Scorpions are good pets in general.

=Lethality=Con concedes that scorpions are generally not lethal. This means that I can move onto the harmful point, and it also means that my opening statement was not negated.Con asserts that that a scorpion sting is dangerous and painful. This is a tautology, as they mean the same thing. Because of this, I will only address the point that scorpion stings are painful. Here, I notice an apparent contradiction. Con says you wouldn't want to play with a scorpion because they're harmful, yet in his previous argument, he asserted that you cannot play with a scorpion. In his list under 'Most Popular Pets', he states 'You can't play with, cuddle with, walk, train etc scorpions'. By his own argumentation, you cannot play with a scorpion. Therefore, whatever he thinks about playing with a scorpion is irrelevant, because he asserts you can't do it in the first place.I also find it to be ironic that he cites the Mayo Clinic to support his argument that scorpion stings are harmful. His actual Mayo Clinic source reads that 'Scorpion stings — although painful — are mostly harmless'.[1] The source he provided to back up his statement only contradicts him. Furthermore, Mayo Clinic also says 'Most scorpion stings don't need medical treatment'.[2] Therfore, using Cons own sources, scorpion stings are mostly harmless, and mostly don't require medical attention.Would a scorpion sting be more likely to harm the elderly and children? Possibly. However, the elderly and children only make up 33% of the population when they are combined. Therefore, this does not satisfy the 'general' part of the resolution.[3] Furthermore, I would like to stress that the unlikelihood of being stung by your pet scorpion. If it gets out and stings someone, it is because you did not secure its terrarium well enough, allowing it to escape. The medical attention Cons sources refer to are mostly referring to stings from wild scorpions. If you or a family members gets stung by a pet scorpion, it was likely the fault of one of its human caretakers. A well-kept pet scorpion could not escape in the first place. This argument holds true for people who are allergic to the venom.In regards to pets being stung, I have already answered that question. I stated 'Can a scorpion kill a pet? Well, it depends on the circumstances. In most cases, your scorpion would probably die if it escaped from its terrarium, as they have very sensitive exoskeletons and wouldn't survive the drop. However, if they did manage to escape and live, I feel that a house-pet such as a cat or a dog would be able to kill them. Cats and dogs in places like Arizona, where scorpions are considered pests, have been known to kill scorpions. If your scorpion did manage to kill another pet, who's fault was it for not securing its cage enough? That responsibility lies with the pet owner.' Con did not even begin to address that argument. All he died was repeat the same argument again, which I have already answered. Until he answers this argument, the pet point does not stand.Will a scorpion sting send you to the hospital? Most likely, that is not the case. I have already cited Mayo Clinic stating that scorpion stings generally aren't harmless and don't usually require medical attention.*Con conceded the lethality point.*Cons own argumentation contradicts itself in regards to playing with a scorpion.*Cons own sources contradict his argument.*Con did not answer the 'pets being stung' counter-argument, so it stands.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...= Ease of Care=I did not assert that ease of care made scorpions better than other pets. I used that to reinforce the idea that they're good pets in their own right.Con quotes from an article about taking care of an Emperor scorpion. Emperor scorpions are one out of many species of scorpions. In fact, Emperor scorpions are about 0.05% of all scorpion species. Therefore, his argument is too specific to be relevant to the resolution. General is defined as 'not confined by specialization or careful limitation'. That is exactly what Con did: limit his arguments to specialization and limitation.(By the way, misting takes a few minutes, and heat mats only need to be adjusted once, barring some technical error. Furthermore, my opening argument stated that 'After you have set up the terrarium for it, it's not a challenge to keep it well-fed and happy.' Hence, terrarium setup is outside of this debate.)* Cons argument is not general, and therefore has no relevance to the resolution.=Longevity=In this argument, I fear that Con has made the same mistake that he did last time: attack arguments that were not made. He is correct in stating that I compared the longevity of scorpions to cats and dogs. However, when he states that I was 'insisting that longevity is what made cats and dogs popular which would make scorpions popular as well. Sadly, that is not an argument I ever made. The only conclusion my longevity point ever made was that 'Scorpions live longer than the most popular pets in the United States of America'. It did not conclude that since popular pets live long, scorpions must be popular as a result.Con provides no sources in regards to the distinction between people who want long-living pets and people who want short-living pet, so this argument can be dismissed.= Most Popular Pets=I argue that using the top ten most popular pets to establish which animals are the most beautiful is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that the most beautify creatures are the most popular. The connection simply does not exist. Furthermore, he tries to prove his standards of beauty aren't subjectve by pointing out he got it from data (the most popular pets). However, what he appeals to--the people--is also a subjective standard. The opinions of the majority mean nothing, unless he wants to make an argument from popularity. By trying to prove his standards are not subjective, he has appealed to something that is also subjective, and is stuck in the same situation he was before.The resolution states nothing about the general public opinion on scorpions. It states that they are good pets in general. The inclusion of the term 'general' was to prevent Con from using a deathstalker scorpion to prove scorpions were bad pets, and to prevent Pro from using emperor scorpions to prove they're harmless.Will feeding your scorpion become a banal activity? Possibly, but possibly not. There is no evidence either way. The fact that it may become boring has no bearing on the fact that it's something you can do. Hence, this point stands, and I use this argument in regards to burrowing as well.Of course pet scorpions are an interesting topic because they're rare and uncommon. That's the entire point. I don't see how this negates that at all.Con thinks I said you needed gloves to use a scorpion. In fact, I did not state this. I stated that 'Handling it is not impossible at all, and gloves can be worn if you are concerned about your personal safety.' It was only a recommendation for those who are fearful of being stung, not something required for all people interested in handling a scorpion.I do not see why somebody who is afraid of physical scorpions would be afraid of just talking about them. Even if they wish to move onto another topic, you've lost nothing anyways.Scorpions are not 'bugs'--they are arachnids.The resolution is upheld. I guess that's what we're supposed to say after every round?