Concerning Postmen

Side note: My apologies for being so late in replying (6.5 hours until the round was forfeited), I simply forgot. However I do feel I can make a compelling argument against my opponent. 1) My opponent states that the role of a government is to protect its citizens and prevent crime. A quick search on dictionary.com came out with a citizen being defined as "an inhabitant of a city or town" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Now, I see a loophole in this argument. It can be argued that a dog is an inhabitant of a city or town, simply because it inhabits the town, i.e. it lives there. So a dog could be seen as a citizen (well according to dictionary.com anyway). Therefore dogs would have equal rights as humans in this debate, seeing as all citizens are equal, are they not? "First they would not be protecting its citizens (the postmen), and would secondly be allowing crime (denying of postman's autonomy)" Dogs have a right to bite postmen! And as they are equal citizens it is simply a matter of choosing what side you are for: the dogs or the postmen? I am for the dogs for the simple reason that they outnumber postmen and that they are far more productive to society. A postman simply delivers letters and packages, when you could simply send an email, or be given a notice that there are packages waiting for you at the post office and get them yourself. Dogs however can be your loyal companions for the length of their lives (15 or so years). They can lead blind people, help police catch the drug dealers and other criminals, and even help people regain their health. For example here is a story about a dog helping keep a boy alive: http://www.woai.com.... Here is also a story about a dog helping an autistic boy "connect with the world" http://www.wcsh6.com... So dogs are far more valuable to society then postmen. So therefore they should be given the right to bite them. 2) People would watch the TV show, simply because people love watching other people get hurt. Well some people do anyway. Look at the success of the show "you've been framed" (http://www.wcsh6.com...). This show received a massive audience. The clips often showed people experiencing pain (falling over is a quite common subject). I argue that this new TV show receive viewings, simply because it would be depicting people experiencing pain in a comic matter. 3) I argue that the judges etc. should concentrate their energies on the topic of the sheep-mutant crossover because terrible things are happening at the moment. Poor innocent sheep are being raped, disgusting sheep-human mutants are being born, polluting the human genetics and really giving New Zealand a bad name. And this law would not concern the "rest of the world" either, it would concern NEW ZEALAND. So you really should have no interest in this law, because it does not concern "the rest of the world" as you have stated in your previous argument. 4) In point 2) I have shown that people DO find entertainment in other peoples pain. "If you suggest that watching a dog bite a postman to death is entertainment, then you are being absolutely crazy and need to see a phsycologist" That would be a matter of opinion. And the dogs would NOT bite the postmen to death, they would give them a little nip on the fingers. Well they might bite their trouser legs aswell. I cannot see my finding entertainment in either of those situations my needing to see a phsycologist. And I am NOT making fun of blind people. I stated two facts about them. I did not mock them in any way. 5) Ah yes of COURSE you would say that you like postmen, your representing the CON side aren't you? LIAR! Give me 10 good reasons why and then I will accept you being the only person who does not hate postmen I feel I have made a convincing rebuttal to my opponents initial round. As my opponent has made a cry for the voters to vote con, I feel it would be unfair if I did not do the same thing: VOTE PRO! DO NOT SUPPORT THE LIAR! I HAVE DISPROVEN ALL OF HIS REBUTTALS! VOTE PRO AND YOU VOTE FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF SOCIETY! VOTE AGAINST THE PERSON WHO ACCUSES OTHERS OF MOCKING BLIND PEOPLE!