Argument:

There is one particular issue which has come to my attention since the
last round, concerning the benefits of lighting a cat on fire: There are
not benefits for that matter. My opponent did call me out on "presented
no burning dog arguments", however, as I mentioned in my previous
statement, I am not arguing in favor of dogs being burned over cats,
rather, I am simply arguing in opposition to his initial statement of "Is it
better to light a cat on fire than a dog?" This being said, the point I
have been arguing is that lighting a cat on fire, over a dog, has no
sustantial benefits. And having said that, I do not believe there are any
benefits of lighting either one on fire over the other.

Rebuttals:
1.
The first point the instigator addressed was the "loyalty" of dogs.
However, as I mentioned, cat's are about as loyal as dogs, simply under
different circumstances. Even the own article in which the instigator
linked stated, "Cats are often as faithful to their owners as are dogs,
but they display this is different ways because of their different
predatory style and different social habits." This source directly
contradicts his very own claims of dogs being "more loyal".
In a sense, cats are similar to introverts, and dogs extroverts.
The introverts maintain their own sense of duty and loyalty to
particular frieds, while extroverts others. However, introverts will
often have a "warming up" phase, while extroverts are less inclined to
exhibit this additude. And for that, the 'introvert' or the 'cat' will often
maintain loyalty in deeper, closer relationships. However, I might state
that an immediate sense of "loyalty" from a dog to a human, even in the
face of debilitating abuse, is not necessarily preferably (even if the
assumption that cats were less loyal were true). This simply shows
that dogs are more inclined to allow abusive behaviors in general.
But strangely enough, we can and do find examples of loyal feline
friends:
Sources (1 and 2).
Lastly, to conclude this point, my opponent states "We would feel
easier to light up something that values an inanimate place rather than
lighting up the dog that is naturally loyal to the people". However, I
would like to clarify that this statement is actually subjective in nature.
Not all people would necessarily wish for a companion, or a companion
which is frequently demmanding attention. Because of its subjective
nature, it cannot properly play into the argument.

2.
I hold firm to the statement that an increase in the hunting of
animals would result in an increase of natural resources (e.g land
space, grasses for cattle feed, berries, crops which are destroyed by
small animals, etc.) Now, one might think this as 'mettling' with
natural ecosystems. And while yes, this does alter natural order,
equilibrium will eventually be achieved as both plants and animals find
the new carrying capacity for their species. This is actually
observable with the passenger pigeons which went extinct after the
immigration of the Europeans, particularly in the 19th century. This
bird species was hunted to extinction for its culinary value, and while
it was extinct, the environment as a whole was not notable impacted.
Typically, ecosystems are usually only affected by the mass population
of a particular species (e.g. Australia and rabbits).
(Source for pigeons- 3)
On one more note, I would like to point out that experimental
mice are bred, not specifically captured from the wild. In fact, the
hunting of wild mice would actually be beneficial to these mice, as
they would receive more of the resources which other mice would
originally compete for. The mice, which are bred, would not prove
scarce for this reason. Source: (4) However, simply stating that my
argument is "absurd and makes no sense" is not a properly rebuttal of
its own. I would ask the Instigator to clarify this further, as I have
already disproven his initial claim of 'scarcity in laboratory mice'.

3.
The final point in which my opponent has listed, is quite clearly a
troll tactic. And I do in fact have evidence to substantiate this, where
on my profile page, he stated "sorry' bout the troll debate; it's for a
tournament". From this statement, I can infer that at least one or two
of his sources will likely prove unreliable or satirical in nature, but not
an actual "proof". Nevertheless, I might address this anyways.
So say cats did produce "energy". The only benefit this would
prove would be commercially, where businesses would switch to
renewable energy sources for the sake of meeting carbon regulations
imposed by the U.S. government and the EPA. However, what does
matter is the efficiency of this energy source. This means:
1. Amount of energy produced.
2. Cost benefit of energy production in relation to the energy
produced.
As a cat producing energy via torque would produce noticable
less kinetic energy than a hydroelectric dam (which accounts for 16
percent of global electricity generation-). This is due to a scarcity of

cats, the inability to feed a mass quantity, and a lack of exceptional

motion and mass to produce high levels of energy. The energy source
would prove unreliable, and non-beneficial.
(Source for hydroelectric dam- 5)
4. My final argument concerns the safety of burning a cat. Obviously
this would be unsafe for the cat, though even in a contained room,
issues would arise. Most notable, the smoke. A large quantity of
smoke in one, particular place causes a fire hazard in itself, but it also
may resort to legal issues. For example, smoke leaking out of an area
setting off fire alarms. This would divert attention in the fire
department for a minor flaw in their system.
Now assuming this energy production took place outdoors, again,
this would prove rather disasterous. Varying issues would include
people mistaking the production for an actual fire, complaints of
burning smells, and conflict with organizations such as the EPA who
advocate against carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Best of luck in the next round, instigator.