pets

It is pro's belief that people without allergies should have pets, meaning that people with allergies should not have pets.As this debate is only a single round, and Pro has provided no arguments, as long as I can prove my burden, or even provide a single argument, then I win the debate, as Pro has no arguments.Burden of Proof:As side con, I must prove at least one of three things:Why people with allergies should have pets.orWhy people without allergies should not have pets. or Why all people should be allowed to have pets. Arguments1. What allergies?This is a very vague topic. Pro has not specified what kind of allergies, or what kind of pets, or even what kind of people. This is very necessary. For example, if you are allergic to peanuts, it is okay for you to have pets, such as dogs, or cats, as that would not affect you in any way.Then, it would be perfectly okay for you to have a cat as a pet, as opposed to someone who is allergic to cats, and having a cat as a pet. Furthermore, there are certain people who require pets in their daily life.For example, if you are blind, you would require a seeing eye dog, to help you navigate. These people rely on these pets in order to function normally every day in society. So even if these people have allergies, they should still be allowed to have these seeing eye dogs, so that they can have the mobility to go where they need to go. As a society, we have no right to take away these pets from these people, even if they have allergies, because these pets are vital for their every day lives. Therefore, I have proven my first burden, why people with allergies should have pets.2. What pets?There are many different types of pets.Google defines pets as: A domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure and treated with care and affection. http://www.google.ca...Any animal can be tamed. For example, Mike Tyson has a white tiger as a pet, as it has been tamed and is kept for companionship.Pro has not defined what pets is, so tigers can be classfied under the definition of a pet.In this case, people with out allergies should not have pets, as these pets have violent tendencies and should be kept in the wild or zoo. These pets can cause harm and damage to people and property, and they are much better off in the wild or zoo.As a pet, the owner must feed these pets. These kinds of dangerous pets, such as a tiger, are often carniverous and it would be very difficult to feed and maintain a healthy environment for the animal, which can be easily done with a zoo. These animals require large meals, and it would be costly to maintain. Therefore, I have proven my second burden, why people without allergies should not have pets. 3. What people?Pets have are great companions. They have been proven to boost morale and self-esteem. Whether you have a pet rock, or a cat, or even a goldfish, these pets provide people someone to talk to, to share their feelings with, even if they don't respond.This is why everyone should have a pet. It makes you happy and prevents depression in people. Currently, teen suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the US, for kids aged 10 and over.http://en.wikipedia.org...I would say that most of these kids did not have pets. If these kids have pets, they can release some of their frustration that causes them to suicide. The reason kids suicide is because they feel alone, that no one will miss them, because they are being abandoned by society, and no one listens to them. However, this can all change if each household had a pet. These teens would establish a connection to the pet, and it would discourage them from suicide, as there is this pet in the real world that depends on them. This can correlate to people of all ages, as everyone needs a companion and someone to talk to in order to feel appreciated and not alone in the world.Therefore, pets generally cause happiness in society, and is positive as a whole. Therefore, I have proven my third burden, why all people should have pets.Conclusion:As side con, I have provided 3 arguments against the notion of why people without allergies should have pets. I have proven all of the things I needed to prove in order to win this debate.I must remind viewers that Pro has provided no arguments at all. This is a major factor to why I should win.I have provided 3 arguments that are all relevant and still stand after the debate is over. He also does not have proper grammer, nor did he provide any sources to prove his stance as I did.Therefore, vote CON!If you don't agree with my arguments, just remember, at least I provided arguments!Also, I have a cool name.