Pit bulls are too dangerous to be pets and need to be banned to protect children.

A ton of new stuff was brought up so I will have to address it in this final round. I will go point by point before finalizing with a single conclusion. In the first paragraph, my opponent suggests that I am comparing Pit Bulls to Hamsters. This is inaccurate. I am showcasing that being the most dangerous of a group does not show that there is a real danger in need of addressing. In the second paragraph, the “does it make sense” paragraph does nothing to build my opponent’s case. All it does is suggest that something should be done. There is no reasoning that banning the existence of over 4 million dogs is the right course of action to deal with these incredibly few deaths. My opponent states that deaths caused by other things don’t make sense to be compared to Pit Bull caused deaths. But he never explains why, he just states it. When, in fact, it does. The reason it does is because with murders caused by humans, we don’t ban humans. Deaths caused by bath tubs, we don’t ban bath tubs. But for some reason, with even few deaths caused by Pit Bulls, my opponent wants to ban Pit Bulls, rather than find a different solution. My opponent makes an interesting state at the end of paragraph three. “Swimming in water that does not have sharks in it safer than swimming in water with sharks. ” This is of course true, but likewise, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that people should never be allowed to go in the ocean, or that all sharks must be banned from the world because of the miniscule danger. The same applies for Pit Bulls. In Paragraph four, my opponent states, “we should…prevent deaths from falling down the stairs, drowning, and fatal dog attacks. ” Agreed, but banning is not the solution for any of those, especially not the one that causes the fewest deaths of the group. == Animal Rights == My opponent attempts to disprove animal rights by mentioning that Tigers also experience emotions, including love. Unfortunately, this is not true [1]. Cats are not up to the same emotional level as dogs, however, for the sake of debate, lets accept it. Tigers also have a right to be allowed to live and exist. My opponent goes on to move the goal post of this debate. This debate is about “Banning Pit Bulls” (as stated in the resolution, my opponent’s round 1 and their round 2). My opponent tries to shift it to banning the breeding of Pit Bulls, which is entirely different. This shift is also not supported by my opponent’s own argument when he referenced the 1990 Manitoba Pit Bull ban, which did, ban all Pit Bulls (unless you had a dangerous dog licence). My opponent does not address any of the owner rights. And does nothing more that says that state that the utility comparisons “don’t make sense. ” If he believes that Pit Bulls at a murder rate of 0.65 per 100,000 are “too dangerous” to exist, then he must believe the same to be true to other things that are statistically more dangerous, such as evil bath tubs, stairs, and black people. Any deaths are sad, and something should be done, but banning is not a realistic, fair, nor just solution. [1] . http://www.usatoday.com...