a dog is not befitting of the title man's best friend.

My argument is not that dogs are unworthy as animals. Rather it is that to be considered man's best friend, an animal must offer something that is and has been extremely critical to man's needs, to this effect, I am only showing that blind compassion for dogs does not make them man's best friend. Yes, there is not an animal on this earth but a man uses as a tool, to your example, yes hunting dogs are the tools of the hunters, they are trained to hunt not for themselves but for their master and who is to say that cows and horses do not like being useful? Using cows , horses and sheep was an attempt to show that judging an animal's worth should be based on the values we attribute to a best friend, how can one be your best friend when he/ she can kill if trained or for survival? The notion that dogs hunt for man because of the bond with man is shallow, mind you wild dogs hunt... for food ! it is in the nature of dogs to hunt and thus can be trained, you can't train a cat to hunt food for you because it is not in its nature to hunt for man, i am not saying its impossible. In Dubai, Cheetahs are trained to hunt for men , are you saying it is because of the close bond with man? yet a cheetah is a wild animal capable of great harm! it can only be because it is in a dog's nature to be trained like this, the same way you can train a crow to do things that over birds can't, what does that have to do with a bond with man? What do you mean you can't be friends with your dinner? What does friendship have to do with dinner, plus dogs are eaten in some parts of the world and what does that have to do with being man's best friend? are you saying that people do not have pets like pigs and chicken? I find this argument deeply irrelevant to the subject at hand. Dogs are useful and a buddy? Do dogs provide milk or food? do dogs provide warm clothing? A buddy? what! are you saying that just because you can be a bu(ally)ddy to a dog all men are capable of the same fit? A dog may be useful for travel but that is within the parameters of its use; this can't be used a tool to judge if it counts for being a buddy or not, mind you a chihuahua being a dog, can not be a favored companion while useful at the sometime, clearly your reasoning excludes such breeds. No, by burdens i mean heavy loads, how can a cow carry trouble, your use of such tactics to undermine my arguments is unreasonable.What use is a barking dog in battle compared to a horse/calvary? How can i back up my claim that man rewards a dog by the title man's best friend out of pity? am i supposed to present a scientific full proof study? Rather i have presented the notion that to a dog the title man's best friend is empty and worthless, it does not comprehend and as such does not care, but it is man who comprehends and as such it is man that benefits from referring to a dog as such, instead of dismissing my assertion by demanding evidence why don't you dispute it and reveal its flaws? Rebuttal A useful buddy: I never suggested that a work horse is a useful buddy, this is a forgery on your end to justify your views at my expense. Where do you get the audacity to claim that a dog enjoys being used for dog fighting, in fact a recent study found (http://news.nationalpost.com...) that hugging dogs causes STRESS for them. is this the buddy you said enjoys having fun with man when even a simple act of affection like hugs induces stress. There is no way a human being can be used and treated like a dog and he or she would be okay with it, your comparison is clearly meant exclusively for argument. If they are having fun with you ( even though a hug causes stress) then they are a buddy too?? Really and a best friend can mean friend too? Does using a person or an animal as you see fit make them a friend? no thats barbaric In order to claim the title man's best friend you must be 1. Most useful: Overall a cow is more useful than a dog, period. More people depend on cow products than on dogs in the world 2. The best buddy: We are talking about animals here, they lack the ability to comprehend as humans do, as such we can never judge them as we judge humans hence the second condition should be the "least dangerous" - again cows are less dangerous than dogs, i have not heard of a stray cow causing as much trouble as a stray dog. the second criteria is subjective, what constitutes a buddy? Using dog lover terms to justify your feelings about dogs does not change the relevant facts, dogs can be trained to be extremely violent killers and loyal to the trainers; they are not a buddy to the human that they have been assigned to intimidate ( ask the victims of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq). We can't reach a consensus because a dog may be a buddy to con , but a killer to others, so how can you condemn mankind to the hands of this violent buddy? How can you compare a dog to a chicken? a chicken can not be used as a dog can, but a chicken is not dangerous and is food, man has no need to fear a chicken however well trained. it is like comparing a chair to a table, they have different uses! using these examples was an attempt to show that these animals have 1. most use to man 2. least dangerous to man, as that was my criteria. Con's buddy system attempts to disregard all of this and he seems intent on justifying his views in anyway, can we say that because we can humiliate a dog by making it play catch an such games, it is a buddy over other animals which are capable of things of more importance that dogs can never be trained to do? come on!! Dogs will never outclass cows because cows provide hides, milk,meat and are even worshipped by some men. It is a recognition that since the dawn of man a cow has been and will continue to be the most useful creature he uses, as it provides basic needs to him. If you were the only person left on earth and you had to choose between staying with 2 dogs or 2 cows( that can procreate) what would you choose? you would definitely not be thinking about tennis balls but survival