It is preferable to buy a pet from a breeder than from a shelter

My opponent has certainly made some interesting arguments to support her position. And, while it is refreshing to read of someone who has such faith in a group of people, many of her assertions are such broad generalizations that I cannot accept them as valid. She is assigning qualities to an entire set based on her interactions with an extremely small subset. She has, it would seem, had some excellent interactions with the breeders with which she was worked. Indeed, she has had such wonderful experiences that she desires to be a breeder. Certainly she would not think ill of a group of people she wants to join. It is quite understandable and simple human nature to assign certain characteristics to an entire group of people based on the first experiences with a particular member of the set, but it does not make it true. Specific Refutations Some people simply do not have the time and patience to tame a feral cat, or train a hyperactive dog. Of course they don't. But people who do not have time to train a hyperactive dog should also not get a Jack Russel Terrier from the breeder, correct? People who do not have time and patience should get a digital aquarium. It is not difficult to quickly ascertain the personality of an animal. Is it socialized? Is it hyper? Is it aggressive? Is it scared of people? I am no animal expert, but even I can figure these out in a few minutes of interaction with the animal. And, while it can certainly be said that an animal might exhibit other traits once brought to the home, it cannot be said that this is particular to rescue animals. Any pet-quality pedigree is spayed or neutered. I have never adopted an animal in which neutering was not a requirement. Instead of letting these animals be adopted, shelters kill them. This is a practice that I simply cannot condone. I won't argue that animals are not euthenized. But if you do not condone the practice, then do something about it. Quit breeding animals, neuter the ones you have, and adopt instead of purchase. Purebred animals account for 30% of the animals in shelters [2]. Even if this were not the case, your judgement is unfair. You assert (I disagree, with caveat) that some animals are too far gone to be rehabilitated and so should not be adopted, then you criticize the shelters for not letting them be adopted. And your solution to this is to breed more animals? You are putting fresh paint on rotted wood. Your solution only hides the problem. Furthermore, shelters create a cycle. People buy animals on a whim. Let’s say a puppy. They buy it thinking it’s cute, and don’t take it to the veterinarian. First, let me reiterate that shelters do far more than you seem willing to give them credit for. A good shelter[3] will have animals checked by veterinarians and innoculated before adoption[4], and those that don't will likely have a veterinary visit as a stipulation of adoption. Second, the assertion that people never buy a purebred puppy on a whim is outlandish at best. That is why there are so many purebreds in shelters. If someone wants a puppy, they won't likely go to a shelter, because shelters have mostly adult animals[7]. There is nothing wrong with wanting to know the history of your animal. If I bought a dog that belonged to Michael Vick, I’d like to know about it. And a shelter would not be able to tell me. Yeah, they would. And it is proof against your assertion that some animals are too far gone for training[8]. I asserted that dogs that have only been trained to be aggressive can always be re-trained. It takes time and love and patience, and so people that just have money should probably stay away from it. It has taken three years of love and affection with constant positive reinforcement, but fifteen of Michael Vick's dogs, that some experts said should have been put down, are successsfully being rehabillitated. A veterinarian simply cannot screen for every single genetic disease known to feline kind. Nope. But by your own assertion breeders can only tell you if there is a history of the disease in the family. So, does one take a chance on the animal? Then what difference does it make that you knew the family history? Does one refuse to take a chance on the animal? Then why did the breeders breed an animal that had a history of disease? I am, perhaps, old fashioned in thinking it is not always best to know the future. What choices would my parents have made if they could have seen what a genetic tendency I had to be a problem child? What choices would a man make if he knew his fiancee' comes from a history of cancer? One takes a chance getting out of bed in the morning. The only certainty in life is that we don't make it out alive. Not being able to stack the deck is not a good reason to not play the game. Shelters don’t ensure [animals go to a good home]. They do not care where these animals go, or where they end up. I have already given evidence of the absurdity of the claim that shelters do not try to place animals in a good home. And to say that the people do not even care is hateful, to say the least. The people I have worked with are some of the most selfless, caring individuals I have ever met that give of their time, money, and heart to help these animals out. Shame on my opponent for making such a statement. The logic here is that, if you can afford to buy the pet initially, then you can afford to feed it, too. (. .. ) if something happens, you can afford to take care of that as well. First, by saying 'if something happens' you support my contention that not even knowing the family history or genetic makeup of an animal is proof of future health or behavior. Second, the amount of money a person has is not related to the morality of a person. Just because a person HAS the money to take care of a pet is no indication that they WILL take care of the pet. But shelters are like a band-aid on a broken bone. Yeah, but if all you have is a band-aid, you do what you can. That is still better than sitting on the sidelines saying, "It shouldn't be like this. " My opponent’s arguments in the previous round have mainly been emotional. He makes a valid point that animals in shelters are in immediate need. But that is what the debate is about, right? The emotional impact of adopting a pet versus buying a breed? We're not talking about show animals, we are talking about pets. I would argue that buying a pet is also an investment. It's an emotional investment. I completely agree. It is an investment. And what gives someone the highest payoff to my emotional investment? I suppose that depends on the type of person they are. I get a very good feeling when I have helped someone or something. I am filled with compassion when I see the plight of shelter animals. I am filled with gratefulness that I have had the pleasure to share my love with such wonderful creatures, creatures that may have died had I not stepped in. The emotional return on my investments has been enormous. This debate is about the positive return one receives from buying a bred animal compared to rescuing an animal in need. Granted, this has much to do with the type of person someone is, but if someone has any kind of a heart, then the emotional return they get from helping an animal in need and providing a loving home most likely is greater than that from taking a pet from an already loving home. I know I am better off from having rescued any of my animals, and so I urge the audience to vote Con. [1] . http://www.petrescue.com... [2] . http://www.petfinder.com... [3] . http://www.adoptapet.com... [4] . http://cats.lovetoknow.com... [5] . http://www.animalwelfaresociety.org... [6] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...