Dog Fighting Should Be Legal

I do apologize that this is not my best response. I have been moving into a new house and physically and mentally exhausted. I do hope that Danielle and I can debate again sometime. Burden of ProofRemember that because Danielle is arguing against the status quo, the burden of proof falls on her to affirm that dog fighting should be legal. -- Danielle's Case--As I have pointed out, Danielle's case is based on non sequitur and issues that are irrelevant to the debate. She has failed to defend my rebuttals; thus, Danielle has failed to affirm her side of the resolution.Eating MeatPro's first contention is that eating meat is not necessary for our health and thus eating meat is therefore animal abuse. 1. So what? If it was animal abuse, then I would agree that we should ban meat.2. Evolutionary history shows that eating meat made us human [1].3. Furthermore, studies have shown that meat is necessary in our diet, especially in children. As Michael Hopkin writes in Nature [2]: Meat is a vital part of a child's diet, according to a two-year study of Kenyan school kids. Without it, children grow up smaller, less strong and less intelligent, the results suggest. So clear are the benefits, in fact, that denying children meat or dairy products in the first few years of life is unethical, argues Lindsay Allen of the University of California, Davis, who carried out the research. Double StandardsPro writes:"We allow animal cruelty for sport with other animals like horses. We also use horses to pull us in carriages, and we keep circus animals and zoo animals, some of which are subject to worse conditions than others. In short, we impose arbitrary value on dogs that is subjective among the individual. It is nonsensical and unjust to punish people who fight dogs, but not those who abuse other animals unnecessarily for frivolous enjoyment. It is a contradictory double standard. Dog fighting should be legalized. It will likely not be any more popular than it already is on the underground, since most Americans love dogs. Thus this would have legal and moral benefits, but little to no downside." This is probably the most relevant contention to the issues at hand. Danielle defined animal abuse as "intentional infliction by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival. More narrowly, it can be the causing of harm or suffering for specific gain [1].Per the definition of animal abuse, I fail to see how using animals for work is in any way abuse. Furthermore, I would argue that hunting purely for sports entertainment is morally wrong and should be banned. Are there double standards? Sure. But that is irrelevant to the debate.-- My Case --C1) Moral status of animalsI will drop this contention as I am too exhausted to give a proper response to. C2) How dog fighting harms the community1. Danielle argues that we can establish a minimum wage to view dog fighting. She also talks compares it to playing violent video games. This is in no way comparable as violent video games are fantasy whereas dog fighting is real life. Moreover, the jury is still out in regards to violent video games and their long term effects [3]. 2. Danielle writes that dog fighting is accompanied by illegal activities because it is illegal. To prove her point, she uses horse racing as an example because they are open to the public and monitored. She writes that dog fighting is kept secret and hidden 3. Baseless assertion without proof. --Conclusion-- Danielle has failed to demonstrate why dogs fighting should be legal. Her arguments are rather irrelevant to the debate. Vote con! Sources1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://www.nature.com... 3. https://www.psychologytoday.com...