Dogs and Cats Are Superior Than Any Other Living Animals

Thank to phantom who has accepted it as Pro. I apologies for the fail attempt for round two of this debate because I was away with friends the other day and totally forgot about it. I also apologies for stating imperative sentence in round one. phantom:"Being ferocious does not mean they are not superior, on the contrary it means they are more superior than other animals because they are able to fight off their enemies as well as being feared."ï¿½ My previous argument has made the idea clear that firstly if we trained them as friends, they should behave the way we wanted which is to benefit in humans' favor, and to be bite or scratched or killed is not considered as humans' favor. To hurt people was not part of the education. Could my opponent explain why there are dogs hunting humans if they are naturally our friends? We failed in the process of educating wild dogs which revealed their wild dreams, the cruelty which is part of the nature. If that is true, then how could my opponent prove that a lion or a cow couldn't do any better than a dog as our friends. phantom's idea of dog's cruelty and being feared have made them stand out from other natural animals therefore be selected by humans to educate could not convince me. According to phantom's idea, then a wolf is superior than a dog, a great white shark is superior than a dog, a hawk is superior than a dog, a lion is superior than a dog, even a spider is superior than a dog as these animals all have a greater ability of being feared. phantom:"dogs and cats have a natural appeal towards humans as pets. In fact statistics show 57% of American households today own either a dog or cat." my opponent's argument is not convincing as he didn't point out how this statistics relate to the topic of superior. 57% of American households own either a dog or cat doesn't make them naturally superior. It was because we have educated them in order to benefit in our own life. The features that dogs posed are all trained by humans to be beneficial to US in the context of human's morality and value: friendship, loyalty, trusting. In reality, a dog doesn't understand what loyalty means, it doesn't understand what betraying means. Dogs don't understand what they were doing. phantom's statement "dogs and cats have a natural appeal towards humans as pets" is not persuasive as we can see so many kinds of animals have had natural appeal towards humans as pets such as rabbits. phantom: "They are naturally loyal, smart, trusting, and friendly. There are not many animals that possess these attributes as much as dogs and cats do." Have you guys heard of the film called DOGS AND CATS? I haven't watched the film but I know in this movie the cat is a bad figure. My argument is not going to be based on a fantasy movie but on reality. As I have posted in the previous section The features that dogs posed are all trained by humans to be beneficial to US in the context of human's morality and value. In reality, a dog doesn't understand what the loyalty means, it doesn't understand what betraying means." Same scenario towards cats. There are people who stated that dogs are loyal as they don't know why dogs are always running around them and keep in touch with them. Are cats doing the same? A cat will always climb up on the roof and keep disappearing for a night or so. In humans society cats are the example of betraying and shifty. Under this context they have made the film DOGS AND CATS, you can't argue with that. My question is do cats understand what shifty means? Do they understand what betraying means? According to phantom's logic, dogs are superior because They are naturally loyal, smart, trusting. Then what about cat, are cats loyal? are they trusting? what do you expect from a cat? not going out during night? but it is part of its natural habit. therefore a cat should be inferior to dog according to phantom's idea. My opponent here has made a big mistake as he is judging whether a animal is superior by comparing each animals natural appeal under the context of human value and morality. animals don't have morality. they don't understand, then how come my opponent say a dog is superior because dogs are loyal and trusting? My opponent stated: "If you take 5 kids and gave them a good education, then compare them to 5 other kids who received no education the first 5 would be superior to the other 5." is that really true? no being educated doesn't mean one will be better than those who hasn't, because we never known what happened in each individuals. Bill Gates withdrawn his degree while he was at Harvard, this didn't result him in a inferior position than those who have finished the degrees. A chimpanzee will be much more pleasing if it received education from human. A dolphin, an Octopus also built a close relationship with human's such as being friendly with human, performing shows and even doing mathematics. phantom's example "In a test it was found that dogs were able to pick up on what humans were trying to convey much better than other species including chimpanzees." I am confused here as I don't know what phantom was trying to say. Do you mean dogs are smarter? they are obviously not. wild gorillas using sticks and stumps to navigate a swampy forest clearing in the Republic of the Congo."(source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...) we also see monkeys and hawks using rocks to break up foods. A chimpanzee riding a bicycle. In terms of intelligence, a dog or a cat shouldn't be considered as superior. Looking forward to Con's respond In terms of round two, my opponent has made several mistakes. Firstly, I was not trying to copy phantom's avatar, I personally see ape as a funny and lovely character Secondly, my avatar is definitely better than phantom's because: "Cigarettes clearly fit the style that gorillas are expected to attain" phantom's hasn't explained why a ape couldn't have a cigar but cigarette. " My gorilla (Leo) is holding his cigarette in a much more chill way than my opponents gorilla is. As you can see Wesley's cigar is just sitting on the edge of his mouth in an awkward hanging position." I found out phantom's idea is very interesting because he thinks holding a cigarette on the edge is cooler. I have smoked for 4 years now with about 10-20 cigarettes a day. to be honest i only saw old aged women holding cigarette the way Leo does. All the women put their cigarettes on the edge of their mouths no joke. Looking at the length i truly doubt the actual size of the cigarette Leo is having. to be honest I never seen a straight man smoking a 90's+, as you can see Leo's is very long. what do you expect me to say? The way Wesley holding his cigar is very correct as cigar smoke is not meant to be inhaled, in order to enjoy a nice cigar while doing your work people always keep it on one side so they can rapidly exhaust the smoke from the other edge of the mouth without the aid of their hands. in fact this is a chiller way of smoking a cigar, i sometimes have Italian cigars and most of the time i keep it on one edge of my mouth so i can free my hands doing other stuffs. "My opponents gorilla is wearing a suite. Mine is completely naked. Naked is the new cool! Wesley here needs to get in style like my nude dude gorilla." phantom here made another mistake as he claimed nude is new for the gorilla. i have watched discover channel since i was 7 i never seen a gorilla wear anything. I believe all apes have a dream of wearing humans clothe and look cooler just like our human do. getting dressed up and looked like a civilized specie is the new cool for an ape! conclusion I truly doubt the sexual orientation of Leo. And I concern about his overall health as its skin color doesn't look very healthy to me. This is nismo2009 at MElbourne, hand it back to phantom cheers