Resoved All old people with out animal alergies should have pets

Thanks for instigating. Since my opponent didn’t elaborate his post, I exercise my contender right to provide accurate definitions of debate to understand. Also, since this is a 2 round debate, I probably need to post my full contentions here since I cannot present new arguments in my R2 post. Definitions: Old people- Senior citizens, usually people aged 60+. Also, I quote Wikipedia, defining further: “Old people have limited regenerative abilities and are more prone to disease, syndromes, and sickness than other adults.” Animal allergies- hypersensitivity to certain substances produced by animals, an allergic reaction to animals. Should have- must have, ought to have. Pets- household/domestic animal kept for companionship/pleasure. Case: It’s safe to assume that my BOP here is to argue that old people without allergies having pets is a bad idea, as it may be a disadvantage. C1: Forcing seniors to do this is a violation of their constitutional rights Now, I know that this may be a stretch but the resolution stated that these seniors (without allergies) be forced or should have pets. What if said seniors don’t like to have pets? That will obviously cause a dispute, since coercing them to what they do not consent to and a huge risk to them is illegal, not to mention ageist. C2: Cost/Expense Obviously, if an old person without allergies decides to buy a pet, it would cost him big. Pets are expensive, especially the exotic ones or purebreds. Also, not to mention you have to buy their food and toys for their recreational time. In addition, you would also have to buy a bed, a leash or maybe a license (to own ‘some’ pets) and a vet. Please note that an animal cannot be held accountable for any of their doings, they are dependent of the owner everytime. I don’t think a retired middle-class senior with enough problems in his mind would like this. C3: Hard Work Leisure Pets have feelings too, they get bored so they expect their owner to do something for them. Maybe go to the park and play fetch (that is if the old person can still throw a ball). Like the premise states, it is hard work, and old people haven’t got enough energy on them. Training Similar to leisure, training a pet is important. But do old people have enough energy? No. Even if it’s for protection, it would require patience and time to eventually get a pet to go along with you. Lots of cleaning Aside from costs to buy some cleaning equipment, the poor old owner would need to clean up their pet’s poop or waste from the floor. Most old people don’t have the energy to crouch and clean. Pets also introduces insects, flees and parasites to the house because of the dirty things. These insects can be a risk to the owner. Need Patience Pets are time-consuming and require a lot of patience. They may be an annoyance, inconvenience and nuisance with all their loud antics and nonsense. This would depress the seniors. Not to mention the pets (esp. dogs/cats) may destroy, eat, scratch the owner’s favourite stuffs (furniture, clothes). C4: Risks Pets (esp. dogs) are prone to hurt/bite people If pets aren’t well-trained, they will surely harm the people around, which would lead to hospital expense, lawsuit settlements and a bad reputation to the owner. Old people normally have disabilities Even though these old people have no allergic reaction to pets, they are still prone to the risks since, well, they’re old. They may have illnesses, psychological or mental conditions or depressions. A pet would just make it worse for them. Death of pet: Sad. If a pet dies, that would be devastating to the owner. And assuming that the owner has a heart condition, then we would need to provide two tombstones. Conclusion: As I said, a pet is always dependent on the owner, they expect the owner to provide them with everything they need. I've proven that old people (with or without allergies) having pets would be a bad idea. I now await PRO’s rebuttals.