You provided the source for that quote. So, yeah, technically true, I guess!

You provided a source showing genetics is a confounding factor to your original graph?

Do you not know what confounding means?

The question was for the source of the image, not the general point. You can restate your point with new sources, but then say that.

The og image provides what looks like a source, and ofc it could be that wikipedia etc. also cite that, or "dog bite org" cites one of them (and thus the image isn't sourced correctly), however your screenshots don't even match the 66% figure, all giving different values, so clearly they are not the source or using the same source as the image.

Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the "Dog Bite org" refer to? I'm not asking for other stats. I'm not asking for other sources. I'm asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.

Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.

None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning "Dog Bite org". The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I'm sure you'll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I'm concerned with.

Ignoring the previous discussion and talking about those new screenshots, the third looks very untrustworthy at first glance.
Emotional images, pitbulls named by name in the header navigation, sounds like a single-purpose activist page. It's like going to peta expecting honest information about changing to a vegan diet or smthn.

The second image (srsly you could have put links below ffs) I dug up and it's some kind of property developer, could well be they profit off of fear of dogs or smthn, and going to the actual page they just quote other articles incorrectly anyway. They also misleadingly throw rottweilers into it for some reason, while in the linked article it's 60% with at least partial pitbull bloodline (note this being incorrectly simplified to "pitbulls", which is at best sloppy), and 7% rottweiler bloodline, which is just misleading throwing those together without further comment. That also ofc fits the idea that the page just wants to stir up fear for whatever reason.

Both of these pages are, frankly, trash. Do yourself a favor and remove them as arguments. If your point is correct, those would still make you look so dishonest in arguing it, it makes it look wrong; they are worse than not citing anything.

Now painfully scraping out the wiki article (Fatal dog attacks in the United States) -fucking link your shit man-, that article seems unproblematic at first glance.

Going into the actual sources now, the 60% thing linked earlier refers to "fuicelle & lee" which is not a paper to the best of my search ability, and is only ever mentioned on other pages copying the exact same paragraph around, ... so yeah that's sketchy.
The wikipedia thing I just hope is accurate (I'll take lt as accurate without checking here), but you gotta note it is a low sample size, half the percentage your other stuff claims (28%), and from seemingly only 2 specific locations.

I'd sure be interested if you can find any other statistics that don't just evaporate when you look for a source tho.

Starting another topic, what if you had clear statistics that a lot of dog damage is done by pitbulls? That doesn't instantly get you to proving the issue is with pitbulls. It's ye olde correlation isn't causation problem.
One example: Imagine insecure people compensating with pitbulls due to their brand image. Then those people tend to suck as dog owners so you get cases of horrible mistraining. Now if you were to ban pitbulls, or make their ownership "non-badass" via say cage or muzzle requirements, the badass dog brand would shift and those people would mistrain other dogs, the statistics would change to a new breed and the deaths would not decrease. Because in that chain of causation the core issue is the group of owners, and you merely measure the average type of dog those problematic owners get.

This is a hypothetical naturally, but that's why a simple "x % of deaths are caused by y dogs" isn't enough.

Before you argue allegiances, I don't like dogs, especially not ones with jumpy or agressive character. I also don't have experience with dogs.
Your arguments and my checking of them was the first actual argument on favor of pitbulls I have seen in a long time, I could still be convinced pretty easily that there is some issue with the breed.

I should be the prime target audience for you to convince. Uninformed, heard anecdotes about pitbulls bad, absolutely no inherent favor or attachment to the breed (they just don't look good sorry dog people). I should be trivially easy to convince, so please work on your argument.

The reason for the "poor discussion" is because that infographic comes from the only "source" the anti-pitbull types have that supports their argument, and we've been telling them for probably over a decade now that their source is shit and has been debunked countless times my new information. So we're all a bit tired of seeing the same misinformation over and over again.

In other words, find a new slant.

Corgis are herding dogs. They’re bred to nip at the heels of animals like sheep. They’ll do this to children, too. Toddlers.

They’re bred this way on purpose. They’re inherently violent and should all be put down.