Cats are better than dogs

My opponent claims that Cats are better than dogs because "their possession is more beneficial for their owners". My opponent claims that you are more likely to be killed by the average cat than by the average dog, but I will assume by the context that what my opponent meant to say was that you are more likely to be killed by the average dog than by the average cat. Even if this is what my opponent meant, this does not make cats "more beneficial". Indeed a rifle is more beneficial to a hunter than a knife may be, yet more hunters are killed by the average rifle than by the average knife (though statistics are not specifically available for hunters, I will provide death rates by cause: . http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...). Risk is not a detriment to benefit, and in fact this debate is based on my opponent's assessment that "the possession of cats is more beneficial to their owners". If not being attacked by a pet is a measurement of benefit, then it can be argued that specific breeds, like cocker spaniels, are better to own than cats because in 25 years there has only been one reported dog bite by cocker spaniels, and no deaths. This applies to other breeds as well (. http://www.dogsbite.org...). Cats do bite, and 30-50% (. http://www.healthatoz.com...) of cat bites cause infection (one source claimed as many as 80% become infected). My opponent claims that the cost of ownership is greater with dogs, and therefore it is "more beneficial" to own a cat. I contend that cost of ownership is dependent on breed, extent of use, and the owner him/herself. A person living in poverty may own many dogs and spend little money to feed and care for these dogs, and these dogs may be in perfect health, while a wealthy cat owner may even adorn his/her pet with expensive jewelry like diamond studded collars. Expense is dependent on the owner, and again- though this can be a "con" to ownership of dogs it does not automatically translate as a pro for cats. I will explain after addressing all my opponent's points. My opponent again presents a con for dog ownership that does not equal as cats being more beneficial for their owners. My opponent contends that because cats need less care than dogs, they are more beneficial. I contend that cars need more care than cats, but are much more beneficial for their owners than cats are. They are also more expensive to own! Now, I will provide some comparisons given the benefits offered by the ownership of dogs, and try to translate this into the ownership of cats as an equal benefit. 1. Dogs can be trained to perform services, tasks, and have even earned medals of valor and ranks within the US Military (. http://www.qmfound.com...). There are no documented cases of cats performing courageously or serving the US Government or Military in any way. 2. Dogs have a keen sense of smell, and combined with #1 provide an irreplaceable method of detecting drugs, explosives, and other contraband. Dogs are even being trained to detect diseases (. http://www.sciencedaily.com...). There are no (or none that I could find) documented instances of cats detecting contraband or diseases. 3. Dogs form a familial bond with humans that may cause them to react in a life saving manner (. http://www.cbsnews.com...; . http://news.bbc.co.uk...; . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). Dogs will save your life even if they don't know you. There are no documented instances of a cat saving someone's life. Dogs can be trained to serve the blind or otherwise disabled. They provide a familial presence for those who would otherwise be lonely. Dogs have been documented as dialing 911 to save their owners (. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...; . http://www.foxnews.com...). Dogs can save your life, fill a void, protect your family from terrorists, find your missing loved ones, alert your doctor to an unsensed disease, etc. Cats can do none of this. My opponent has provided no examples of how a cat is more beneficial to it's owner than a dog, and I have provided many reasons why a dog is more beneficial.