First and foremost, I am not fundamentally against any dogs, pure bred or cross bred, that are bred correctly - good conditions, good food, good socialisation and bred from healthy parents with sound temperaments. This is not a cheap or easy process.
I am vehemently anti puppy farm bred dogs that are produced in misery, and the vast majority of designer cross puppies are bred in this way.
If anyone can genuinely find a puppy like Detoxpup describes, then who cares what breed or cross it is, but it is extremely difficult for a member of the public who buys a puppy once in a blue moon to identify whether this is truly the picture or not.
I think some of the angst about crosses is misplaced, every dog breed that exists now was selectively bred out of other breeds at some point in history.
I see this argument so often, and I'm sorry but it is flawed. There is no doubt that every dog breed came about through selective breeding, but this was carried out by hard-nosed stockmen, with a job in mind, and with no compunction about removing individuals that didn't meet the brief from a breeding programme, through fair means or foul. No nancying about rearing poor do-ers either, survival of the fittest ensured a further degree of health.
This is not remotely the same as any Tom, Dick or Harry breeding first generation crosses with cute names, and with no progression.
Plus there are many pedigree dogs that have been bred to the point where the breed is really unhealthy.
Agree entirely, but at least there is data available and the option to a) not buy these breeds and b) use scientific health testing to select a breeder and a puppy to reduce the chances of issues.
There is certainly no guarantee in buying a crossbred puppy that it will magically be any healthier when it is bred from two parents of dubious origin with no health tests. Many farmed puppies don't even live long enough to succumb to genetic health issues, and even if they do many temperaments are unsound.