Dragons are better than pigs

*Note: Please do not play the video until prompted to do so. Thanks! . http://www.youtube.com... I want to start out by thanking my opponent for instigating this debate. This seems like an interesting topic of discussion, and I hope that anyone who reads this will enjoy what we have to say! To clarify the burdens in this debate, - Pro, as the instigator, has the burden of proof to show that the resolution is a true statement. Unless he satisfies this burden the vote cannot be given to him. - Pro does not scope the resolution despite having ample space to do so. This means that Pro must prove dragons to be universally better to pigs as this is what the resolution and their constructive would indicate. - Con, as the contender to Pro's challenge, has the burden of clash. Con must provide an opposition to Pro's claim. Unless he satisfies this burden the vote cannot be given to him. - Con does not have the burden to prove the inverse of the resolution (that pigs are better than dragons) to be true. He may do this, but he is not required to; he must simply prove Pro's claim to be false. - If at the end of the round neither side seems more persuasive than the other, the vote must default Con for maintaining the burden of clash. To begin, I shall address Pro's constructive hasn't made an argument for the superiority of dragons to pigs. Reading through his initial post will reveal a fascinating history of dragons, including their role mythology and link to dinosaurs -- but nothing to assert that they are better than pigs. In fact the word 'pig' doesn't even appear in initial speech, it's all about how cool dragons are, and other various nonlinear bits of trivia about them. This is not an informative essay contest, and it is not up to the voters to take random information and derive a conclusion; it is the responsibility of the Pro to prove the claim he sets out in the resolution. At the point that Pro does not prove that Dragons are better than pigs, or even make the claim (except maybe by inference of the resolution) there is no reason to believe that claim to be true. Pro has failed in upholding his burden of proof, and the vote must defaulted to the Con. Con, through this analysis, has also maintained his burden of clash. I will now provide three more arguments as to why you should vote for the con. First; Pigs assist humans, Dragons do not- This argument operates under the primary assumption that dragons have never been proven to actually exist. They are products of mythology and Pro himself only speaks of them in terms of mythology. Pigs on the other hand do exist and play an important role our world. Pigs have been known to protect humans for a long time, many people, such as Dan Pierce, even keep them as pets[1]. However one Jewish settlement even discussed the possibility of employing the assistance of 'guard pigs' to help protect them from intruders in 2003[1][2]. Pigs have been known to have a very keen sense of smell, even better than that of dogs. [1] . http://www.danoah.com... [2] . http://news.bbc.co.uk... [3] . http://www.wnd.com... Aside from unaccountable mythology, Dragons don't serve a purpose for humans and can't really be given any kind of objective value. Pigs on the other hand do serve a purpose, and can be given an objective value; in this sense they are better. Second;Pigs provide employment, Dragons do not - Pork is a very lucrative industry which totaled about 75 billion dollars in sales in the U. S. during 1997[4], in 2000, just under 100,000 farms (of varying sizes and employment) raised pigs and students involved in FFA (Future Farmers of America) even have the option of raising a pig of their to be slaughtered for food[5]. Needless to say there is an a huge industry involved in pork, a benefit that does not exist with dragons. [4] . http://www.epa.gov... [5] . http://www.mtbaker.wednet.edu... Unless Pro intends to argue that there are people in the entertainment industry who are employed because of dragons, we see that dragons do not account for the employment of any people. And to preempt the aforementioned claim those employed to by media aren't employed because of dragons, but because of our conception of dragons. I highly doubt you're going to go into Dreamworks studios and find any of the creatures my opponent talks about in his constructive. Third; Pigs provide food, dragons do not- Please play the video now. Finally, aside from the practical and economic benefits, we see pigs are a massive source of nourishment. Pork is the third most consumed meat in the United States[6], with the average American eating 48 pounds of the stuff every year. Furthermore unlike the the other four most common meats in American diets, Pork remains the most consistently consumed with only an eight pound variance between 1970 and 2005. [6] . http://www.copfaqs.com... Not only that, but pork is a part of America's culture. Bacon is a key component of American 'chef' and comedy group Epic Meal Time[7]. They've even gone so far as to incorporate bacon into their merchandising[8], produce a special bacon frying pan[9] and even their own bacon flavored salt and mayonnaise[10]. [7] . http://www.epicmealtime.com... [8] . http://shop.epicmealtime.com... [9] . http://smart.epicmealtime.com... [10] . http://baconsalt.3dcartstores.com... I don't think I've even heard of a person eating a dragon, not even in a story. Instead you see dragons eating people; not matter how you look at that it isn't a good thing. In conclusion I've not only shown how my opponent has failed to uphold his burden, or even provide an argument for that matter, but I've also provide several reasons as to why pigs are better than dragons.