Dog fighting (See initial argument)

I'm really grateful that Pro has returned, as I have certainly wanted to finish this debate, and I think he's set up a really solid set of arguments. Now, let's see if I can't knock them down. First, I'm just going to reorganize a bit, and group Pro's main arguments before addressing some of the more specific issues he's discussed. Looking at this round, I see 4 major arguments, plus a few corollary arguments that I've included: 1. Morality is personal because what's socially acceptable becomes what's moral. a. Morality in nature is subjective. 2. Legalization improves safety and treatment of dogs. 3. Being trained for and sent into dog fighting is better than being feral. a. It's also better than them being put down b. Training for dog fighting doesn't make them violent to humans. 4. The number of people involved wouldn't increase. 1. This is where he spends most of his time clarifying. He says since we accept many similar practices as moral from a societal level, we should accept this one. I made an argument in the comments regarding this, but I will restate part of it here: just because you've committed one objectively immoral act and continue to do so doesn't mean that you should expand the practice. Many human sports are objectively immoral by reducing quality of life or actually ending lives. The fact that they persist doesn't mean that dog fighting should be recognized as morally acceptable. This also ignores the issue of consent. A human being can consent to having their body ruined and putting themselves at physical risk. We cannot possibly know whether a dog is consenting, and even if we could, we cannot know whether that is a result of their own desires. As such, subjecting them to objectively immoral acts by forcing them to fight is made less moral than allowing adult humans to decide. It's the same reason we don't just throw children into a ring. And just to tack this on, the comparison to drugs is a bad one. Legalization of alcohol and tobacco took it out of the criminal market, shutting down black markets entirely. Dog fighting legalization will only serve to empower them, and increase the involvement of crowds and gamblers. I'll get into why that is over the course of my arguments. 1a. As for nature being subjective, I think we are better than nature. We're human beings, and we can assess things in ways that aren't solely based on survival of the fittest. What goes on in nature we can't and shouldn't affect, but we most certainly shouldn't see that as a reason to add to the death toll. 2. I'll repeat myself here: we would be accepting legalized animal abuse. In the best case scenario, Pro's stance in this round is still going to always lead to the injury of at least one dog in the ring. No amount of safety is going to prevent that. As I pointed out in the comments, this actually does come into what's socially acceptable for this country " we have drawn a line at the physical abuse of our pets. Forcing our pets to be abused by other people's pets is no less abuse. Also, much as my opponent makes many good responses, he never fully addresses the issue of bait animals dying to prove viciousness (that would persist even in a regulated environment, otherwise the sport as a whole would collapse), nor does he ever address my point about racing horses from Round 2, a perfectly legal practice of killing animals once they are no longer able to perform well. That doesn't disappear either. Nor does my argument on how criminal enterprises are still going to be in control following legalization. I've separated this out because he's actually supercharged the argument: "the truth is it would be the same amount of people doing it openly." It's not just the same amount " it's the same people. Nowhere in his argument does he ever state who these professional trainers are, where they have come from, that they've been waiting for legalization (this is particularly damning, I've never heard of a professional dog trainer just waiting for the ban to be removed), and that they are prepared to improve dog's lots. Criminals will continue to control the sport, and now that it's legal, they won't have to do it in back alleys. They'll be able to do it in open arenas, and still treat the dogs terribly, even if they're able to allow slightly less harm inside the ring. 3. I'm still not sure whether I buy this. Yes, some feral dogs get put down. Yes, some feral dogs attack people. Yes, some feral dogs get disease. But we're not comparing between finding these dogs a loving home and leaving them out in the streets. We're comparing between feral (as would be the case for many dogs, regardless of whether dog fighting is legalized) or being trained to fight other dogs. These are dogs that will be regularly injured by the teeth and claws of their opponent, increasing the chance for infection. Dogs that will likely receive steroid injections (as do many athletes), which could cause severe health issues for them. This is going to happen most times, if not every time. And the vast majority of these dogs will not live beyond their younger years, as they will be beaten in the ring, and either killed there or euthanized shortly thereafter. I'd say feral is still better than that. 3a. I made this argument back in round 2, but I would say it's better for them to be euthanized early than to suffer the traumas of multiple fights and severe training before inevitably being put down. Dying by itself is better than suffering AND dying. 3b. These dogs are bred to cause injury " at the very least " to every animal they see, small and large, essentially ensuring that either they have to be constantly locked up (great for their quality of life) or that they are incredibly likely to attack untrained dogs on their trips outside, dogs that are far likelier to die or receive permanent injuries in short confrontations. And that's if they're trained specifically not to attack humans, something that I think is a grandiose assumption by my opponent, as the ~250,000 dogs I cited in round 2 are almost certain to include a good number that aren't trained to recognize the distinction. 4. I'll accept this on one end " the number of people involved in training, selling, and fighting these dogs likely won't increase. As I said, criminal enterprises will still control that end, though perhaps they may increase the number of dogs used. But involvement on the spectator end certainly will increase. Pro states that this is a fallacious argument, that the same number of people would be using drugs if it was openly available, so the same would be true here. Again, I'd say that a comparison to drug legalization is unwarranted. Drug trips are not likely to be televised in the absence of a ban, at least outside of Japanese game shows. Dog fighting almost certainly will be syndicated to some extent, appearing on television screens to a much wider audience. And yes, being on TV will increase exposure, and therefore the audience, especially from chronic gamblers. Even if that's not the case, flyers will be posted of the events. They will happen in well lit arenas with easy access, not in back alleys. It will be a far more inviting atmosphere, one that increases awareness as well. Pure morbid curiosity will draw many people in. I don't think this is going to happen with any currently illegal drugs when legalized, either. In both cases, access is made affordable and simple, but what Pro is missing both that legal gambling most certainly won't care about moral boundaries, and that people are drawn to flashy shows on TV or in their neighborhoods. Humans are easily distracted by shiny objects. An increased number of gamblers and viewership further empowers the criminal organizations that run it. Lastly, I want to spend some more time on the child issue, something Pro really did not spend enough time on. All he says is that this isn't proven. My link says otherwise. I don't have the space to quote from it, but what it showcases is a definitive link between animal abuse and human violence. As I've stated multiple times now, this is literally legalized animal abuse. Putting that on a television screen in a well-lit arena for all to see tells children that animal abuse is acceptable. Whether that means that they participate in it themselves or don't do anything about family members who engage in it, that's a problem for both the animals themselves and for anyone who interacts with those family members. At the very least, we both agree that this can activate people with mental disorders, which is bad enough to keep the ban, but the reality is that it's going to lead to more animal abuse, more desensitized children, and more human violence among the general population as well. All Pro has on this point is a little uncertainty. That's not enough to make this argument disappear, nor does it minimize it to the point of unimportance. And with that, I await Pro's concluding post.