Resolved: free family pigeons kept for racing.

I completely disagree with Pro when he notes, "Con's sense of what is inhumane is to be respected, but is not relevant. It is [only] Olivia's judgment that counts..." This is simply untrue. Olivia's feelings are not the only ones that are pertinent to the situation. A common belief on what is considered cruel has to be taken into account. For instance, if Olivia's cousin called her ugly, she might think this to be cruel and a great abuse towards her. Olivia may think that her cousins deserve to be locked in a closet for hours due to their behavior towards her. However, most people in society would probably not deem it appropriate for one to be locked in a closet because they called someone ugly. While mean, it does not warrant a certain behavior/action. Thus while Olivia's cousins could probably treat their animals a little better, what they're doing with/to the pigeons would probably not be considered cruel by society's standards to the point where setting them free is necessary. Therefore, Olivia setting them free would be unwarranted and in itself a great injustice. In other words, society sets standards through laws for certain consequences to occur. In a similar example, taking someone's child away is wrong and illegal, UNLESS there is evidence that the child is being placed in great danger and/or is severely harmed. Just because a parent might act harshly towards their child in your opinion does not give you the right to remove the child from one's parent. Instead, there are other options, such as alerting the department of child services to investigate the situation. Likewise, you cannot just take someone's pet and set it free for a reason you deem to be somewhat cruel, especially since no immediate harm is being introduced to the birds. Instead, Olivia could consider talking to her cousins about the situation (they have a good relationship after all), or contacting PETA. However to set the pigeons free without any compelling justification or without notice to her cousins would be completely immoral -- it is not following the appropriate due process regarding chattel rights, a process that for all intensive purposes should be respected or at least upheld. Next Pro attempts to draw a distinction between living and inanimate property. He writes that slaughtering a puppy would be a lot more unsettling than seeing someone smash their iPod. This is probably true; however, it has nothing to do with the fact that one has no right to damage, destroy or take someone elses property, whether it be an iPod or a puppy. Say I am the owner of both an iPod and a puppy. Simply because I place more instrinsic value on the life of the puppy does not make the iPod OR the puppy any less my property. Both belong to me. Just because I may be more upset if someone killed my puppy doesn't mean that I wouldn't be upset if someone stole my iPod. Pro considers us to simply be the owners and guardians of our animals. However in choosing to accept that role and be charged with the welfare, safety and well-being of our pets, we are also making an investment in - you guessed it - personal property. It seems kind of strange to view our pets that way but in essence that is what they are. People pay money for something and in return receive what they paid for. So although Pro has probably meant to tug at the heart strings of all of the animal lovers out there, I urge that you try looking at it from another perspective. Consider a baseball player, for example. He is a living being with feelings, emotions, a soul, free-will, etc. Now say the Yankees "buy him" and he is now a part of the Yankee franchise. While of course the Yankees cannot buy this player's mind, body, soul or spirit, they CAN buy him in a more tangible sense. It is the same way with pets. If you are still not following my point of view, consider your own pet at home. Do you not own this pet? If not, do you think it would be okay for someone to randomly decide either 1 - that they are going to take this pet from you without your consent, simply because they want to be it's new guardian? Or 2 - do you think it would be okay if someone decides that you are undeserving of this pet (for whatever/no reason), and therefore they want to set this pet free without your permission? If you believe either of these instances to be wrong, you should vote Con. Lastly my opponent brings up happiness vs. contentment, and asserts that Olivia seeks greater happiness from the pigeons than her cousins do. That is simply unsupported logic and should not be taken into account, for it is Pro's mere opinion and not supported by any evidence in this debate. For instance, even if Olivia were to experience sheer happiness via her appreciation of the birds, that DOES NOT mean that her cousins do not experience unbridled enthusiasm from the sport of pigeon racing. True, they may not love the birds in and of themselves as much as Olivia does. However, this debate does not take into account how her cousins feel about the sport in general, or elude to what kind of sheer happiness they may receive from the game. Further, my opponent's logic is flawed in another sense as well. Say I owned an expensive house - but did not keep it clean - and someone else were to see my house, note my neglect, and appreciate my house in general more than I did for a number of reasons. This appreciation would NOT give one the right to take my house (my property) from me simply because they may experience unequivocal happiness from/for this house than I do. If you want to take it back to a living/inanimate context, the same logic applies to my puppy. Just because someone might think my puppy was cuter than I thought it to be, or play with my puppy more often than I did (for whatever reason), this would not give someone the right to take my puppy from me, or take your puppy from you if that were the situation in your case. I would also like to note that Pro has ignored some of my philosophical points (since this debate was probably intended to discuss some philsophy related/based ideas), namely in the Kant regard and even some of the points I made about Mill's ideas. For instance, Pro never touched upon producing the greatest amount of happiness for the greater number of people (Mill), nor did he refute Kant's opinion regarding duty and honesty. I had pointed out that Olivia's duty to her cousins surpassed that of her duty to the pigeons. Also, I had mentioned that lying to her cousins about what happened to the birds would not only be hurting her cousins, but also herself and her own conscience as well. The bottom line is that there is a clear right and wrong to this debate -- it's just a matter of putting things into perspective. I'll give a few final examples to conclude my argument before urging you to vote Con (hehe). Think of the many reasons that a couple winds up having children. Three of them include: because they really love kids and wanted to raise a family; because the condom broke or they forgot to wear protection; because a divorce was looming and they wanted one last shot to salvage the relationship. Now while one of these reasons is obviously more noble of why a couple would have a child, it does not mean that the couples who have children for those other reasons are not parents or are undeserving to be parents because of their intentions. Now I would like to make it clear that I do not think children are property so the situation is a little different; however, the same logic still applies. And finally, think about the parents who have kids but hire nannys to raise them. The children may unfortunately get to know and love the babysitters more than their own families. While incredibly sad, that would not give the nannys the right to steal or release the children from the custody of their parents. And such it is with the pigeons, you see. Think about all of these points before making your final decision. Thanks.