The world would benefit if Pokemon existed

Thank you for your opening argument, Pro. I will now be arguing that the existence of Pokemon would make this world a terrible place. Here are the main points I will be making this round: 1. Training is impossible 2. Pokemon will not help us 3. Pokemon harm children 4. Pokemon harm the environment 1. Training is impossible I believe there is a misunderstanding concerning Pro's definitions. Let's take a look. "We're talking about the creatures from the Pokemon video games and cartoon. Suggesting that the video games already exist is an equivocation fallacy, and poor conduct." "Pokemon ["Pocket Monsters"] are creatures from a popular video game..." Twice Pro defines Pokemon as the creatures themselves, not any items or other aspects of the Pokemon world. In the games, and almost always in the cartoon, the only way one can "catch" a Pokemon, thereby taming it, is with a Poke Ball. Since the Poke Ball is not a real invention, and it explicitly defies the laws of physics [1], the idea of taming a wild Pokemon in the real world ranges from very rare to impossible. Therefore, Pro's "more social lives" argument is irrelevant. Since there cannot exist any "Trainers" in our world, one would have to assume that all Pokemon on the planet would be wild. In every single Pokemon game, encountering a wild Pokemon instantly throws you into a battle with it. We can therefore assume that every Pokemon is either aggressive towards humans or very territorial. The attack isn't just a warning, either: if the trainer's entire team faints, the wild Pokemon chases the trainer off, and the trainer is invariably forced to flee for his life, in such a panic that money flies out of his or her pockets. Pokemon are not kind or friendly; without Poke Balls, they are savage and bloodthirsty monsters. 2. Pokemon will not help us Next, Pro contends that several individual Pokemon species will be able to give mankind tremendous help with their respective powers, such as Chansey's wound-healing eggs and Delphox's clairvoyance. I won't deny that if we were able to control these Pokemon, they would prove useful in furthering the human condition. But there is no way to be sure that Pokemon are willing to help us. What if the Chansey only feed the eggs to their young? What if the Delphox simply refuse to tell anyone of their future visions? After all, they have no obligation to help humans, and there is nothing indicating that Pokemon are inherently friendly toward us. Why should they be? I'm sure no Chansey would want a gang of hairless apes invading her nest and stealing her precious eggs. 3. Pokemon harm children I will give Pro the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe not every Pokemon in the world is a savage beast. But there are still many species that are explicitly mentioned to be dangerous, cruel, and downright evil, even towards innocent kids. Let us take a look. "Avoid eye contact if you come across one. It will try to put you to sleep by using its pendulum." -Yellow's Pokedex entry for Hypno Hypno is definitely not friendly. If you even look at it, it will lull you to sleep. And that isn't all it does. "There once was an incident in which it took away a child it hypnotized." -FireRed's Pokedex entry for Hypno That's right; Hypno preys on children. Even if Pokemon could be tamed, which they could not in Pro's hypothetical situation, that would not prevent creepy Hypno from stealing your kids and doing unspeakable things to them. Here is more evidence that Pokemon are extremely dangerous for children. "It is whispered that any child who mistakes Drifloon for a balloon and holds on to it could wind up missing." -HeartGold's Pokedex entry for Drifloon "An abandoned plush doll became this Pokémon. They are said to live in garbage dumps and wander about in search of the children that threw them away." -Emerald's Pokedex entry for Banette Both of these terrifying creatures manifest themselves as fun, innocent children's toys. Drifloon takes advantage of tiny toddlers' love of balloons to spirit them away to who-knows-where, and Banette are the vengeful spirits of dolls in search of their old owners, no doubt to torture them in all kinds of gruesome ways. I would say a world where one can't even throw away an old toy without fear is not a very good world at all. 4. Pokemon harm the environment "Wherever Grimer has passed, so many germs are left behind that no plants will ever grow again." -Silver's Pokedex entry for Grimer "Known to cause forest fires unintentionally." -Red's Pokedex entry for Charizard Think of how devastating both of these would be. No forest will be safe if there is even one Charizard in the world, let alone half a hundred species of Fire-type Pokemon. And Grimer not only kills plant life, it renders the very soil infertile. Given that plant-based products comprise much of every human's diet, a Grimer outbreak would likely cause mass famine. These are merely two examples; there are many other ways that the moves and abilities of certain Pokemon could destroy the world as we know it. Think of moves like Drought, Earthquake, Hurricane, and Blizzard. Every time one of these moves are used, a natural disaster occurs. This would result in a tragically huge loss of human life. There are plenty of Pokemon with descriptions even more horrifying than these, but I will save them for a later round. I will now allow Pro to give his counterargument in round 3. SOURCES: 1. http://www.chemteam.info... 2. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...