Dogs Pinch Running in Baseball.

"Simple: allergy medication. That's how players deal with seasonal allergies, so it's clearly how they'd deal with dog allergies, as well." But they don't want to take allergy medication. Also, it can have side effects. Loratadine, a common dog allergy medicine, has the side effect of being able to "affect performance of skilled tasks" [1] which could be very detrimental to a player's game playing. "My opponent's above comment doesn't really seem to rebut much -- if anything, he's affirming my point that dogs are significantly faster. So...thanks." Higher speed means harder to slow down. "Pinch hitters aren't always available. *If* there was an instance where the dog's spot in the batting order were to come up, then he would be an automatic out. The operative word is *if.*" Fine. "Wolves are much too violent and aggressive, and are much more difficult to domesticate. Cats would also be much more difficult to train to run the bases and obey orders." "More difficult" does not mean impossible. You are discriminating against cats! Err... SPECIESIST!!! "Firstly, lawsuits? For injuries in a baseball game? I can't think of a single instance for someone being held liable for injury in a baseball game; why would that start happening now? Such lawsuits would be entirely frivolous." Okay, maybe not lawsuits, but it could still cause extra injuries. "Besides, the dogs would be owned by MLB, which I think is obvious, since they're the one's using them -- I doubt they're gonna sue themselves." Wouldn't the dogs be owned by the owner of the team? It would be an owner suing another owner. "But even if they didn't own the dogs, MLB could get their owner to sign a consent form stressing that anyone who plays (canines and people) are more susceptible to injuries." But if they don't want this, then they don't sign it. Now what? No more dogs. You are assuming that they would sign it. "As for the rules, I think I covered that here: <"As long as he/she is vaccinated, domesticated, and willing to participate, it would add an entire new element to the game that is unprecedented in professional sports."> -- the dogs would go through extensive training regimens in order to ensure that they relatively easily comply to the rules put forth by MLB." So a dog can run while turning its head and paying attention to if the ball lands in the fielder's glove? I don't think they can do that. "Again, the dogs are vaccinated, domesticated, and are willing to participate. Any players with a fear of dogs would be exposed to the dogs being used in order to get used to them, which would therefore vanquish their fear of those specific dogs." You are assuming rationality. This is irrational fear. Being around dogs might not work. Then what? "Dogs can have their claws removed. Plus, I'd think a player's spikes would do more damage than a dog's claws." Maybe. "And while the dog would be going faster, you also have to remember they weigh significantly less than humans, which would therefore take away from the severity of the blow. More speed? Yes. But they also way much less, typically, as well." Then what do you do about large dogs, like the English Mastiff? It can weigh up to 250 pounds [2]! You must assume all dogs, not just the ones you want. "Again, the dogs would be trained, domesticated, whatever, which would take care of that problem, which means the above rule wouldn't be broken." Training has its limits. "If a dog *did* break the rules, then they'd be consequently punished, just as a player would be if he were to break rules, which does happen. The dog would be replaced by another dog, which would also go through extensive training." Because clearly we have so many dogs who have undergone extensive training and know how to play baseball. My opponent has stressed many times how much training these dogs would need. This means that it would be very expensive for the owners to have dogs just to pinch run, because they would need excessive training, vaccinations, and all that other stuff. Humans would be so much more efficient, because they would be overall cheaper, less time-consuming, less risky, more capable of receiving instruction, and much more in the rules. If any of my arguments win, then I have won this debate, because all it needs is one reason not to exist to not exist. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...