Cats are better than dogs

I, too, have enjoyed this debate, and hope people will judge according to the arguments, and not their personal choice for pets as many people will be inclined to do. My arguments are based on objectivity, and I hope they can be judged as such. My opponent states that cats are better than dogs. She elaborates by stating that cats are more benificial to their owners than dogs are. My opponent has failed to provide more than one benefit of cat ownership- companionship- and has argued that the cons for dog ownership amount to pro's for cat ownership, but completely disregards and discredits my own cons for cat ownership. If my cons for cat ownership are ignored, as well as her cons for dog ownership, and we weigh the arguments based on pros for ownership of either I believe this debate is completely one sided as I have provided many pros for dog ownership. "Yes, I insist on saying that the ability to kill represents a lack of benefit" -The ability to kill does not represent a desire and/or inevitability of killing. There are millions of dogs in this country, and there have been less than one hundred deaths attributed to dogs in 25 years. 70% of these deaths can be attributed to less than 1% of breeds. Most breeds, like cocker spaniels, have never been blamed for killing. This argument is moot if the dog owner owns a cocker spaniel. "Imagine. .. imagine. .. imagine. ." -My opponent attempts to paint scenarios completely irrelevant to this debate. In order to argue this debate we must assume equally responsible owners. Not all owners are as irresponsible as the hypothetical "imaginary" owner my opponent paints with the killer dog. Lets hypothetically assume, however, that the dog belonging to this "imaginary" owner is a 20 year old cocker spaniel who has never bit a soul. Lets assume this dog has lost all it's teeth, and can't even bite, let alone kill. The dog may still have escaped, but in fact poses no danger to the owner, kids, or the rest of the community. The "can kill" argument is purely hypothetical, and the only statistics were provided by me- not my opponent. "financial compensation. .. lawsuit"- Cats attack, and you can be sued if you are the owner (. http://www.local6.com..., . http://www.connpost.com..., . http://www.boston.com...). This argument is moot. "That should be also taken into account when deciding which pet is better for you. " -This argument isn't about personal choice, it's about whether or not cats or dogs "are more beneficial for the owner". I have already established that the ability to kill is not a measurement of benefit, rather a measure of risk. We are not debating risk, we are debating benefit. The presence of risk in one pet is not an argument for benefit in another. "They lick themselves pretty well. "- With their toungues. My opponent seems to be one of the only people in the world who believe cats don't need to be bathed (. http://www.drsfostersmith.com..., . http://www.petplace.com...). Not knowing how to care for your pet is not an argument of added benefit. "But cats can also do some things that dogs can't. E. g. - mouse. "- My opponent ignores the fact that her main argument is dogs can kill. Does this "killing" ability not apply to mice? Yes- dogs can kill mice, and will if they see them. Cats do the same thing- they don't necessarily go hunting for them. BUT I don't have any mice, neither does our perfect hypothetical pet owner. "The argument that cats can't be trained does not necessarily make them worse. "- This debate is not about which animal is worse, rather which one is better- "more beneficial to it's owner", remember? The ability does not make cats worse, but makes dogs "more beneficial to the owner". "However, since we have global warming, one day we all may "return to the bikes". Who knows"- This argument is, again, hypothetical and my opponent admits it with the line "who knows". We are speaking about now, and our hypothetical perfect owner drives a hybrid *winks*. "Still, what I am saying is that the basic amount of money you simply NEED to spend on a cat is lower than the basic amount NEEDED for a dog. "- That's not true. I owned a cat that was hyperactive, and agoraphobic. She would tear up the carpet, couches, curtains, etc. We had to buy her a play gym, and new toys all the time so she wouldn't tear up our home. At the time we also owned a UKC/AKC registered Pitbull who costed about $100 per month (about $25 per 20lb bag of Eukanuba, one of the best for Pits, about 4 times a month) in dog food, they were both on the same health plan so I won't even mention the cost, and I really didn't spend much money on her besides food after the initial collar, leash, toys purchase. My cat was a lot more expensive to own, and caused massive amounts of damage to our home. "My opponent ignores my point that "time is money". "- My opponent ignores the fact that dogs can produce money. Some owners have hunting dogs, others have herders, some have police dogs, service dogs, etc. People who spend time with their dogs do so because it is emotionally beneficial to them. They spend their free time with their dogs, not time they would otherwise be spending to be productive. If this argument were to hold any water, then even a cat owner is wasting money when sitting to read a book with a cat on her lap! Pets don't take up time you wouldn't otherwise invest in either pet, or time that wouldn't be leisure time, unless the pet is a working pet and in that case MAKES money. The argument is moot, and that is why I didn't address it earlier. "Firstly, my opponent says that cats are not intelligent because they refuse to be trained. "- Strawman. I never commented on the intelligence of cats. "Wonderful. Would anyone of you, ladies and gentlemen, be willing to obey some (maybe stupid) commands of your owner? "- A hypothetical question that is completely moot. By this same logic it can be argued that cats don't want to live in your house, period- they would rather be outside FREE. We are talking about PETS here, not people who feel enslaved. "Obeying commands doesn't really measure the IQ of these animals"- IQ is an intelligence quotient comparing actual age to mental age (ie. actual age 20, mental age 30, IQ= 1.5X 100= 150). How can we measure this for cats OR dogs? ?? Moot point. "Yes, why not? But: Some states in the WWII. trained the dogs to run with explosives on their backs under tanks of their opponents. .. then the dogs were killing. "- What? Reference please. .. no reference? No. That isn't what dogs who have earned rank and medals did in the Wars. You are misinformed, assuming, and/or trying to manipulate the argument to suit you. "No money spent on training means more money for you - which is beneficial. "- The hypothetical owner is a trainer. Doesn't spend money on training. If the hypothetical owner ISN't a trainer and spends money on training dogs to detect drugs- they will earn the money back by working in airports, etc. actually DETECTING drugs. Point moot. "There can be a situation when a cat saves your life. Imagine. .. "- I provided facts, not imaginary stories. "Still, it is much more common that cats help people to recover in hospitals. Why? Right - because they CAN'T kill. "- Again, I provided facts, not imaginary stories. Cats are not allowed in many hospitals because of the amount of allergens they carry. I don't underestimate the intelligence of my audience, and will trust they are smart enough to see this has been a debate of facts vs. personal opinion. With that I will rest my case.