It is hard to think of a debate topic that elicits as much friendly competition than the disagreement of whether cats or dogs are better. People have strong opinions, but they also seem to enjoy the fact that the issue is irreconcilable. That the evidence for or against one side or the other depends on subjectivity, taste, and personal history. While the cats versus dogs debate is a great starting point for anyone that is beginning to study the subject, there are a lot more facets than may first appear. The debate between cats and dogs incorporates some of the most fundamental debate theories about values, criterion and evidence.
Any competent debater will begin their speech by laying our some explanations and ground-rules that will define the rest of the debate. An unwritten rule, but a good one to follow, is that you should never take on more of a burden than the topic demands. Therefore, analyzing every word of a topic is time well spent. Some might just consider the “gist” of a topic and begin preparing arguments, but subtle changes in wording can have significant affects on an entire round. Consider the difference between the following resolutions: “Cats are better than dogs,” “Cats are better pets than dogs,” “A cat would make a better pet than a dog,” and “Cats are better pets for humanity than dogs.” Each resolution implies slightly different arguments that would be relevant through the course of a complete debate. Simply saying one is better that than the other implies that there is some internal characteristic in each that is inherently good, but saying one is a better pet suggests that companionship will be an important area in the debate.
Value and Criterion
In addition to really thinking about each word, and the arguments they highlight, each of the resolutions represents what many call a “value resolution.” This means that at the center of the debate is a contest between which side offers the most value. Debaters are typically expected to define a single value, and then apply that value to each side. Most people jump to money when they think of value, and that is a perfectly acceptable option on this topic. The arguments that stand out are the cost of food, veterinary bills, home repairs. The arguments that become less relevant are how cats are independent and dogs are loyal.
While money technically works as a value, it is smart in debate to focus on more fundamental things that people value. For instance, people very much value survival. Regardless of which value you choose to focus on, there is still one more thing that needs clarification, and that is a criterion. A criterion is a standard that people use to make a judgement, and debaters should feel free to experiment with it. If the value in the debate between cats and dogs is survival, a criterion might be whichever pet increases the life expectancy of the owner. This criterion almost puts the judge in the position of choosing which pet an individual ought to adopt. But the same value works equally well with the criterion of overall human survival, or whichever pet protects the most people. What’s important is that the value and criterion defines the debate, it doesn’t favor one side over the other. Too often debaters overlook the subtle differences that criteria create in debates and choose something that is vague or generic.
Which Pet is Better for Humans
Defining a resolution, in terms of value and criterion, yields different evidence burdens. It is impossible to explore every different potential interpretation, and the different evidence that supports each side, but we can focus on one as an example. If the value is survival, and criterion is whichever pet better protects humans overall, then there are a few creative areas to research. Let’s start with how cats better protect human survival. People get caught up on each animal’s physical strength, but one of cats’ best attributes is their ability to hunt and catch rats. At first, this may not seem like a great argument for human survival, except when you couple it with evidence that the bubonic plague has been responsible for millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of human deaths. The main way that the plague is spread? The fleas on rats. Conversely, dogs present a constant threat to human lives. In fact, dogs are responsible for 25,000 deaths per year. Most of these deaths are from rabid and feral dogs biting people and spreading disease.
Don’t worry dog lovers. There is plenty of evidence that supports the argument that dogs benefit human survival. One easy area where dogs out-perform cats is in search and rescue. People have been saved from bomb-sniffing dogs, have been found in the rubble after disasters, and have been tracked when lost in the wild. All things impossible to train a cats to do. Furthermore, it is impossible to even calculate how many people have been saved by a guard dog protecting them. Cats, on the other hand, would kill you if they could. Additionally, cats pose dangers that many are unaware of. One of the more intriguing dangers is the spread of toxoplasma, a parasitic infection that can cause miscarriages in women. Another infection, pasteurella multocida, is spread through cat bites and can be fatal if left untreated.
The debate between cats and dogs is more complicated than is seems. It also represents an excellent, timeless example of some of the most important debate concepts that there are. The questions about what we value, how we know which pet best achieves that value, and when evidence there is to support it apply just as well today as they did to the generations that have debated this topic in the past.