Definition Argument- Nreina34

For my first short argument I am going to define how in today’s society and the growing distrust with law enforcement is creating a more hostile relationship between the two, and the media is an antagonizing factor to this situation.  

Since the creation of team policing, “community” policing and establishing a healthy relationship with the public has been a main priority.  Police related violence has been declining in numbers in the last decade but there have been some major instances that can cause a threat to a possible rise in those numbers again one day.  It seems monotonous that every week there is another headline in the news regarding a controversial topic with law enforcement. An example of how this relationship is becoming more is the shooting of Dallas police officers in 2016 which ended up killing five officers and injuring nine.  This attack on police was the deadliest event for law enforcement in the U.S. since September 11, 2001. The shooter of this catastrophic event said that he was angry and upset with police shootings with black men and wanted to kill white police officers. The abundance of police related shootings with the public led to this fatal shooting and was the direct result of the hostile environment between the police and the community.  The Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter movements have been sweeping over the United States and the media has been there the whole time. The media has been known to usually be negatively portraying the police in incidents with the public or do a poor job fully explaining it, for years now and this is how they can be defined as the “fuel” to the fire. The media does this thing where it will only focus on one part of the story or leave out vital information so that the story sounds better.  This has a negative impact on society because they believe what they hear on the news, and these headlines are the way people form opinions about certain topics. The news really shouldn’t skew the information for their benefit, it should be told how it really is. So as you can see, the media has a major influence with the ongoing issues between the community and law enforcement. The news should just focus on getting their story across to the people who watch, not just a company for headlines.

Works Cited

Stoughton, Seth. “Is the Police-Community Relationship in America beyond Repair?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 July 2016,

Definition Argument-Thenaturalist201

Definition Argument -Thenaturalist201

When a person is born their childhood is already defined what jobs their parents have and what they have. As they grow older they are more and more defined by whatever their parents are able to give them. they are influenced by what their parents go through, because until they are old enough to understand what they have or who they are they are defined by the previous upbringing of their parents.

When a child is brought up in a multiracial household don’t they face the discrimination that both parents endure. They see the struggle of each race or skin color faces. They are told stories of the oppression and have to hold that on their back for the rest of their life.

So what nobody dares to talk about is the possibility of other ethnicities having the privilege or is privilege even a real thing.

Privilege is believed to be an advantage that you are born with you are not acquired privilege, this advantage varies from being hired over other based on skin color to have an easier time buying groceries at a grocery store. Having privilege also includes the ability to receive welfare and more affordable healthcare.

Privilege is not even brought up when being raised because privilege is what your parents can provide you. Privilege has nothing to do with skin color and multiracial people are being more discriminated against as they are believed to have more of an advantage over someone else who is part of one of their races.

Definition Argument First Draft – PaulaJean5

Many people are unaware about just how much their mind controls their conscious/subconscious actions. You watch a commercial for some type of food, but you’re not exactly watching it. Unless it is the Super Bowl, you are probably too preoccupied with something else to be watching the commercials between your show. But then why when you go to the grocery store, are you craving this random kind of food? You don’t exactly think twice about it and you buy it anyway. That commercial that was on in the background subconsciously effected your actions without you even realizing.

This happens all day, everyday. What you glance at, hear, smell, hear; all of this is you exploring the world around you. But you do not give much thought to every single thing you see and hear. How does this happen? Sometimes it happens due to expectations and some occur just because your subconscious mind is more alert than your conscious. This is called the Placebo effect.

The Placebo effect is usually mentioned in terms of medical and pharmaceutical trials. Doctors are given an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group will receive the actual medicine and the control group will receive the placebo, or sugar pill. The most effective way to conduct this kind of experiment is double-blind. This means that the groups don’t know what they are receiving and the experimenter/doctor does not know who is receiving what.


Needs a Title

While there are many law protecting the right of humans there aren’t as many laws protecting animals. Our country has made great effort in the past to protect animals once it has become severe. what i mean by this is we push our selves to make it our job to protect animals after we’ve done serve damage. an example would be hunting exotic animal until almost extinction. With our new technology and innovations as well as social media helping support our causes for equal rights for all. why do companies still test on animals.

So,  the question is why do companies test on animals? why is there a small percentage of us doing something about it? Well the main reason companies claim to test on animals is to check if the products are safe. on of the biggest acts of testing on animals come from the cosmetic industry. the matter of the fact is the U.s in 2014 used over 100 million animals including rats,mice birds, agricultural animals , and reptiles. of these 100 million many died so we have to think what are in these products that we use today?  Especially in cosmetic productions for our skin, hair, and eyes what are putting on. these animals are being misused for our sake. we are allowing these animals to be abused, be misused, harming them by causing them pain, illness, and cancers.

So in terms of cosmetic products why do they use animals when their products are made for humans? well while researching, I have found that although we have different skin types companies are always trying to expand new products. Companies use animals because they are allowed to it is cheaper and it comes with less consequences then testing on animals. if the statistics of animals that got diseases, cancer, skin rashes/burns, and died were switched with human testing. the amount of death would be substantial.

Although many companies claim not to be using animals for testing that could be indeed a lie. companies are not required to put on the label whether they actually test on animals or not. Some brands that test today are Avon, Clinique, Estée Lauder, maybeline, Make up forever, and the most well heard of Victoria’s Secret.

What is scarier is this funding for testing is funded by us . shocking right many people are against this yet do not know that they are unconsciously helping the companies they hate. one way people fund this form of testing is that we have and incredible amount of people still buying these products. as stated in an article by PETA, “Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly—fund animal experimentation. ”

An important scenario to think about is we do not just use animals to cosmetics but also medicine. for example we use pregnant animals to test birth control. what happens is Companies take these pregnant animals force them to take the medicine. Some die, some don’t if the animals lives we check to see if there animals have any side effects. if the animal die we take another and try again. Now how cruel does it sound that after one animal dies, we don’t stop right there. Instead companies dispose of these dead “lab participants” and bring in another countless times until we get it right. similar to most i believe it would be better to test on animals for medical research only just because it was safer then testing on us. through my research i found i was wrong, as an article by PETA states, “Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory, whether they be mice or monkeys, are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings. And because animal species differ from one another biologically in many significant ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal experiments will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful way.” so doing so what is the point we are just wasting these animals lives over and over and over again.

i believe we should ban animal testing worldwide. many countries made it a law that they must test before putting anything n their shelves. Countries like China enforce this law. although this might be difficult because people dont want to stop buying these brands which they continuously use daily. this is not impossible. if we come together and spread awareness, we could force these companies to undergo other ways of testing and also save the livef


Experiments on Animals: Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from

These Beauty Brands Are Still Tested on Animals. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from

Why are companies testing on animals? (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from

Wischhover, C. (2015, January 30). Why the U.S. Won’t Ban Cosmetics Animal Testing Anytime Soon. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from

Definition Argument – DoubleA

Artificial Turf and the Affect it has on the NFL

One of the leading questions critics and players of the NFL have is what to do about the significant amount of knee injuries endured during an NFL season, and the correlation the playing fields have on these knee injuries. With multiple knee injuries occurring to big name players every season the NFL has a problem on their hands.

Due to the increasing number of concussions players were suffering over the past couple decades the NFL has tried to make the game safer. With new safety rules the NFL has managed to decrease the amount of head to head contact during games, but by doing this has raised the amount of low tackles which causes low blow tackles to the players knees. 

Paired with concussions knee injuries are one of the biggest problems the NFL officials face now a days. Every season some team is affected by injuries along the way, but knee injuries are the biggest blow because they can take anywhere from 6-12 months to heal with rehab. This past season big names like Deshaun Watson, Carson Wentz, JJ Watt, Jason Peters, Joe Thomas all had big knee injuries that affected their team tremendously.

Definition Argument- DudeInTheBack

Addiction is debilitating. When your body and brain are physically dependent on something, the addiction runs everything in your life. especially when you have been prescribed a drug for your entire life, all you know is that drug, and without it, functioning seems abnormal. This is the case for people who have been prescribed Adderall since a young age. A drug that gives ADHD patients the magical ability to function normally, making a child grow up thinking they need the drug to function.

Forty Years ago ADHD was not a diagnosis, but rather simply children who could not stay focused in class and had trouble retaining information. They were believed to just be unteachable, and their disruptions in class were not tolerated. So, In return Adderall was prescribed to all of these ADHD classified children. Not paying attention in class, and being disruptive seems like a big issue. In fact, It is big enough to prescribe mind altering drugs to children who do not realize the full power of these drugs.

Now I’m not saying that these drugs are ineffective. Adderall definitely does the job of making you wired. Basically, all of the symptoms involved with ADHD, like inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, lack of focus, disorganization, fidgeting, excessive talking, or frequent interrupting, are controlled. In an article titled, “Adderall vs. Ritalin: What’s the Difference?” it is stated that, “ by increasing the availability of the neurotransmitters norepinephrine and dopamine in your CNS connections. This speeds up your brain activity.” speeding up brain activity, and also causing you to believe that you are preforming superhumanly, or better than you would sounds perfectly fine. in that case, it would seem perfectly fine to take this miracle pill every day, whenever you need that superhuman boost.

This is where the problem starts, depending on the drug to make you perform, rather than relying on what you are normally equipped with to perform. The purpose for the pill is being put into effect, but what happens if the pill is not there? An article titled, “Adderall Addiction and Abuse” posted by the Addiction center states, “The brain of an addicted person is dependent on Adderall to stimulate alertness and productivity. Without Adderall, addicted people often feel tired and mentally foggy. These are symptoms of Adderall withdrawal, a strong sign of an addiction.” Someone who relies on this artificial performance, after receiving the skills they have obtained through the drug, can act like a bubble pop when the drug is taken away. It becomes a way of life. You take that pill everyday because the doctor prescribed it, and now you are reliant on that pill to succeed. Take coffee as an example, I’m sure many people insist that coffee is what gets hem through the day. without this coffee, they would be useless.

Its simple, the prescription of Adderall to a minor should be prohibited. It is a drug that makes you feel smarter than you actually are, and growing up thinking this can lead to a lifetime of addiction.


Definition Argument- Dancers

Social platforms are beginning to evolve world wide in order to attract a bigger audience and gain more users.  On average a teenager spends about nine hours on social platforms a day.  The average person in society today will spend about two hours on social media. If calculated this is about five years and four months spent on social media within a life time. The average time spent of social media now adds up to be more time than a person uses to eat, drink, and socialize. Evan Asano, in his article “How Much Time Do People Spend on Social Media?”, states that the average person uses YouTube for approximately forty minutes, Facebook for thirty-five minutes, Snapchat for twenty-five minutes, Instagram for fifteen minutes, and finally Twitter for 1 minute.

Social media is all around us in this day and age and every person is on at least one social media site. But what is social media exactly, it is “Computer mediated technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, career interests and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks.” Wikipedia claims. Social media can be accessed through computers and cellphones now. Which means you have the the technology to use social media in your pocket at all times. There are thousands of different social media platforms available to use daily now not everyone uses every platform but the top five just about everyone uses.

According to statics taken in January of 2018 there are 7.593 billion people in the world.Out of the 7.593 billion people about 4.021 billion of them use the internet, 3.196 billion of them are active on social media, and 2.958 billion of them are active mobile social media users. Within the last year social media users have gone up by 362 million people and people who use mobile apps for social media has gone up 360 million people. America’s population is 1,011 million people and 648 of those million people are active social media users.

Social networking is growing to be more popular and more wide spread to reach all ages of people. Social networking gives people the opportunity to meet new people that share common the common interests. On social media websites the introductions about yourself gives other users information about you, allowing them to get to know you slightly before deciding to even interact with you.  Social media sites are also user friendly they are easy to navigate, even people with little knowledge on how to use the internet can work most of these sites. These websites also give people a job market by allowing professionals to establish their brand online, by posting their skills, accomplishments and previous experiences. In doing so they may be recognized by potential employers and or peers. Now social media allows individuals to reach out but it also allows businesses to reach out as well. Some businesses purposely buy adds on these different websites in order for customers to see them. Finally social networking sites are popular because they are free. It is free to sign up make an account on most of these websites. By these websites being free they gain more and more users.

For each social networking site they reach reach all different ages. Snapchat’s has demographics of 45% percent of users being eighteen to twenty-four, 26% of users are twenty-five to thirty-four, finally they even have 1% percent of users that are sixty-five or older. Facebook’s demographics are the most evenly spread throughout different age groups. 16% of users are between the ages of eighteen to twenty-four, 22% of users are twenty-five to thirty-four, 19% are thirty-four to forty-four, 18% are forty-five to fifty-four, 15% fifty-five to sixty-four, and the last 10% of users are over the age of sixty-five.

Social media reaches people of all backgrounds, such as common people and celebrities as well. Some people have become famous off of using different social media platforms allowing themselves to get their name out their and recognized. Most You Tuber’s start off with very little subscribers but can eventually take over and become widely known around the world. Social media is so influential that sometimes our president even takes to it in order to voice his opinions.

While everyone worldwide loves social media and uses social media daily, it may not be for the best even though it has benefits it also has negatives. With social media it gives people a false feeling of connection. Social media allows you to feel connected to people but at the same time you barely know this person. Using social media decreases the amount of privacy you have within your personal life. The last negative when it comes to social media and maybe the most prominent is the risk of cyber bullying occurring.

Cyber bullying is a problem within schools world wide and is happening more often than expected. Children and teenagers now turn to these different platforms in order to harass other people, finding it easier to hide behind a screen.


Chaffey, D. (2018, February 08). Global Social Media Statistics Summary 2017. Retrieved from

Aqab, S. (2015, October 10). 6 Reasons Why Social Networking is Popular Today. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from

Aqab, S. (2015, October 10). 6 Reasons Why Social Networking is Popular Today. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from

Hoelzel, M. (2015, June 29). UPDATE: A breakdown of the demographics for each of the different social networks. Retrieved from

Social media. (2018, February 10). Retrieved from


Definition Argument- lbirch141

Detectors Causing Harm

People around the world live in a very dangerous, harmful world with many things that can go wrong. One of the most dangerous things people have that are potentially dangerous is smoke detectors. Detectors, whether it is for smoke, heat, or carbon monoxide, go unnoticed every day and are not even thought to be harmful or potentially dangerous. The beeping pieces of plastic on your ceiling could turn into a hazard if not cared for or thought about daily. Detectors do have many benefits if properly used, and can save many lives annually. But detectors do have dangers that it is trying to prevent. They have the risk of not alerting when there is a threat of fire or smoke, or could start a fire itself.

It may seem like these detectors are a benefit, considering fire departments and fire protection agencies hand them out. But the risk starts if installation of the product is not efficient and installed properly. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Considerations For Installation Of Smoke Alarms On Residential Branch Circuits“, the proper installation of a detector is essential in order to decrease the risk of fires starting from detectors. Shortages, overheating wires and overloaded circuits can start a fire at any time if installation is not done correctly. Wires overheating due to excess current in the detector is a main issue that does cause electrical fires.

As the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission also states, there are some techniques being used to cut down electrical fires. Fuses are now being put into place so if overheating does occur, a fuse will be set off, not allowing any more current to go through the circuit. Overheating would be hard to catch, but a small fuse does make it easier to prevent any fires from starting from your detectors.

Short circuits are a common cause of fires, which a detector can do. According to Elizabeth McGrath’s “What Causes Short Circuits“, a short circuit occurs when part of a wire carrying current touches another wire or part of the circuit and gives the electricity a path of less resistance. For example, if a wire with faulty insulation becomes exposed and touches a metal light switch, current can flow along the light switch and result in a shock. Short circuits will produce more heat in a circuit and results in burns and electrical fires.

Something else that can actually cause a fire are the batteries used to power the detectors. But in many incidences, an ordinary item that may be found in your “junk drawer” may have a higher risk of catching fire than you think. Fire Protection Team writes that if a metal object touches the posts of the batteries, the battery may short circuit, which creates enough heat to start a fire. There have been reports of this across the country of these batteries actually starting a fire, and enough that homeowners are launching a campaign to provide awareness of this unexpected hazard.

But new technology creates a better way to prevent this also. McGrath states that a short circuit will cause your household breaker to trip, allowing you to see something was shorted out. But there are still some risks and dangers even with this technology and advancing improvements. Internal shortages can happen within your ceiling, which are harder to spot and can lead to a fire if it is not noticed fast enough.

It is sometimes hard to believe that a device used to alert you of a fire is actually causing them. There have been some reported fires that have started due to a detector, which have not been researched to see what actually caused the fire. An article titled “Fire services on alert after smoke detector is blamed for causing Two blazes” published by Daily Mail, provides two cases in the United Kingdom where smoke detectors caught fire inside houses. Fire investigators on the case say they are on the side of caution because of these incidents and are taking the situation very seriously. These detectors were installed by fire services for a fire prevention safety campaign.

Poor maintenance and upkeep of detectors can be a major role in your family’s fire safety. What some do not know is that even hardwired detectors have a battery which is used for backup purposes. If electricity is lost in your household and that backup battery is dead, there will be no way in knowing if there is smoke in your house or not.

A deadly example of this is in an article written by Bruce Krasnow, titled “Fire Starts During Annual Smoke Detector Warning…“, which states that a fire started in a house that did not have smoke detectors at all, which may have saved the lives of four children. Fire investigators said that the fire was smoldering long before it ignited, and if a detector was present, the four children would have been alerted and would have been able to get out safely. It is a tragic story that did not need to happen if a smoke detector was properly installed in the home.

This seems strange to think about. No one would think that a device used to alert individuals that there is fire, could be the reason the fire starts in the first place. As a fire fighter, I would not think this at all because of the positives I see, and what many others see also. We all see that blinking red light and hear that loud beep, but never do think about if it is doing more bad than good.


Brooke, C. (2011, November 08). Fire services on alert after smoke detector is blamed for causing TWO blazes. Retrieved February 13, 2018 from 


Lee, A., & Lee, D. (2005, October). Considerations For Installation Of Smoke Alarms On Residential Branch Circuits. Retrieved February 13, 2018 from

McGrath, E. (2017, July 11). What Causes Short Circuits?. Retrieved February 13, 2018 from

Nichols, B. (2014, June 30). How 9-Volt Batteries Can be a Home Hazard. Retrieved February 13, 2018 from 

Definition Argument-Dohertyk9

The dictionary at defines consent as “permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence”, “agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.”, and “accord; concord; harmony”. What the dictionary fails to state is the definition of consent as it relates to law, particularly laws regarding rape.

Rape itself is defined by the same website as “unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.” However, if you consider how the law defines rape, it sheds a very different light; in fact, until recently, rape could only be a man against a woman, and the woman could not be the man’s wife. Certain factors also contributed to whether or not an offense was considered rape; as the Free Dictionary states, “women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape.” In the modern era, society uses the more inclusive definition stated at the beginning of this paragraph. Even the up-to-date definition does not explicitly cover everything, though. Because consent has the ability to vary from court-to-court, so does the definition of rape.

Not only do societal views define rape, those same views formulate the laws that define rape. In approximately 1780 B.C., people believed that only virgins could be raped; this was reflected in their laws, which stated that rape of a virgin was property damage against her father. For most of history, it was also agreed that only women could be raped. Men were only recently included in the definition of rape. In 1290, the definition of rape changed; without a woman’s consent, she could not get pregnant. Basically, if you get pregnant from rape, it was never rape to begin with. The definition was altered again in the 1300s. The intensity of the punishment was affected by how promiscuous the woman was; a virgin was more legitimate in her charge of rape than a whore was. At the end of the 1300s, the definition of rape changed yet again. Virgins were no more credible than other women, and girls younger than 12 could not consent. In 1670, it was concluded that a man can legally rape his wife, because the marriage contract forfeited his wife’s right to consent. Sir Matthew Hale, an English judge and lawyer at the time, stated, “[T]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” Furthermore, race was a deciding factor; black women could not be raped, or at least if they were, the law did not care. It was decided in 1814 that rape could be determined by pregnancy; if a woman was raped, she could not become pregnant. Samuel Farr, an English physician at the time, decided that a woman could not become pregnant without an orgasm, and rape could not occur if there was an orgasm. In his Elements of Medical Jurisprudence, he says, “For without an excitation of lust, or the enjoyment of pleasure in the venereal act, no conception can probably take place. So that if an absolute rape were to be perpetrated, it is not likely she would become pregnant.” In the 19th century, it was agreed that if the woman did not actively resist her rapist, she was not raped. Throughout time and across different places, the definition of rape changes. Although the modern definition of rape is much more inclusive than, for example, the definition from 1780 B.C., it is likely that the definition will change yet again in the future.

If consent is an “agreement in sentiment”, then what exactly constitutes this “agreement”? That question can be extremely difficult to answer; it is the reason why many feel they have been wrongly convicted, as well as why many victims feel that they have not received adequate justice. The problem is that consent is not always explicitly voiced. For example, it is likely that not everyone outright asks their person of interest, “do you want to have sex?”, but rather goes through the motions, seeking nonverbal cues to express their intentions. Nonverbal cues are vague and easy to misinterpret, however. Discomfort may look like consent to a less socially observant person. The unobservant person can now be charged with rape simply because he could not pick up on the subtle nonverbal cues of his partner. At the same time, his partner could have believed that her discomfort was clear and obvious and did not need to be stated aloud.

Even when consent is clearly stated, it may not be consensual to the victim. The victim may feel as though the consent was forced from her and therefore not true consent. In this instance, a man may feel that he is justified in continuing with a sexual act, when in reality, his partner does not consent to it. Therefore, it can be concluded that consent can never actually be given.

Every sexual act is rape. A person could clearly and explicitly tell her partner “yes”, but if for even a moment she doubts her feelings or feels any amount of discomfort, the consent is void and she could consider the situation to be rape. No one is capable of stating “yes” in every single moment of a sexual act. The second a man’s partner stops saying “yes” to take a breath of air, his partner has relinquished her consent. And a sexual act without consent is rape. It is especially true that every sexual act is rape because the modern definition includes people of all races and all genders. In the past, it could be argued that almost nothing was rape. Unless you were white and a virgin, you could not be raped in the 1780s B.C. Slowly, more people were included into the definition of rape, until it included the wide range of cases it now encompasses.


Works Cited

Eichelberger, E. (2017, June 25). Men Defining Rape: A History. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from

Consent. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from

Rape. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from

Rape. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from

Rape. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from




Definition argument- Morty39

Pitbulls can and should be used as police dogs. There are tons and tons of pitbulls sitting in shelters right now, waiting for a home and somebody to love. Nobody wants them, because they are viewed as being dangerous and harmful, even though this is false people will not let them in their homes. If these dogs are considered dangerous, but can be trained, why not train them to be police dogs to get them out of the public. This is not a new idea, to take dogs from animal shelters and train them to be part of a canine unit (surprising police). They usually do not take pitbulls, because of their bad reputation. On the website they do not list pitbulls as police dogs, which proves my point that people do not think these dogs could be useful to them, even though they have dogs like rottweilers which can be even more dangerous than pitbulls, they even have the same qualities. Dobermans are listed as part of the police dog unit too, they are also known to be mean and very unfriendly, the only difference is that that stereotype is actually true. Pitbulls on the other hand have a stereotype that is not fair to them, they are lovable and easy to train dogs. Which is perfect for police dogs, because the dogs live with their handlers and their families, and when they retire they stay with their handlers. They are family dogs and working dogs. They show this even when they are used as fighting dogs, pitbulls are trained specifically not to bite their handlers and know when to stop fighting, they were even bred that way. The ones that would bite their human or continue fighting were killed and not bred, even though that is awful for those dogs it helped them become great dogs for police. It solves two problems in one, get rid of pitbulls in animal shelters and prevent them from being killed because of too much space and on top of that the police get great dogs to work with and have a best friend for life.