Dogs and Cats Are Superior Than Any Other Living Animals

//Could my opponent explain why there are dogs hunting humans if they are naturally our friends?// Definition of hunt: to pursue for food or in sport<hunt buffalo> [1] What my opponent means by hunting humans I'm not sure. I don't think there are any animals that hunt humans. It is on the contrary humans that hunt animals. I don't think I've ever heard of a dog pursuing humans for food or sport. //the cruelty which is part of the nature.// I have already proven that it is a dogs nature to be friendly, and loyal. Thus dogs are not naturally cruel as my opponent states. //then how could my opponent prove that a lion or a cow couldn't do any better than a dog as our friends.// 57% Of Americans own either a cat or a dog. I'd like for my opponent to bring up some statistics as too how many Americans own cows and lions as household pets. [2] //According to phantom's idea, then a wolf is superior than a dog, a great white shark is superior than a dog, a hawk is superior than a dog, a lion is superior than a dog, even a spider is superior than a dog as these animals all have a greater ability of being feared.// My opponent assumes that the only reason I think dogs are superior is because they are fearsome. P1. Dogs and cats are ferocious. P2. The natural friendliness of an animals nature is a factor of their superiority. My opponent has confirmed premise one with his claims that dogs and cats are ferocious animals who hunt and disable humans. Most of my opponents arguments have been the same as premise two therefore premise two is confirmed. Both premises have been confirmed by my opponent: My opponent says that according to my ideas wolfs, sharks, lions and spiders are all superior to dogs because of their ability of being feared. I will prove why this is wrong. I have stated what the two main factors in this debate have been in premise one and two. There are other factors but these have been the main ones. My opponent has confirmed that premise one applies too dogs and cats. Meaning that dogs and cats are ferocious animals capable of hunting and disabling humans. I have proven that premise two applies too dogs and cats. Meaning that they are appealing to humans, friendly and loyal. Thus I have proven that both main factors apply to dogs and cats. If you look at the animals my opponent has mentioned only one of these factors apply to each of them. Premise one applies to all the animals my opponent stated previously (wolfs, sharks, lions and spiders). But premise two does not apply to any of those animals. My opponent has also used the example of cows and horses. Premise one applies to these animals but not to the extent that it does to dogs and cats. And neither does premise two apply to these animals. All the main factors of this debate in deciding the superiority of an animal have applied to dogs and cats. While only some too whatever examples my opponent has put forth. //my opponent's argument is not convincing as he didn't point out how this statistics relate to the topic of superior. 57% of American households own either a dog or cat doesn't make them naturally superior. It was because we have educated them in order to benefit in our own life.// P1. From birth dogs and cats are naturally friendly. P2. My opponent has made arguments that cows and other animals are superior because of social relationship. Premise one proves that dogs and cats do not have to be educated first before becoming appealing to humans as household pets. I'm also not sure what my opponent means by educated as many dogs and cats don't receive education from humans. My opponents argument that animals are not as superior because they have been educated to act the way they do is a refutation of his his own argument, this we see in premise two. If my opponents argument was valid we could apply it to his argument in premise two and therefore my opponent is refuting his own arguments. //is not persuasive as we can see so many kinds of animals have had natural appeal towards humans as pets such as rabbits.// My opponent has failed to show any proof that rabbits are any where near as common a household pet as dogs and cats are, and I highly doubt they are. //In reality, a dog doesn't understand what the loyalty means, it doesn't understand what betraying means." Same scenario towards cats.// If we apply this to dogs and cats we must apply it to all other animals, which would mean all of the animals my opponent has stated as most superior do not understand this. Thus my opponent has again refuted himself. //Are cats doing the same? A cat will always climb up on the roof and keep disappearing for a night or so. In humans society cats are the example of betraying and shifty. Under this context they have made the film DOGS AND CATS, you can't argue with that.// The use of a film (especially one such as cats and dogs) to back up proof is a very poor proof. The movie greatly exaggerates the nature of both dogs and cats. Cats are not betraying and shifty. Better words to describe them would be private and cautious but not to an extant where humans dislike them. But cats also being friendly and highly affectionate make them suitable house pets for humans. //Then what about cat, are cats loyal? are they trusting? what do you expect from a cat?// Cats quality traits are not the same as dogs, but that does not change the fact that 57% of Americans own either a dog or a cat. //animals don't have morality. they don't understand, then how come my opponent say a dog is superior because dogs are loyal and trusting?// I would like to ask my opponent as too why he thinks animals do not possess morality as evidence contrarily points to the opposite case. //Do you mean dogs are smarter? they are obviously not. wild gorillas using sticks and stumps to navigate a swampy forest clearing in the Republic of the Congo.// Gorillas may be smarter but not much smarter. Dogs posses more quality's that make them superior to gorillas. If gorillas are superior in one quality it does not make them over all superior. I would continue the argument about our avatars, but as I went camping for a few days I was left with only a few hours to write my argument and so I was not able to have time to address it. Plus it is totally unrelated to the debate :p If my opponent wants, though he can challenge me to a debate on whose avatar is better latter. :) Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://animals.howstuffworks.com......