Pokemon teaches animal abuse.

There are two ways Pro can argue this case: a) Pokemon “encourages” in the sense that it has the end effect of causing animal abuse. That is, Pokemon encourages animal abuse by causing its fans to be more likely to commit animal abuse. b) Pokemon “encourages” in the sense that it endeavors to promote animal abuse. That is, the artistic goal of Pokemon is to promote animal abuse. Pro should commit to which interpretation of “encourage” he will be defending in the next round. Without a stable understanding of what the Resolution claims, the debate defaults to a Con ballot. 1. Pro is making an empirical claim- he should be able to provide empirical evidence to support it. Pro has the burden to show that a) videogames have a non-negligible impact on the behavior of the people who play tham and b) the impact Pokemon has on its fans is in the direction of the Resolution. 2. Pokemon isn’t even about animals. Pokemon are magical and intelligent creatures- they can shoot lazer beams and control the weather. They are different from animals in both cognitive capacity and physical structure. Some Pokemon are literally rocks or ghosts. Does Pokemon encourage the abuse of rocks and ghosts? 3. Pokemon includes a wide range of views on how Pokemon should be treated. Some characters in the Pokemon universe think Pokemon should be used as tools for power, others think Pokemon should be loved as friends, others treat them as objects of scientific enquiry. The Pokemon universe displays a wide range of attitudes toward Pokemon, just as the real world do. Pro has to do more than point out that some of the views expressed by the characters in Pokemon could be read as pro-abuse. 4. The most prominent hero-figures in the Pokemon universe are very pro-animal. The relationship between Ash and his Pikachu is known by almost everyone, including those who don’t play Pokemon. This relationship is emblematic of the caring relationship the game encourages between trainer and Pokemon. 5. Pokemon like to fight and are intelligent. Pokemon are no different than people who box or practice martial arts- they are engaging in an activity they like. 7. The Resolution is flawed in its premise- Pokemon is a symptom not a cause. Pro is going to try to argue that the content of Pokemon encourages animal abuse. This is a misguided attempt to blame violence against animals on a local instance of a much broader cultural mindset. Affirming the Resolution “Pokemon encourages animal abuse” masks problematic attitudes toward animals that are entrenched in society. This occurs on two levels. The Resolution attempts to set up a causal relationship between one instance of popular culture and one particular instance of mistreatment of animals. This causal relationship obscures the reality of animal abuse- that it is fueled by complex societal causes and our cultures misguided understanding of animals and ecological ethics. The Resolution implies a simple “Pokemon is the problem”/blame the media solution and eschews the responsibility we have to examine our own views toward animals and how it relates to animal abuse. This argument is a prior issue to all other arguments in-round. If I win that we should focus on the root causes of animal abuse and that the Resolution obscures these root causes, then the rest of the arguments in the debate are superfluous.