- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your points aren't valid. So if you're quitting, fine, but own up to your failure.
You're mistaken about the domestication of dogs. Please refer to my earlier post for a better explination. Dogs are genetically different from wolves. Please check your facts.
I love when you put words in my mouth. It's really not annoying or petty at all. Sarcasm.
I didn't say that the only options are that a dogs would be a pet or it should die. I'm advocating the prevention of animal overpopulation. As I would adovcate that humans use birth control. Not that we should sterilize the poor. But that we and have the mental capacity to understand and take action, and animals do not.
You seem to be advocating we let dogs breed until their numbers are so great that we have packs running in the streets and feeding off livestock. If this is incorrect, I apologize, but I believe that is what you have essentially said.
How is that working out for your country? Is that how you'd like every dog to live? Disease infested? Hungry?
You are really good at putting words in my mouth. That makes you a good liar, not a good debater.
I did not say the options are that an animal be a pet or they die. I only wish to keep the population down so that all animals have homes and vet care. It's the most humane option for everyone, including humans.
What do you suggest?
Oi... If you're not going to accept truth based on facts, then tell me now because I don't want to waste my time.
Dogs, unlike cats, evolved because of humans. Wolves, who were geneticaly less tempermental, trustee humans more and were fed by humans. Those particular animals survived and were anthropologically fitter. Which means that they bred more. So over time, through domestication, those wolves evolved into dogs. Some can survive in the wild, like huskys chows and such. Most can't, like my 12 lb. Poodle.
Secondly, that "hypothetical future" is the present. Animal shelters are overun with animals. So either we spay the animals now to prevent surpopulation, or we kill them in shelters. Your choice.
By suggesting that I want to spay the homeless human population, you admt your own ignorance. I advocate the spaying of all dogs, not just the strays. And by trying to make me seem somehow insensitive to homeless people, you only make yourself look stupid. Thanks.
It's birth control for dogs. It's humane, not immoral.
Okay.... So my dog doesn't love me. Fine.
I'll go put him outside and leave him there. And when he scratches at my door to get back in I'll ignore it.
Because what you're adovocating is that stray dogs have an equal or better qualty of life than those with homes.
Only stray dogs have far shorter lifespans, suffer more painful deaths, go hungry in metropolitan areas, endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, always have fleas and ticks feeding off of them....
... But hey, they have a healthy sexual appetite. Right?
Edit: I also forgot to mention that you're wrong. Dogs are domesticated. While cats would survive outside without humans just fine, dogs would not.
Humans do not fix animals selfishly.
Animals are spayed because the pet population is so great that all of the animals cannot be cared for.
I don't know if you understand what actually happens when an animal is fixed, but the dog keeps his penis or her vagina. They can still have sex. They aren't mutilated, or harmed.
They certainly aren't concious of their balls to begin with, nor do they care that they are gone.
My dog had balls one day, then the next he had a big plastic cone. All he cared about was the cone and the fact that he had a home with a loving owner.
A lot of animals would have to go without homes and vet care and love of a human if it weren't for spaying and neutering.
It's what's morally right.
It depends on how broadly "culture" is defined. There is the culture of humanity, which is divided into sub cultures, with more sub cultures within them and so on. Until you reach the individual, which could in itself be a seperate culture.
If we all played the same part in the same play, we would all play it differently.
So it will take the pearl habour of climate change for you to care about it?
Ps. Don't you dare bad mouth recycling. Recycling is not just about climate change. It's about conservation of limited resources. Same as hybrid cars, and plenty of other things you probably don't care about.
Global warming, global cooling.... It's all climate change. You're more hung up on lables than facts.
I happen to believe that every precaution should be taken. Not just because I believe in it, but because this is something so serious that I'd rather bet on it being true, than be sorry that I didn't.
Hitler didn't seem like a problem worth dealing with until it was too late.
We don't get so lucky as to have our apocalyptic weapons of God come out and tell us they're coming. This isn't a movie. We aren't going to discover the asteroid in just enough time to destroy it. We aren't going to stop the atomic bomb with 1 second left on the clock.
We have to prepare for climate change because we have a lot of evidence in it's favor, and the consequences of not preparing for it are apocalyptic.
There are also other bonuses to preveting climate change, both environmental and economic.
Well, with evolution, extinction is the norm, not the exception. And there are often periods of mass extinction.
Those facts apply in business as well.
And yes, people are being screwed. But if we don't fix the environment, well have a real mass extintion on our hands.
What, you looked at the wikipedia page?
Understanding the concepts of two of the many problems facing our environment does not qualify you to assess the state of the environment today or forcast it's future.
And that said, I'm sorry to say that you probabbly know more than the average person. But probably less than the average fourth grader....
I'm going to have to defend the bar crowd.
Drunk political debates are a favorite passtime of mine.
Yes, there are some guys and gals who don't know shit. But the only reason you think popitcs, or other issues of importance, can't be discussed in concurrance with drinking is because those people talk so loud.
The deaths of weak corporations paves new road for stronger businesses. When the economy recovers, stronger businesses emerge to replace those that fail.
Another good thing to mention is that Crocs is failing.
Had Bush invested in the environment, those people could already be employed in green jobs. But because we cannot expand as fast as if we had already begun this process, they are out of work.
We can improve the economy by reducing global warming, but we cannot reduce global warming by improving the economy.
Thats why I suggested we fix the economy by fixing the environment.
I conceeded that both are important for many reasons. But I happen to believe that yes, the environment fixes itself, but it may get a lot worse before it gets better. So while the environment will eventually survive us, will we survive it?
I don't want to take that chance. The environment is more important to me.
Everything political aside, these are both big problems that effect everyone.
But in the end the economy is a crapshoot, and will always be up and down. But the environment is precious and limited. So while we should focus on fixing the economy by investing in fixing the environment.... I feel the environment is much more important.
It's okay. I hadn't even noticed.
Well, money can't always make your family love you, but it makes it easier. You can take family trips, go to therapy, and the stresses that lack of money bring evaporate.
And money can't directly make someone love you, but you can afford to look good and to wine and dine them so that they give you the chances you need.
No one wants to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't love them, so I doubt they would pay for that.
u must be high because that idea is half baked.
Do you know what they pay overseas workers? Nothing. But relative to the economies of the country those people live in, it's tollerable.
If we paid the workers here the same wages, even accounting for taxes and shipping, they would still be suffering. Minimum wage keeps the workers above the poverty line.
So if we worked for third world wages, we'd allow ourselves to become a third world country.