a dog is not befitting of the title man's best friend.

I will defend my case first. Rebuttals and Defense: "it is that to be considered man's best friend, an animal must offer something that is and has been extremely critical to man's needs," Like dogs being able to hunt for man? " I am only showing that blind compassion for dogs does not make them man's best friend. " Pro is dropping my arguments showing what a "Best Friend" would be. I'm using both Pro's definition of a friend (usefulness) and the main definition of a friend (buddy). Pro is not contesting with either of these definitions, rather just saying they're false. "hunting dogs are the tools of the hunters, they are trained to hunt not for themselves but for their master" Yes, for their master's desires. Isn't this what you're attributing as a necessity to being a Best Friend? Pro then says "and who is to say that cows and horses do not like being useful? " Dogs clearly show affection towards the owner for being helpful to him. Cows are meat. Would you like being eaten for the sake of a hungry lion? Didn't think so. Horses, I concede they might enjoy helping, but what do we use them for today? Racing? Like I said, there is also dog races. Plus, can a horse track drugs? That's why dogs are chosen for police work. "Using cows , horses and sheep was an attempt to show that judging an animal's worth should be based on the values we attribute to a best friend," Wait. The attributes WE assign for being a Best Friend? Who is 'we'? I'm guessing 'we' means the debaters, and the voters. If so, they can very well accept my definitions of Best Friend over Pro's. I've shown quite a bit over Pro, I believe. "how can one be your best friend when he/ she can kill if trained or for survival? " I don't believe you said that in your Round 2. In fact, you were saying things about cows being useful. Mmm. .. Beef. .. So Beef is not Man's Best Friend anymore, since we're using it to survive? So how can one be Man's Friend if we're killing it? Actually, that was my point. We are not killing dogs, however. Why would we hunt using dogs? Because they're happy to help. "The notion that dogs hunt for man because of the bond with man is shallow," Because? "mind you wild dogs hunt. .. for food! " Food for themselves. Hunting dogs are trained for their owner's desires. "you can't train a cat to hunt food for you because it is not in its nature to hunt for man" Oh? So it's in Dogs' nature to hunt for man? Useful for hunting confirmed! "Cheetahs are trained to hunt for men , are you saying it is because of the close bond with man? yet a cheetah is a wild animal capable of great harm! " It's not a friend because it is dangerous. This statement just seems fallacious. Besides, is it in these Cheetahs' nature to hunt alongside man, like Dog? Training a crow? How do you even catch one to begin with? Last time I checked, crows are scared of anything potentially dangerous, like humans. "are you saying that people do not have pets like pigs and chicken? " I guess some people have pet farm animals, outside of the farm. Pro suggests that friends with dinner is irrelevant. What I meant was that meat can't be attributed to the 2nd term of Best Friend; buddy. You can't be friends with your dinner. That would just be weird. Here's the part where Pro attempts to directly rebut my arguments. Let's see how strong they are. "Do dogs provide milk or food? " I think you said dogs are eaten in some parts of the world. I concede that dogs don't have the same benefits as a cow, but dogs have other benefits a cow doesn't have. "do dogs provide warm clothing" Dogs do other things, like hunting FOR said material. "A buddy? what! are you saying that just because you can be a bu(ally)ddy to a dog all men are capable of the same fit? " I believe Pro's saying we abuse dogs. Do we, really? Pro failed to provide a link to this ridiculous claim. Some people use dogs, but we don't abuse them. Most dogs are bought solely for pet purposes. "A dog may be useful for travel but that is within the parameters of its use; this can't be used a tool to judge if it counts for being a buddy or not," So dogs have to be useful and a buddy at the same time, same situation? None of us said that before. Are you actually friends with your beef, Pro? None of the animals Pro suggested really fit this part either. "mind you a chihuahua being a dog, can not be a favored companion while useful at the sometime, clearly your reasoning excludes such breeds. " Yes, a chihuahua isn't too useful, but does this mean the dogs I mentioned Round 2 are useless as well? Of course not! No one said ALL dogs must be useful, just they they are useful. .. most of them, I mean. The dogs that aren't police or hunters are bought solely for pet purposes. "your use of such tactics to undermine my arguments is unreasonable" Well excuse me for being unable to see meanings of something that isn't quite specific! How was I supposed to know? Anyways, this is off topic. "What use is a barking dog in battle compared to a horse/calvary? " Battle as in war, I'd just say let the tanks and sub- machine guns do the killing. We don't really use horses for much in 2016. Dogs are capable of injuring a small group, since they have fierce jaws you don't want to get too close to. "How can i back up my claim that man rewards a dog by the title man's best friend out of pity? " Hmm. .. Good question, actually. Still, it kind of expects evidence. "Rather i have presented the notion that to a dog the title man's best friend is empty and worthless, it does not comprehend and as such does not care," So because the dog doesn't understand what a title is, the title's worthless? WHAT? It was man who gave the title, not dog. After all, they're OUR best friend. "it is man who comprehends and as such it is man that benefits from referring to a dog as such," So because we're benefiting, and the dog doesn't care, the title's irrelevant? Is that what you're saying? Tell that to the horse, he's useless. So if the title is irrelevant, then why are we still debating this? I'd say dogs are Man's Best Friend, and leave it with my evidence. "I never suggested that a work horse is a useful buddy, this is a forgery on your end to justify your views at my expense. " 1) I think the term you were looking for it "straw manning" or "misinterpreting" your argument. 2) It seemed like that's what were were suggesting, albeit not directly. Cows more useful than a dog? Well, we eat cows, but dogs can catch criminals, and hunt for our food. I agree that dogs can be dangerous, but we can play with them, unlike any other animal, really. Plus, dogs are the most popular pet. Not exactly subjective when lots of people buy a pet dog over a pet horse or chicken! "hugging dogs causes STRESS for them" it might hurt them, sure. "If they are having fun with you ( even though a hug causes stress) then they are a buddy too? ?" Pro is quote mining and straw manning his own source. The source also says "It is clearly better from the dog"s point of view if you express your fondness for your pet with a pat, a kind word, and maybe a treat" Think of it this way; would you want to be snuggled as a cutsey wustey animal, or would you want a simple belly rub? "Overall a cow is more useful than a dog, period. More people depend on cow products than on dogs in the world" True, everyone eats beef. But cows are lazy. They'd hardly be considered a buddy. Dogs can be used multiple times, and cows can only be eaten once. "We are talking about animals here, they lack the ability to comprehend as humans do, as such we can never judge them as we judge humans" What do you want the animals to comprehend? Animals, such as wolves and fish, know the concept of friendship, as they're social animals, and can be seen close together. Dogs are closely related to wolves. Therefore, dogs understand friendship. If you have a dog, he can be happy. He can be sad. Every animal, including humans and dogs, have emotions. We like whatever makes us happy. Dogs make humans happy, and (good) humans make dogs happy. Therefore, we're buddies! Pro suggests the best buddy should be "least dangerous" instead. But I've demonstrated that happy = buddy. "dogs can be trained to be extremely violent killers and loyal to the trainers; they are not a buddy to the human that they have been assigned to intimidate" Hmm. .. I can't really argue against this notion. Dogs CAN be weapons. But, how common is this, to be honest? How many people turn their dogs into killers? Sure, some humans are jerks to their pets, and the pet rebels. But then it's the human who's not the buddy; it's his/her fault! Arguments: Usefulness: I have shown that dogs can be trained to hunt for you. .. actually, I think most people use guns now, don't they? Well, anyways, if you wanted to, you could have your dog hunt your food, then you'd cook it. Most people don't ride horses to take down knights anymore. There's drug dealers nowadays, selling drugs that, sometimes, aren't even legal. How do we bring these criminals to justice? Practically the only animal capable of being trained to follow the scent of illegal drugs, are dogs. Dogs can also be used to track gasoline to find arsonists, as well as whatever else you'd need a dog to follow the scent of. Buddy; I've shown that dogs are capable of experiencing emotions, therefore friendship. From this fact, we can conclude dogs share a strong bond with their owners. Pro kind of drops this argument, demanding it to be replaced with the least dangerous animal. So should we make corn Man's Best Friend? It's helpful, and defenseless! Yeah, at least dogs are entertaining. Closing thoughts: I can see where Pro is coming from, and I respect this. And I'm glad to have been his opponent, and show that dogs are worthy of this title. When voting on this debate, please go into detail on whose argument was better, and why. Thank you for reading, and vote the winner!