This House would offer a free kitten to all newly-married couples

First I will issue my rebuttal, then my next two substantive arguments, and finally I will wrap up my rebuttal and substantives. I'd like to remind Con that his next speech is his final chance to offer substantives, as R4 is solely for rebuttal and summing up. Response to Counter I: Agreed, cats are not a huge commitment in practice. People, however, think that getting a cat is a major commitment, therefore getting a cat is still a sign of a commitment even if they turn out to be less work than originally thought. My source corroborates this. [1]. You say that cats are a financial burden, but Pro turns this point. Financial burdens are a good thing because they force people to spend more money, which will help stimulate the economy, which is currently in a bad way. Response to Counter II: This is a subjective opinion which has not been warranted. Regardless, we believe that marriage is a good thing as it shows commitment to one's partner, cements the civil status of a relationship and creates legal guarantees for the partnership. Response to Counter III: Again, agreed, but our original statement was that kittens act as a stepping stone to having a child. It would be a pretty lousy stepping stone if the kitten were as much work as the child is. The aim is to get people to think that children will be easy, so they have them, thus creating a stable level of population growth whilst also creating commitment. Response to Counter IV: Cats are proven to be one of the animals which are most beneficial for one's health (see argument below), therefore they are a cut above many other domestic pets. [2]. Con also suggests numerous activities which will increase one's lifespan by up to 10 years however we feel that this is overkill. We want people to be healthy while they're alive, not live longer - we've already got an ageing population and Con's suggestion of regular sex and talking to one's partner (ignoring the fact that 97% of pet owners talk to their pets [3]) are overcorrection. Response to Argument I: This argument is primarily rooted in my opponent's religious beliefs. He speaks about how he was raised a Catholic, therefore kittens don't have souls. .. well by that logic, I was raised an atheist, therefore nobody has a soul. Point knocked down. Equally, cats do not worship Satan, as everybody knows they worship Ceiling Cat [4]. My opponent also speaks about how cats endanger birds. Birds are horrible. They drop their feaces onto unsuspecting land-dwellers, make irritating noises at unholy hours of the morning, and eat litter. Therefore cats killing birds is a good thing. Response to Argument II: My opponent has cited Science, and I cannot disprove Science. What I can say is that my other arguments will show that the health benefits of cats massively outweigh the negatives provided here by Con. Also, I'd like to point out that his very source states that many of these issues also afflict other pets, therefore nullifying the heart of his argument: that cats, in particular are damaging to one's health. With regards to allergies, if you are allergic to cats just don't accept the offer of a kitten. It isn't rocket science. My opponent's use of Science still stands, but I will seek to counter it with other arguments. Argument V: Kittens = good for your health Whilst my opponent has been quick to point out issues with having cats, there are numerous benefits which I have previously outlined and appear in my sources. I have already mentioned that cats lower one's heart rate, and Con has not contested this. New evidence suggests that cats can help reduce the risk of cancer (see [2]). Con has cited various parasites associated with cats but our sources argue that the presence of these parasites does not provide an undue risk of infection (see [2]). Growing up with a cat reduces a child's risk of developing allergies or suffering from asthma [5]. This source also states that they lower blood pressure, cholesterol and anxiety. Our conclusion is that having a cat is good for one's health, especially for children. Argument VI: Kittens = creators of harmony and happinessSource [5] also supports our previous statement that cats provide a means of social interaction which can be accessed 24/7. Cats don't mind being woken from a nap for a hug or a snack (a benefit of primarily napping as opposed to sleeping) because cats do like social interaction - they just don't always instigate it around strangers as they are sensitive animals. Cats reduce one's chances of loneliness and depression, so all married couples and young families should seriously consider bringing a pet into their home. In summary: It would be cat-astrophic, dear voter, if you were swayed by Con's arguments. We have consistently demonstrated the huge benefits of having a cat in the home of a married couple or young family. I would advise you all to cat-ch on to the kitten fever, and support the Harmony Through Cats Programme (HCTP)! Back to Con. Sources below. [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] . http://news.discovery.com...[3] . http://www.thedailybeast.com... [4] . http://religion.lohudblogs.com...[5] . http://mritechnicianschools.net...