Keep animals home as pets

First I would like to point out that you dropped my arguments about the conditions for deciding who wins this debate. Since you did not dispute them, they stand as true in this round. They are: 1)You must supply a plan of action as an alternative to keeping pets. 2)You must prove this plan to be better than the status quo of keeping pets 3)If you fail to do the above, I am the winner of this debate You did not dispute these standards in the previous round. You did not provide a plan of action in the previous round, so as of now I am winning this debate hands down. 1) i. While many animals don't choose to be our pets, many DO. Please see my above examples of lost dogs that return home and cats that have cat doors in my previous round. You did not dispute and of these examples. ii. Also, just because animals don't choose to be pets doesn't mean they don't like it. Furthermore, you have conceded my #7, which states that the only right animals have is to not be treated cruelly. Not having as much space as life in nature would provide is not a cruelty, so your point doesn't have any bearing on whether we should own pets again. iii. I contend that other benefits such as medical care, food provision, shelter, etc. make up for the minor discomfort of living in "small spaces." 2) i. You provide no quantification of the risk pets create to health. There is no way to tell from your argument if the risk is serious. ii. Other contact with animals from farming, at zoos, etc. provides humans with much more contact with animals. Even if we were to not have pets we would still be at risk to animal diseases. Of course, since you have provided no plan of action to evaluate, there is no way to evaluate if the issue would be better or worse after your (currently vague) stance of "no more pets" was enacted. iii Finally, people have the right to put themselves at risk. They do so every day when they drive, eat junk food, fly airplanes, ski, etc. If people choose to accept the risk of contracting a disease from their pet, that is their choice. 3) i. Your point 3 simply points out a flaw in the way pets are provided to people, not something intrinsically wrong with owning pets. A parallel case: often cocoa beans are harvested using abusive child labor. This doesn't make eating chocolate wrong. ii. Most pets are obtained legally and humanely. Your argument only applies to a few exotic animals and is not applicable to pet owners at large. My golden lab wasn't forcefully taken from the jungle. iii. Once again, I have no way of evaluating whether or not changing "keeping animals home as pets" would solve the problem of abusive animal trading, because you don't provide any plan to change this. 4) i. No quantification or way to evaluate. This isn't cruelty so it isn't relevant. (that's my point 7) ii. This applies to a very small group of people. You have no evidence that this is common practice. Owners are innocent until proven guilty, so the burden is on you to demonstrate that poor care is a common practice. iii. Why can't animals be looked at as a consumer toy? You provide no reason why this is wrong. Animals don't have the same rights as humans. So long as the animal is not being excessively mistreated (cruelty), the owner has done nothing wrong. 5) I'm assuming this is a response to my #5, but I have no idea how it affects this debate. In fact, spaying/ neutering is GOOD for the pet. The Humane Society: "Spaying or Neutering Is Good for Your Pet ï¿½Spaying and neutering helps dogs and cats live longer, healthier lives. ï¿½Spaying and neutering can eliminate or reduce the incidence of a number of health problems that can be very difficult or expensive to treat. ï¿½Spaying eliminates the possibility of uterine or ovarian cancer and greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer, particularly when your pet is spayed before her first estrous cycle. ï¿½Neutering eliminates testicular cancer and decreases the incidence of prostate disease." This is another reason why owning pets is good. 6) i. Once again, this Is not an argument against owning pets, but an argument against some particular aspects of the current system. I can say "you're right, I agree, we shouldn't do these things. We should only own pets that weren't brought up on puppy farms and aren't purebred." That's just one way of showing that your criticisms don't relate to the ownership of pets in general. ii. "Not having pets" wont solve the problem of pedigree animals. This is a problem that is already created. This is just another example of how you need to provide a clear course of action that I can evaluate! iii. The pet trade isn't inherently cruel. People should just be responsible about where they get their pets from so as to not support businesses that treat animals poorly. 7) How I feel isn't relevant to this debate at all. Im not sure what your point is. Note that you did not dispute my point 2, that pet ownership has health benefits to the owner, or my number 3, that current legislation exists that protects animals from cruelty.. I would like to say once again, that this debate is extremely difficult to conduct without knowing exactly what the Con is advocating. Does she want to ban the sale of pets? Does she want to reform the pet industry? What actual policy does she want to institute to solve the problems she mentions? Without a policy advocacy, the Con loses this debate. As a judge, you should vote for me simply because I am the only one with a clear policy advocacy: the status quo, keeping things the way they are.