It is true that animal shelters provide a safe and loving home for animals who may otherwise be euthanized or live on the streets, but this does not absolve the environmental damage caused by pet ownership. Animal shelters may provide these animals with a safe and loving home, but this does not change the fact that animal agriculture has detrimental environmental consequences. As for the benefits of pet ownership, Nikhil acknowledges those as well in his essay; however, he argues that despite these benefits, pet ownership still has environmental and ethical implications which need to be taken into account.
Nikhil's idea that pet ownership may have detrimental implications should not be dismissed entirely. We must consider the potential consequences of pet ownership and acknowledge the ethical implications of raising animals for our own needs. Pet ownership can certainly have its benefits, but we must also consider the potential problems associated with this practice and strive to create a more sustainable system.
In conclusion, while the retort may have highlighted some valid counterarguments to Nikhil's essay, ultimately he was UrRong in thinking that his essay was wrong. His original argument still stands - pet ownership has potential consequences which must be considered before advocating for adoption or suggesting that pet owners refrain from obtaining animals.