The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
The_Devils_Advocate
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

A debate on a provocative topic.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,841 times Debate No: 5132
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

I will list three provocative topics. I am going to support the one of your choosing. So in your R1 post, tell me what you want to debate.

1. Cannibalism of non-diseased human carcasses is a superior alternative to cremation or burial.
2. The world would be better off with a capitalist anarchy. (If you don't know what I mean by that, I'll explain in my R2 post. Basically though, it means that corporations rule the world.)
3.Agriculture was a BIG mistake--that is, man should never have made the change from hunting and gathering to farming.
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

Let us do the cannibalism one as I think I know where you are going with this and would love to try my hand at defeating you.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Okay, I am in support of cannibalism for many reasons, but I'll just list a few. First, I would like to point out that cannibalism of already deceased human beings harms no one. It may be a little gross to some people, but it does not cause physical harm. In fact, there are even benefits gained from doing so.

I will begin by listing the problems with burials and cremations. Burying your dead Grandma is problematic. First, it is expensive, as you have to purchase a burial plot and a tombstone, and second it is a waste of land that could otherwise have been used for housing the world's growing population. Cremation is just as bad. Humans are made out of mostly carbon. You all know what happens when you burn carbon right? You create CO2. This, by most accounts, is bad.

Now, here are the benefits of cannibalism: First, as I mentioned earlier, it is harmless. Second, human flesh contains many of the nutrients that we need to survive, as the deceased member of the family ate those nutrients. Third, it is supposedly very tasty (some artist dude ate part of himself, and wrote an article on it). Fourth, it gives us more food. If we can supplement our diet with dead people, then there is more food for the starving children in Africa. Fifth, it's cheap. You already have the meat, you just need it butchered, which you really could do yourself. Sixth, it's fairly green. A fire is carbon neutral, as the wood it burns absorbed an equal amount of CO2 from the air in its lifetime, so burning wood from fallen trees and broken branches is green, and you can cook your loved one the old-fashioned way, over that green fire. Finally, the dude is dead, you wouldn't want the tragic event of his death to go to waste, would you? It's like the reduce, reuse, recycle concept. You reduce dead people by making them live longer, you reuse them by eating them, and you recycle by using the energy you gained from eating them to make more babies.

In summation, burials are expensive wastes of land, and cremations are Co2 causing, but cannibalism is green, cheap, it's like recycling, it saves food for the kids in Africa, it is tasty, it is healthy, and it's harmless. Guess what? Cannibalism rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

To my esteemed opponent, (I'm not saying your name because of it's complexity.) I would like to apologize for my tardiness in responding. But I will get right to the point and delay no further.

I would like to begin with some definitions of the resolution as I deem them important in this debate.

The resolution is as stands: "Cannibalism of non-diseased human carcasses is a superior alternative to cremation or burial."

Cannibalism: the eating of human flesh by another human being. All of my definitions from this to the last come from dictionary.com. I would like to point out that this does not include the term dead or deceased, and neither does the resolution. In fact, none of the definitions on dictionary.com include dead or something of the like. The only one that refers to life says that it is the eating of a LIVE something. So keep this in mind.

Human: pretty understandable, nothing exciting here.

Carcass: I chose this one because of it's relevance to the topic. "the body of a human being, whether living or dead." Notice once again the living aspect.

Superior: better.

I would now like to bring up our burdens. The affirmative must show that cannibalism is better than cremation or burial. I must show that it is equal or worse than cremation or burial.

I begin with the fact that the definitions of these words do not imply that the person is not dead. This means that it is morally wrong to eat someone while they are still alive. The unalienable right to life gives each individual their right to not be eaten alive. This is the very first reason that I should win this round.

The second along these lines, is that burying someone alive is also denying their right to life, and so is cremating them while they are still alive. This proves that cannibalism isn't a better alternative, it is equal to these alternatives as they all violate the same right.

My third argument is that it is socially unacceptable to cremate or bury someone while they are still alive. In fact, I would posit that there are less than ten cases combined of this actually happening per year. I don't have actual statistics so if you can disprove this, please do. So if something is as rare as this, there need be no alternative, whether better or worse.

Now I will begin by arguing against my opponents case.

His first argument does mention the deceased. I would say first that the resolution doesn't imply deceased, and that the problems I have shown with eating the living are far worse than any of the benefits that might come from eating the deceased.

He then says that there are benefits from eating other people. He uses nutritional value as one. If we are looking for nutritional value, then there are much better alternatives that are much more humane. Yak being one of those alternatives. So there is no reason to eat humans as far as nutritional value goes because there are much better meats for you and your body.

Now let's talk about the expense part. You say that it is expensive to bury your dead grandma. My first point here is that it is also a good part of closure. When a love one dies, most of the living relatives need some sort of closure. When one is buried it allows for the family to have an event that talks affectionately about the deceased and allows them to further their grieving process and speeds up their recovery. Not only that, but a burial site allows for loved ones to visit it later on. This too helps with closure. Even if you were to have a ceremony before eating the deceased, it would defeat the purpose. You would finish telling stories of how much grandma meant to you, and then ask for a thigh cooked medium well? Doesn't help the grieving process.

You also say that burning CO2 is bad for the environment. My first argument is that we have a lot of other worse things to worry about, so why spend our time on the small stuff? My second argument, is that plants turn CO2 into oxygen, and since most crematoriums are located on the cemetary premises which usually contain many plants, this doesn't play much of an impact on our environment at all.

This just leaves the "green" effect of cannibalism. My first argument here is that burial and cremation aren't hazardous to the environment in the first place, so there need not be a green alternative. Secondly, most people aren't skilled in the art of butchering, or proper meat cooking techniques. When introducing a new meat to cook, it could bring in more diseases from improperly cooked meat.

For these reasons, there is only one way I can see this round going. And that is to the negative.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

V3=cool

Clever response. Unfortunately, I am about to refute it.

"I would like to point out that this does not include the term dead or deceased, and neither does the resolution. In fact, none of the definitions on dictionary.com include dead or something of the like."

Alright, we'll do this your way.

"The unalienable right to life gives each individual their right to not be eaten alive. This is the very first reason that I should win this round."

Burial and cremation take away this right as well. The difference is that with cannibalism, we at least feed some hungry people while taking away their right to life. It is still bad, but it is less bad. Secondly, I could only take someone's leg. I don't have to eat the whole body. I would imagine that the head, chest, neck. and pelvic area would not be appetizing. I could theoretically just eat a leg. Burial and Cremation require that the person dies. So it is superior.

"This proves that cannibalism isn't a better alternative, it is equal to these alternatives as they all violate the same right."

But as I said, cannibalism feeds people, cremation/burial doesn't. And it doesn't necessarily kill, but burial and cremation do.

"My third argument is that it is socially unacceptable to cremate or bury someone while they are still alive. In fact, I would posit that there are less than ten cases combined of this actually happening per year. I don't have actual statistics so if you can disprove this, please do. So if something is as rare as this, there need be no alternative, whether better or worse.'

It is better that if one kills someone, they get put to at least some use. I don't have statistics either, but I can almost guarantee that live burials are slightly higher than 10 a year.

"He then says that there are benefits from eating other people. He uses nutritional value as one. If we are looking for nutritional value, then there are much better alternatives that are much more humane. Yak being one of those alternatives. So there is no reason to eat humans as far as nutritional value goes because there are much better meats for you and your body."

Burial and cremation have no nutritional value, although burial provides a good workout. I am not comparing it to yak, I am comparing it to burial/cremation.

"Now let's talk about the expense part. You say that it is expensive to bury your dead grandma. My first point here is that it is also a good part of closure. When a love one dies, most of the living relatives need some sort of closure. When one is buried it allows for the family to have an event that talks affectionately about the deceased and allows them to further their grieving process and speeds up their recovery. Not only that, but a burial site allows for loved ones to visit it later on. This too helps with closure. Even if you were to have a ceremony before eating the deceased, it would defeat the purpose. You would finish telling stories of how much grandma meant to you, and then ask for a thigh cooked medium well? Doesn't help the grieving process.'

That's a subjective argument. For me, I would find closure in that grandma would always be with me, literally. I have a little something of her in me. My opponent also forgets how well medium rare thigh helps the grieving process, although I wholeheartedly agree that medium well does not.

"You also say that burning CO2 is bad for the environment. My first argument is that we have a lot of other worse things to worry about, so why spend our time on the small stuff? My second argument, is that plants turn CO2 into oxygen, and since most crematoriums are located on the cemetary premises which usually contain many plants, this doesn't play much of an impact on our environment at all."

The cremation we speak of is illegal, as the subject is living. That means it must be done in secret, probably behind 7-11. 7-11 has little plants, so the CO2 emitted by the body does matter.

"This just leaves the "green" effect of cannibalism. My first argument here is that burial and cremation aren't hazardous to the environment in the first place, so there need not be a green alternative. Secondly, most people aren't skilled in the art of butchering, or proper meat cooking techniques. When introducing a new meat to cook, it could bring in more diseases from improperly cooked meat.'

It could do that, but that's speculation. Yak is new too.
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

To my esteemed opponent. I love this debate and give you many thanks for making this both extremely fun, and quite witty. I wish you luck...but not too much. Now let us begin.

Burial and cremation do NOT take away the right to life as their very definitions include the idea of death. Once again according to dictionary.com:
Cremation: to reduce a dead body to ashes...or...to incinerate a corpse...or...the incineration of a dead body.
Burial: the ritual placing of a corpse in the ground...or...an instance of burying a dead body in a grave.
So by very definition, cremation and burial do not violate the right to life as they are inacted when a person no longer has life. So it isn't even equally bad as I originally thought. It is worse. You are eating someone who is alive compared to burying or burning someone who is already dead. But you say that you wouldn't eat the whole person. So now you are causing this person emotional trauma as I imagine it can't be too fun having your leg chopped off, but also physical trauma. You are also impairing them physically as I imagine isn't fun as well. I broke my leg and it sucked enough, but losing a leg can't be fun.

I again bring up the point that burial and cremation don't kill people, because they are already dead, so your next point is moot. You also say that it is better that someone get put to some use. But I already proved that there is no reason to be eating people, when it is much better to eat yak. Human serves no purpose. Yak is more nutritious. My entire point with the yak, is that we don't need to eat people for nutrition.

Now you wouldn't have a little bit of granny in you always, as we are bound to digest granny and need to expose of her in some way. And if you thought grandma's perfume was bad, I can't imagine what a grandma turd would smell like, but it can't be any better. Tousche on the medium well/medum rare. If we were to eat people, medium rare probably would be better tasting. But the point is that it wouldn't help the grieving process to most people.

You say that it is illegal to burn people alive, and this is true. But cremation deals with dead people. Not live. And where I'm from, there are no seven elevens...(they are all kum and go's. I know, there are many sexual jokes at their expense.)

So let's look at why my opponent, while extremely witty, still isn't debating well enough to win this round.
1. He (my apologies if you are female) must prove that eating live people is better than both cremation of dead people and the burial of dead people. Mind you, if I prove that it isn't better than one of these, then I win the round. I have clearly done this as I have shown you the rights eating live people violates, compared to the benefits of cremation and burial.
2. All of my opponent's arguments and claims have been disproved and countered by myself. His main reason for wanting to eat these people is nutritional value, but I have shown how yak is much more nutritious, and therefore eliminates the need to eat people.
3. The grieving process cannot be completed if they are carved up and served for thanksgiving dinner. Plus, if you eat grandma, I can't imagine that she is too tender. I mean, eating old chickens is pretty rough, and they only live for a couple of years. But eating something that was living for eighty or ninety years has got to be rough.

So for those three reasons, you should vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"To my esteemed opponent. I love this debate and give you many thanks for making this both extremely fun, and quite witty. I wish you luck...but not too much. Now let us begin."

Luck? I don't need luck. But anyways...

"Burial and cremation do NOT take away the right to life as their very definitions include the idea of death. Once again according to dictionary.com:
Cremation: to reduce a dead body to ashes...or...to incinerate a corpse...or...the incineration of a dead body.
Burial: the ritual placing of a corpse in the ground...or...an instance of burying a dead body in a grave.
So by very definition, cremation and burial do not violate the right to life as they are inacted when a person no longer has life. So it isn't even equally bad as I originally thought. It is worse. You are eating someone who is alive compared to burying or burning someone who is already dead. But you say that you wouldn't eat the whole person. So now you are causing this person emotional trauma as I imagine it can't be too fun having your leg chopped off, but also physical trauma. You are also impairing them physically as I imagine isn't fun as well. I broke my leg and it sucked enough, but losing a leg can't be fun."

Population growth estimates by the UN say conservatively that in 50 years, the world's population will be huge. By next century, it will have almost doubled. This will leave us with a problem, because we need more land to live on, which means there will be less farm land. This will not work, and many will starve. This is bad. Overcrowding may also mean that people must move out from the city into the countryside, and since we need so much farm land, they have to live on top of a cemetery. Have you ever seen the movie Poltergeist. That shows us what happens if we live on cemeteries. For those who haven't seen this movie (don't.) I'll tell you that it is not good. So, if we don't try to control our population, we will have starving people kidnapped by ghosts. We must control our population. Cannibalism not only takes out a few members of our population, it also provides the rest of us with food, making us healthier. Cremation and burials don't have this wonderful benefit. We need to eat each other in order to supply food and control population. If we do that we will all be happy, healthy, and not crowded. So let's see cannibalism: happy, healthy, uncrowded. Burial/cremation: Overcrowded, starving, kidnapped by ghosts. I'll take cannibalism please.

"I again bring up the point that burial and cremation don't kill people, because they are already dead, so your next point is moot. You also say that it is better that someone get put to some use. But I already proved that there is no reason to be eating people, when it is much better to eat yak. Human serves no purpose. Yak is more nutritious. My entire point with the yak, is that we don't need to eat people for nutrition."

We aren't face yak overpopulation are we? In fact yaks are listed as vulnerable to extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If we eat them, we'll run out of yaks, and have a huge, starving population.

"Now you wouldn't have a little bit of granny in you always, as we are bound to digest granny and need to expose of her in some way. And if you thought grandma's perfume was bad, I can't imagine what a grandma turd would smell like, but it can't be any better. Tousche on the medium well/medum rare. If we were to eat people, medium rare probably would be better tasting. But the point is that it wouldn't help the grieving process to most people."

You are wrong in fact. Granny's protein would contribute to muscle, ligament, and tendon growth. You would have her protein in your six pack abs. That would be pretty cool.

"You say that it is illegal to burn people alive, and this is true. But cremation deals with dead people. Not live. And where I'm from, there are no seven elevens...(they are all kum and go's. I know, there are many sexual jokes at their expense.)"

Ahh, yes, in most cases. However in some cultures, if a powerful man dies, he is cremated with one of his slaves. So if you're a modern Viking, 7-11 (or kum and go's) is your place of cremation.

"1. He (my apologies if you are female) must prove that eating live people is better than both cremation of dead people and the burial of dead people. Mind you, if I prove that it isn't better than one of these, then I win the round. I have clearly done this as I have shown you the rights eating live people violates, compared to the benefits of cremation and burial."

I did this. We need to address overpopulation. Cannibalism does this.

"2. All of my opponent's arguments and claims have been disproved and countered by myself. His main reason for wanting to eat these people is nutritional value, but I have shown how yak is much more nutritious, and therefore eliminates the need to eat people."

Yaks are endangered. People are overpopulated.

"3. The grieving process cannot be completed if they are carved up and served for thanksgiving dinner. Plus, if you eat grandma, I can't imagine that she is too tender. I mean, eating old chickens is pretty rough, and they only live for a couple of years. But eating something that was living for eighty or ninety years has got to be rough.'

There's a reason someone invented meat tenderizer.

So pretty much you should vote PRO!!!

"
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

To my esteemed opponent:
While this debate has been wonderfully entertaining, there are a few flaws in your analysis and logic. While you have sustained your humor throughout this round, humor isn't enough to win. I realize that this topic is absurd in itself, but I ask that you take this seriously. You still present arguments, and I will now begin to refute these.

You say that the world's population is going to be huge in fifty years, conservatively. My first point here is that even if it is huge, you have yet to prove that this is going to be large enough to cause over population. I'm from wyoming. The fifth largest state in america, yet the lowest amount of population in america. Wyoming has only 500,000 people in the entire state. So right there is land to live on. Also, taking into account the fact that much of the arctic and tundra regions are also quite uninhabited for the most part, overpopulation is hardly a worry to most people. In fact, if you google overpopulation, you will find that most people believe that overpopulation has already occurred. If this were the case, then people would be dying off by the hundreds of thousands all over the world. This simply isn't the case. When we look to the example of fruit flies, we see that overpopulation happens when an organisms number has overstretched the ability to live off it's environment. When that happens, the organism dies off until it reaches a sustainable number. This means that even if overpopulation happens like you are saying, it's not the end of the world. People are going to die no matter what. Overpopulation solves itself. Not only that, but there are exponential amounts of ways to feed people. Take for example many countries around the world whose people eat mainly rice. Rice is cheap to produce, doesn't take a lot of farmland, and feeds mass amounts of people. You are thinking that farm land is crops like corn and potatoes and beans. While in america this is mainly true, most countries around the world have found rice to be the best way of feeding citizens. It solves for starvation. And your entire premise about being kidnapped by ghosts is childish and stupid. Now I don't think you are childish and stupid, just that argument. The biggest flaw of your argument is "We need to eat each other in order to supply food and control population." This is entirely unbased. There are alternative ways to feeding people that don't involve killing someone. Rice for example. And population has yet to become overpopulated, and if it ever does then it will solve itself. Just like nature intended.

And your wikipedia article says that WILD yaks are vulnerable to extinction. If we were to begin eating yaks, it would be similair to how "harvesting" cattle works. There would be places that raise yaks and then kill them and process them etc...

And if you can show me how many modern vikings there are then please be my guest. And you don't tell me which cultures burn slaves, so I can't really believe that until it is proven.

Cannibalism does not address overpopulation. You don't know how many people would eat other people. You don't know who would be chosen for eating. All of the semantics are gone out of your contentions.

You say that people are overpopulated. Then there is nothing we can do about it, it's solving itself as we speak. If it's happened then it is fixing itself. And yaks aren't endangered. You just misread your article.

And you completely missed the point about the grieving process. There is no argumentation whatsoever.

I realize that you consider your wit to be one of your best qualities, but it only goes so far. There is a time to leave your wit behind you and actually start presenting arguments that are going to stand in a round. Even if the round is a fun round. If you would like to have a humorous debate with the winner being the funniest, then specify that. This isn't one of those, so please focus on your argumentation and logic from now on. Thank you and I wish you luck...even if you don't need it.
Debate Round No. 4
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"You say that the world's population is going to be huge in fifty years, conservatively. My first point here is that even if it is huge, you have yet to prove that this is going to be large enough to cause over population. I'm from wyoming. The fifth largest state in america, yet the lowest amount of population in america. Wyoming has only 500,000 people in the entire state. So right there is land to live on. Also, taking into account the fact that much of the arctic and tundra regions are also quite uninhabited for the most part, overpopulation is hardly a worry to most people. In fact, if you google overpopulation, you will find that most people believe that overpopulation has already occurred. If this were the case, then people would be dying off by the hundreds of thousands all over the world. This simply isn't the case. When we look to the example of fruit flies, we see that overpopulation happens when an organisms number has overstretched the ability to live off it's environment. When that happens, the organism dies off until it reaches a sustainable number. This means that even if overpopulation happens like you are saying, it's not the end of the world. People are going to die no matter what. Overpopulation solves itself."

The amount of pain and suffering involved in the process of "overpopulation solving itself" will be horrendous. Although we may not be kidnapped by ghosts; starvation, malnutrition, land conflicts, and other nasty consequences would occur. Even though you allow for the fact that much of the world is unpopulated, you neglect that we would nonetheless need more farmland. Even with a almost total switch to rice we would still require massive use of farmland. We would need ALL of the arable land on earth to do it. If there is just one flood, one drought, we starve. Also, rice requires rather wet land, and a mild climate. I don't believe Wyoming or the Arctic tundra are conducive to that. All are dry and fairly cool. In order to prevent starvation and overpopulation we need to do something. Cannibalism, while very imperfect does something. Burial and cremation do not.

"And your wikipedia article says that WILD yaks are vulnerable to extinction. If we were to begin eating yaks, it would be similair to how 'harvesting' cattle works. There would be places that raise yaks and then kill them and process them etc..."

Yaks do not help prevent overpopulation, eating people does help this. Yaks are irrelevant.'

"And if you can show me how many modern vikings there are then please be my guest. And you don't tell me which cultures burn slaves, so I can't really believe that until it is proven."

Cremation is not going to prevent overpopulation. It just won't. Burning the dead does not help prevent overpopulation.

"Cannibalism does not address overpopulation. You don't know how many people would eat other people. You don't know who would be chosen for eating. All of the semantics are gone out of your contentions."

You have to kill someone to eat them, right? Killing them also prevents them from making more children. If just one person ate one other person each month for two years, at an average world birth rate of about 3 children per mother (UNESCO) he would have caused a net reduction of 48 over one generation. If we include the next generation, as 2050 is about two generations away, it would be 144 people. So if only 1% of the current population did this, we would reduce this by close to 900 million. That's with only 1%, with more, which is very possible if not probable, it would be even more. If everyone did this, we would get a net reduction of almost 90 billion. That is very significant. At current rates over two generations we get 21 billion more people. With cannibalism this number is significantly less. You must remember that if we all did this for the next 42 years we would actually have a net loss in population, which would improve the quality of life. Cannibalism would lead to the benefit of the many, although at the expense of the few.

Cannibalism is probably immoral, but it is better than simply not doing anything about overpopulation. Burial and cremation do nothing.

I thank my opponent for this interesting debate.
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

Thank you very much for this wonderful debate. There are going to be a couple things that I attempt to prove in this round. The first is the shift in advocacy that my opponent gives from the beginning of the round to now. The second is that in no way is Cannibalism superior to cremation or burial. With no further explanations, I shall begin.

Let us begin by showing the shift in advocacy. Look back to my opponents response to my first argument. He says..."Secondly, I could only take someone's leg. i don't have to eat the whole body. I would imagine that the head, chest, neck, and pelvic area would not be appetizing. I could theoretically just eat a leg." From the beginning, my opponent is not advocating the entire person die. He says that we would just eat someone's leg. But in his last argument, he is advocating the death of the entire person. This is a problem. The reason this is bad is because it creates what is called a shifting target. My opponent begins by arguing one thing, and then changing it. Let's take a look at the example of archery. Imagine that I am aiming at my opponents arguments with an arrow. I shoot my arrow to hit it, and then he moves it. This isn't a fair tactic, and should not be allowed to happen in this debate.

Now let's talk about my opponents arguments. He says that there would be a lot of pain and suffering involved in the process of overpopulation solving itself. My first argument is that there is always going to be pain and suffering. To assume that eating people is going to solve for all pain and suffering is absurd. He then goes on to talk about population growth. There are some huge misunderstandings in this argument. The first is that it doesn't take into account the amount of people dying. To assume that over two generations the population will grow to over 25 billion people is ludicrous and extremely false. We must take into account multiple factors that play into the population of the world. One is war. People are dying due to fighting all over the world. Take into account our "Global War on Terror" (which just so happens to be only in the middle east conveniently where a large amount of oil is...) People are dying every day in Iraq, and moreso in Afghanistan. In the Democratic Repulic of Congo, more people have died in that one country than in any other country combined since world war two. All of these decrease the population. Second, take into account disease. People are dying every day due to curable and non curable diseases all over the world. Thirdly, people die due to natural causes. All of these factors play into the population decreasing. My opponents statistics just take into account how many people are going to be born. Not into who is going to be dying. He is assuming that all six and a half billion people are going to have three children. This doesn't take into account men, who have never been able to have children. And people who aren't going to have children, or women too old to have children. All of these factors will decrease the amount of people in two generations. He also talks about decreasing the population by ninety billion...this is more than even the wrong statistics my opponent presented. So now he's advocating extinction? Probably not, but this is another example of how this math is apparently flawed.

Another problem with my opponent's overpopulation argument is that it is already happening. This argument goes dropped in my opponents last speech. If overpopulation is happening, then why aren't we seeing these devastating effects killing everybody right now? The answer is...that it isn't going to be like my opponent would have you believe. Natural selection is going to take place once again. Only the strong survive. This is empirical throughout history. Nothing can change that.

He says that yak is not going to solve overpopulation. I have easily disproven this idea of overpopulation, and yak would be a great alternative to the argument about nourishment that my opponent brought up and then dropped. So that argument goes to my side as well.

Now let's discuss how I know that cremation and burial are better than cannibalism.
1. Burial or cremation doesn't kill someone, or cause any sort of harm to someone as they are already dead when it happens.
2. My opponent has said that eating someone is morally wrong. Burial or cremation are neither one morally wrong. It is widely accepted to do either one of these.
3. Cannibalism takes away the basic human right to life INTENTIONALLY!!! Even if you believe in my opponent's argument about overpopulation, the intentional taking of a human life is worse than natural selection taking the life of humans. If a human isn't strong enough to survive, then basic nature determines that they should die.

All of these are reasons to prefer burial and cremation both to cannibalism. Now let's talk about why I should win this round.
1. My opponent hasn't given me the same target to argue during this debate. This makes it a lot harder to debate.
2. Even the arguments that my opponent shifted on I won.
3. All of my opponent's arguments hinge on overpopulation which has clearly been defeated.
4. There is absolutely no reason that my opponent gives as to why one shouldn't prefer burial or cremation over cannibalism. All he has done is argue why cannibalism is good. There is no reason to believe that it is better than the others.
5. I have told you why burial and cremation are better than cannibalism.

Vote Con. Thanks for this wonderful debate, and good luck in future debates.
All of my opponents arguments have to do with overpopulation. Once I disprove overpopulation, he has nothing to rely on.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
....

You really think it's feasible to use expensive disease tests on every piece of meat that comes along?

And corporations do rule the world. Governments are corporate entities, except the ones that are sole proprietorships, and those are going out of style in most places except maybe Oman, Swaziland, and the like (which have very little power). Whether the governments admit it or not. Now, of course, if you wanted to advocate that such corporations behave differently, by all means.
Posted by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
this is an awesome debate. I'm a huge fan.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
lol
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
V3 FTW! Oh, and it can't have all capital letters in comments. That phails.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Maybe not anarchy, but I didn't know what else to call it. LR4N6FTW4EVAism?
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Your "capitalist anarchy" doesn't look like it can be a subset of "anarchy".
Posted by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
Although the second one would be just as interesting. If you want that one I would be more than happy to oblige. It really doesn't make a difference which topic we debate. It should be fun.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by debatek3 6 years ago
debatek3
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by full3896 6 years ago
full3896
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by MasturDeBator2009 7 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Nox 8 years ago
Nox
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07