Resolved: Dogfighting should be legalized in the United States

Framework "You first talk about in what case things should be legalized. You say if there is a direct benefit to humanity, then you say if there is not a direct benefit to humanity it should still be legalized because humans have the right to do whatever with their property. You say human society is and should be in favor of humans over animals. You say we eat meat because it benefits us so we should allow people to let dogs fight. You compare dog fighting to eating chips. Unhealthy yet legalized. As long as other human rights aren't violated they can do whatever they want. I say no, since you are saying that we should have the right to do whatever we want with our property there is a problem. Dogs are living, chips and meat are not. Potatoes were living also now they are dead and in a bag of chips. Meat was alive also, now it's dead and in a package. Dogs are still living and it is not right for them to kill themselves for the sport of just humans who love watching blood and pain. Your argument in this case is no good then." Con has never refuted my first observation: that if something benefits humanity than it is legalized. Animal interest is outweighed- for instance, take hunting, fishing, or non-medical testing. Humans receive a benefit at animal expense, but society recognizes it to be legal. For my second observation con attempted to refute it by stating that property rights do not apply to living things. This provides a very confusing morality of con, as he states that meat was once alive but is no more. So something intrinsically possesses rights if it is alive, but once you kill it, it is in a package and does not matter? Property rights apply to animals as well, thus extending my case. Cases The con case revolves around the purported cruelty of dogfighting. However, this is effectively refuted by Pro because the fact that dogfighting is not much worse than indefinite solitary confinement followed then euthanasia, and by my framework arguments. "Next in the point of economic benefits. I admit this point is valid, it will help the economy. But as I stated so will starting your own business, walking to work, taking the bus, saving power and water, paying your taxes, planting a garden the list goes on and on, dog fighting however is not on the top of my list and it shouldn't be on the governments either." Thank you for conceding; per observation 1 this leads to a Pro ballot. "You tell us it will give the dogs something to do other then sit around in a kennel all day. Most dogs in shelters aren't fighting dogs. They are given care and comfort to the best of peoples abilities there. If you want to do something for them adopt a pet and give it love after all it is a living thing not a hunk of meat or a bag of chips. Or volunteer, but shelters help our economy by giving people jobs so if you get rid of dogs for fighting you'll kill some jobs along with it. Obviously most of the population is against dog fighting already, otherwise I would be arguing that it should be illegal and not that it should stay illegal. Dogs are already taken from shelters to do better things. Families, farmers, the army, the blind, hospitals, police, airports, security these are more beneficial to humans then dog fighting will ever be. There is a fine line between beneficial and just plain useless, dog fighting is more on the useless side then the items above therefore it should stay illegal." I specifically stated in my rebuttal round I supported pit bulls fighting, never said that ALL dogs much fight. Again, notice the lack of evidence by Con saying that most shelters are caring a nurturing. Shelters are not care centers; they are places where animals go to die. Millions of dogs a year are killed in shelters. "How do you know what is preferable to a dog? Can you read his mind? No therefore you have no evidence if a dog enjoys fighting. You say you know there is a difference between human rights and animal rights, yet you don't believe the bible. So wouldn't you believe we descended down? Dogs and humans both have red blood, feelings, emotions similar internal systems. Would you let your own daughter or son fight themselves to death? Why not? Because it's wrong! So is dog fighting. If we bring back dog fighting we'll have to bring back bear baiting, cock fighting, and a whole wagon load of other similar blood sports. It's not right, money isn't everything. You can't eat money and expect to live very long, without money the world would still go on. Economics is all your argument is based on and I admit it would help, but not enough of the population is interested so it wouldn't help very much." Con claims that I do not know what is preferable to a dog. That is true, but that also means Con does not know either. TURN: Con cannot claim to know what is preferable to a dog, fighting or imprisonment, and thus his ENTIRE morality case is negated. I would actually let my children join the military if they wanted to. Bear baiting and cockfighting I have not researched and shouldn"t be weighed in this round, as the resolution is dogfighting, we should be topical. "You say if it was legalized you wouldn't become a dog fighter. I wouldn't either. So if you wouldn't why do you support it? To support the right of others you say but what others? There's only a very small minority of people who will actually do this since most people actually have real jobs and if you legalize it, the money the dog fighters get will be much much less since the risk is less, so it would be a waste of time for people to be a dog fighter. Another point I would like to bring up is that you and I both know the breeds a true pit bull is, these are the best fighters and people won't go to shelters to get them they will breed them at home. Posing a risk that more dogs will go to shelters then come out, making your argument weak." I may or may not watch dogfights if legalized, but that"s not the point. Just because I do not directly feel the benefit of something or am not part of something does not mean I shouldn"t support legalization. I am a straight male but still support gay marriage even though it does not directly affect me. "Your copy of info from the sites regarding dog bites I believe adds nothing to your case. Your saying that since dogs attack people they should not be put down but rather used for dog fighting. You say pit bulls are most responsible for the attacks. Well that's because the dogs were bred to be aggressive to fight bulls for the blood sport. It is again not there fault but maybe we should have never bred them to be that way. If we had never allowed such heinous blood sports to be legal in the first place those dog attacks as you say most of them wouldn't happen. It will not reduce the dog attacks on humans since the legalization would make breeders breed more of them." Please provide some evidence saying dogfighting would increase dog attacks" what this evidence proved was that pit bulls naturally are fighting animals and fight each other all the time and even attack humans often. Isn"t it more beneficial to society as a whole to have this aggressive species fight inside a dogfighting match? Conclusion Vote Pro for this resolution based on higher use of evidence and statistics by the Pro. Con failed to provide a single link to an outside source besides White Fang, which is a fictional novel. Good read, but fiction nonetheless. Con never refuted that something ought to be legalized IF IT DIRECTLY BENEFITS HUMANS. No new arguments last round, therefore Con cannot bring up a new refutation. Based off the framework vote Pro also. Based off the cases the Pro side should win because economics falls under observation 1. My observation 2 should also stand, as Con never stated why something being living was enough to have rights to outweigh property rights. Remember the turns in this round. Con admitted we do not know how dogs feel and cannot claim to know what is preferable. Therefore, dogfighting could be in the best interest of dogs also, as a preferable alternative to incarceration. Based off evidence vote Pro! I thank the Con for a lively debate.