A dog is a superior pet to have then a cat.

That's it, I'm done with your attitude. You have taken it as far as saying that "I have no proof" or that my sources are "unreliable", which is a plain flat out LIE. You say that your sources are "reliable" when you yourself obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Here are some examples (I do not know how to italicize): "There is no proof supporting this. Furthermore, even if they can calm people down, I have already demonstrated that dogs are more effective in doing so. " My mistake, here you go: . http://pets1.knoji.com... Notice how the cite also says that dogs do not help with decreasing the percentage of heart attack like a cat can. This is because cats have the ability to purr and, according to the cite, can decrease chances of heart attack by 40%. Also, take in realization that your source: . http://abcnews.go.com... or . http://drdavidhamilton.com... never in one hint applies that a dog is better at curing anxiety than a cat. Also take into consideration that a cat's love is a precious thing, a dog can be happy and friendly to anyone, but you have to EARN a cats trust and love, it is not a right. "Because of my interrest in this topic, I actually took the time to visit my local vet. He explained how though a cat does need excessive, it is not required to be active regularly. He explained how cats need much less activity than dogs, so it is not very important to keep them active daily. " Not to be mean, but that was either made up or the vet obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Cats need movement, or they will get fat and unhealthy. So yes, they do require movement and also an appropriate amount of food or else they will be obese. . http://www.catnutrition.org... Round 3: "Since cats are less active," This round: "Did I say cats are less active? No I didn't. " Here is solid proof that my opponent has no idea what he is saying. He claims that cats are less active, but when I proved him wrong, he tries to make it seem that that was not what he said at all, furthermore, trying to make me look bad, and even worse, he lied about what he said. I do not like accusing people of lying, it could have very well been an accident, but what if he wasn't lying, and did it straight on purpose? And ok, you are required to walk the dog and be active, but admit it, IT'S A CHORE! No one wants to do chores. Also, I never said that a dog did not require walking, I only said that a person does not require a dog to walk, nothing else. I told you that I owned 3 cats and A DOG, and what do you say? "You only have cats, so you have no idea how to take care of a dog. " You even quoted what I said, yet you did not even read it properly? This is another example of completely ignoring what I have typed and just saying stuff to make me look bad in my argument. "Cats don't need tricks, dogs do, to keep active while they aren't walking. " Ok. .. have you ever seen a dog do a trick on its own, without any commands from anyone, in your entire life? That answer will be no. "have you ever seen a cat role over, play dead, and do a back flip? " Yes, yes I have actually, and even more a dog couldn't do: "Having dead vermin in your house is much worst than having to train a dog. Training a dog, you improve character, and remain healthy. " I never said dead vermin in a house was nice, (even though a dog would never bring you something they thought was generous! ). I have proof that cats actually do teach us to take better care of ourselves: "Research shows that being able to care for a pet improves our morale, helps validate us and encourages us to take care of ourselves," says the director of the University of Missouri's Research Center for Human-Animal Interaction. " . http://healthypets.mercola.com... "Voters, please notice my opponent's source. It is unreliable, if you search up his source, it has nothing to do with cats, nor dogs, making the source my opponent used unreliable, and possibly completely false. " What on earth are you talking about? My source is completely reliable! It has everything to do with cats and dogs, so what you said is a lie! "Her refutation is another way of copy pasting from this source, with barely any difference" You completely ignored my entire argument about it being incorrect to say dogs are smarter than cats, no matter how much developed the brain is. For that, you are trying to avoid being incorrect, which I have proved. As for the plagiarism thing, I did not do it on purpose, I accidentally did not put in quotes. Also I had already used the source, so I did not need to put it again. "But a dog is naturally more obedieny, thus capable of being trained in order not to do that. A cat is incapable of being trained, thus making it very difficult to get it to stop destroying the house. " That is completely false and one sided, as I have proved that cats can be trained. In fact, cats are much less capable in destroying a house because of its size, and because dogs are prone to chewing. Now for my arguments. Voters, pay very close attention at how my opponent does not say one word about dogs harming furniture or people as I have proved. Honestly, I think he was so desperate, that he even posted a cat killing one, just one baby when he knows very well that dogs all over the world have brutally harmed and even killed humans. "It is estimated that two percent of the US population, from 4.5"4.7 million people, are bitten by dogs each year. In the 1980s and 1990s the US averaged 17 fatalities per year, while in the 2000s this has increased to 26. 77% of dog bites are from the pet of family or friends, and 50% of attacks occur on the dog owner's property. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.dogsbite.org... "a cat can be just as dangerous as a dog. " yes, and I suppose a goldfish is just as dangerous as a piranha too. Also, I would like to bring up the argument that a dog is actually much more expensive to take care of than a cat: . http://www.dailyfinance.com... Notice that the dog cost more just about every round if it was not a tie, and that not once did the cat cost more than the dog. So for people who are concerned about saving money, a cat is a much better animal to choose. More people own cats in the world: . http://www.psychologytoday.com... You may argue that the reason there are so many cats is because that more people own more than one cat, but I would like to say that if people like a certain animal or feel that they are better to take care of over another, then they will have more of that animal. So this proves that more people like cats more than dogs, and would like to keep more cats in their family. A can cat live in more secluded places, like an apartment that does not have a backyard. Dogs stink, literally. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Cats do not get food allergies nearly as much as a dog: . http://moderndogmagazine.com... Dogs smell butts, eat poop, and other gross stuff , while cats take pride in being clean and well groomed. Another thing; ANIMAL PLANET, one of the most famous and world wide show specifically about animals and nature, even agrees with me: . http://www.animalplanet.com... "My opponent presented no valid argument, and only used personal opinion, with no valid sources, as I have proved. She was unable to prove any valid argument to which why having a cat is supeior. " See, my opponent is so desperate to win, that he will try to make it "obvious" that I did not use any proof or use any good sources when clearly, I did. Please do not be fooled by his unjust persuasion. "The rules only applied to her, in order to make the debate fair. " How in anyway does this make the debate fair? People can not just come up with their own rules, and expect not to follow them themselves. This is wrong. "My opponent accused me of not having a pet," When on earth did I do that? You never talked about your cat in the first argument, so I assumed that you did not have one. I did not mean any offense, but I can not read your mind you know. "My opponent over uses punctuation, as you can see when the end of her sentances are "! !! !! ". " I use this for extra expressiveness! It is my right to use this and doesn't have to do with the content of the debate. "Obvious points to pro. " Okay, I have a real problem with this. You can not tell the voters how they should vote. I find that offensive in many ways: 1. you are making voters sound like they are "unintelligent children" when you start telling them how they should vote. 2. You make it seem that I did nothing progressive in this debate and that all my valuable points and statements are nothing. 3. If I were to come across this debate and I read that, well I'd say that that is bullying and being a bad sport because you feel that the voters can not decide on their own. Voters: I will not tell you how to vote. I know I tried my best in this debate, and I will admit, I made mistakes, but please do not put me down just because my opponent told you to. P. S. I question why my opponent put pictures of puppies at the end of his argument. Though it is cute, all I see is a desperate attempt to win and propaganda at it's cutest.