for performing beyond their training. They have done this of their own volition, and how strong is the argument that you are exploiting a pet when you don't believe the pet is intelligent enough to know it is being trained to perform a task? These pets are paid well, have rank... this is their job. If anyone is exploiting pets it is the people who own them to look at them. My opponent claims that the fact that dogs can detect drugs, explosives, and other contraband does not mean they are better than cats, read- they are not more beneficial to their owners than cats. Cats cannot detect drugs, explosives, and contraband, and if it was my job as the owner of a pet to train my pet to do so how would owning a cat be more beneficial if it cannot be trained to do what I am paid to train animals to do??? My opponent claims cats can predict earthquakes but gives no examples. My opponent leaves it to be interpreted that cats can speak out and say an earthquake is about to occur. Why isn't the National Earthquake Information Center not privy to this information? Why don't they employ cats to perform these predictions??? The fact of the matter is that MANY animals, including dogs, are believed to be able to sense magnetic shifts in the earth, and react in a particular manner which is often followed by the occurrence of an earthquake http://www.sheldrake.org.... The owners, in retrospect, claim that the animal "knew" an earthquake was coming. Though this may be true, it has never been proven, and this ability cannot be tapped as a benefit. In other words you can't train a team of cats to predict earthquakes for the National Earthquake Center. My opponent points out that though dogs can save lives, they can also kill. Police provide the same risks and benefit. So do guns, vehicles, and even drugs. Again- pointing out a risk for dogs does not point out a benefit for cats, because they are still unequal. Cats cannot save lives at all. And I will again appeal to the breed contradiction in your argument- a cocker spaniel, which there has been only one reported bite in the past 25 years, can still save your life (http://www.nationaldogday.com...). We can argue all day that breeds do not matter in this argument, but a wolf is also a dog, and accounts for some of the reported dog bites and fatalities (as evidenced in my previous statistics) while tigers, lions, mountain lions, and other large cats which are also owned as pets are not considered in the statistics. It would be ridiculous for me to argue this based on tigers or lions, but my point is that not all breeds of dogs are equally dangerous, though they may be equally beneficial. In any case cats do not compare to either. My opponent again makes a claim not supported by any evidence. She also claims that dogs are not allowed in hospitals, but the Cincinnati Children's Hospital (one of the top American Children's Hospitals according to US News) has a dog visitation program to help children heal (http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org...). Your argument is moot. My opponent has yet to provide one argument as to why cats are more beneficial to their owners than dogs. I have provided many arguments and counterarguments. It is a personal choice which type of pet you will own. Cat lovers will own cats, dog lover will own dogs. However this debate is not about which pet you love best, rather which one is more beneficial. With all appeals to emotion aside, and all things considered objectively, a dog is definitely more beneficial to it's owners, and others!