Are dogs better than cats

My opponent has instigated this debate, is affirming the resolution, and is defending a positive statement. Therefore, he has the BOP. He must be able to prove to us conclusivley that (x), dogs, is objectively better than (y), cats. He must prove that X > Y. In order to win, I must either neutralize his arguments. If the options that either Y > X or Y = X are still on the table upon the conclusion of this debate, Pro has not upheld his BOP. His argument essentially boils down to this: P1: If dogs possess (a), (b), and (c) criteria, they are objectively better than cats. P2: Dogs possess (a), (b), and (c) criteria. C: Dogs are objectively better than cats. I'll begin by addressing P1. First and foremost, he cannot defend this burden of proof because he has not defended a definition of "better," nor has he done so in a way that bears objectivity. In fact, he cannot prove objectivity, as virtually every single event, ever single action, every single feeling is objective. This is often seen in morality. (X) culture may find (Y) action to be morally repugnant, whereas (Z) culture may find it to be perfectly fine. This is not to say that objectivity does not exist, for even the statement "Nothing is objective" is, ipso facto, objective. However, there is hardly a way for us to be able to understand a concept (x), such as dogs, objectively, for what we know about them bowls down to two factors: perception and language. Perception is useless in this case, as not only may it be flawed -- e. g. , if I am color blind, I see the color of your shirt as different than would someone who does not -- but it is highly subjective. For instance, let's consider a scenaro where two puppies are playing in the backyard. I become worried that the dogs are killing each other, as I perceive loud barking and the animals pouncing on one another. My neighbor may disagree with me: he may see ther behavior as benign, or typical. What could be an explanation for his behavior? Perhaps he has seen and worked with dogs his entire life, and has seen dogs behave in a manner like this before. He may have once thought as I did, and then changed his mind. Therefore, perception is a subjective lens rooted largely in experience. The next concept to consider is language: this is largely a matter of whether a term such as "better" can actually be objectively substantiated. However, language is man-made, and there is no basis for it in objectivity. When we use a word such as "better" -- or even when we say "objective" -- we've already entered what Frederic Jameson called the "prison-house of language. " Language has evolved throughout the centuries with mankind and is largely rooted in culture -- e. g. , people speak different languages in different parts of the world, which has much to do with migration patterns and so forth. It follows from these arguments that, while objectivity itself may exist -- e. g. , there may be an objective answer as to whether I am right now typing this argument, though there may even be reason to doubt that (for instance, do I even exist? It's prima facie that I do, though I cannot prove this conclusively for you without circular logic) -- humans cannot possibly conceive of it, and thus there is no objective answer to whether cats or dogs are in fact "better. " My opponent is simply stating his opinion. Because I have disproved objectivity, there is no conceivable way for Pro to fulfill his burden of proof. Now that I have disproven P1, I will attack P2. He lays out these criteria by which he hopes to prove his assertion. His argument essentially becomes this: P1: If objectivity exist, (x), (y), and (z) are the basis for ascertaining the notion of "objectively better. "P2: Objectivity exists. P3: (x), (y), and (z) are the basis for ascertaining the notion of "objectively better. " However, the notion that he can assign this criteria is rooted in objectivity, which I have already disproven. Assigning these criteria is in fact a classic example of being trapped in the "prison-house" of language. His criteria are man-made: they do not speak to objectivity. Some people may agree with his criteria or even his judgments with regard to those criteria, whereas others may not. Others may agree with him that dogs are better than cats, whereas others do not. The point is, people may use different criteria to come to their conclusions or even come to a different conclusion altogether. The point stands that Pro is issuing an opinion, but not an objective fact. As it stands, the resolution is negated. At this point, I will address the remainder of his arguments. "I believe dogs are 100% better than cats, one;they are cuter cuddlier and adorable. Who could resist and adorable puppy's face. "Note that he begins by stating his opinion, whereas the resolution calls for objectivity. He then claims that dogs are "cuter cuddlier and adorable. " I assume that he intended to write "cuter, cuddlier, and more adorable" -- the emphasis being on the last adjective: I'm sure that he intended for it to be a comparative adjective, because simply using a regular adjective, "adorable", tells us nothing. Again, this is his opinion. He cannot prove this objectively, and therefore we cannot take it as an argument. He then suggests that people could not resist an "adorable puppy's face. " First off, this is an appeal to an ad populum fallacy, even if it were true. Second, if I could only find a single person who could resist an "adorable puppy's face," or who disagrees that dogs are "cuter," "cudlier," and "more adorable," the resolution is negated. I happen to be one of those people. Therefore, this point does not stand. "and ever heard the phrase, dogs are mans best friend, don't hear any popular phrases like THAT about cats. "First, the prison-house of language argument is relevant here, as he is attempting to suggest that language, ipso facto, bears objectivity. I have proven that it is man-made and does not. Second, this is another ad populum fallacy. If people happened to like dogs and thus branded a phrase such as "man's best friend," it may mean that some people like dogs. But even if more people like dogs than liked cats, the resolution does not stand, as this does not convey objectivity. Also, has my opponent never heard of the phrase, "the cat's meow? " "And cats are horrible. "This is entirely my opponents opinion, and a clear example of a bare-assertion fallacy. "I for one have rabbits and whenever I see a cat I have to run outside in case it attacks my bunnys. "First, this is an appeal to anecedotal evidence, not an objective source. Second, he is suggesting once again that (x) criteria -- even if it were true that cats are aggressive, which he hasn't proven to us -- makes cats objectively inferior to dogs. However, he cannot prove that categorically, which is what he needs to do in order to win this debate. "dogs don't do that for no reason. "There's a double negative in this sentence, but I presume he meant to say that dog's don't do "that" -- that being the display of violent behavior he just spoke of -- for "any reason. " Agan, he has stated this as though it were an absolute, and has not backed up the assertion with any evidence. Pitbulls happen to be quite aggressive creatures, so it is not unreasonable to think that they would diplay this sort of aggressive behavior. "also cats can scratch, ever heard of the girl that was trying to keep the cat from attacking her dig and she had to go to the hospital because it attacked her. "The same fallacies have been committed here: an appeal to an anecdote without any evidence, an appeal to (x) criteria providing objectivity, and failure to prove his comparative analysis. Is he claiming that dogs don't scratch? As a dog-owner myself who has plenty of scratch marks on my chest, I can affirm that they do in fact scratch. "And yes dogs attack people, because of how their owner has treated them. .. or something tormenting them, see dogs attack for a reason. .. Cats just attack because they want to! !! !! !! "First, this is a bare-assertion fallacy. There is no body of academic literature undergirding the notion that cats, but not dogs, act on impulse and that dogs, but not cats, act in response to the way in which they've been trained. The insinuation is that cats cannot be trained, which doesn't have any truth to it whatsoever. And, to make another appeal to objectivity, even if I were to grant Pro that it were true -- and I'm not, but this is purely hypothetical -- then this would still be irrelevant, because (x) criteria cannot bear out objectivity. "And what would be best to have by your side if you were getting robbed? A cat that will run away and flee. .. or a dog that will stay and protect you? "This is another appeal to (x) criteria to attempt to prove objectivity and two bare-assertion fallacies which he has not substantiated.