The Instigator
Saving_The_Lost
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ThinkingPunk
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Animal Cruelty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ThinkingPunk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,212 times Debate No: 60157
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Saving_The_Lost

Con

So a lot of people have different opinions on animal abuse. Most people when they hear animal abuse, the thought of eating animals comes to mind. That's not what "we" mean. We're saying to stop beating and torturing animals. But we DO NOT eat dogs or cats. They are pets. I'm not saying that I other animals (pigs, cows, chickens etc.) do not deserve to die and be eaten, I'm saying that dogs and cats are mostly what we love and they love us back. (Again, I'm not saying that the other animals don't love or be loved.) It's simple, we should stop animal abuse. And that does NOT mean that we eat them. It means that we stop torturing.
ThinkingPunk

Pro

Alright, I can agree to this. A few questions that I would like to answer, just for clarification because your wording is a bit strange. Specifically, I would like you to explain your precise definition (perhaps with an example) of 'torture' in this instance, just so I am aware of what exactly do you mean (factory farming, domestic pet cruelty, crazy dudes kicking squirrels of the Grand Canyon? How, exactly, are you shooting to define it). Also, because you used it in an odd place, I would like your definition of the word 'deserve'. Aside from that, I am prepared to begin, knowing that it is quite possible that, depending on how you define torture, I may end up in quick agreement with you. I will, however, attempt to debate to the fullest of my ability, even if I am in agreement, if for no other reason than a competitive spirit.
Debate Round No. 1
Saving_The_Lost

Con

Saving_The_Lost forfeited this round.
ThinkingPunk

Pro

So... I'll take a victory.

I would like to point out that the wording of the resolution is extremely poor. However, it seems that my opponent was desiring to argue that we should... I don't actually know, I never got clarification. However, from his mentioning of different types of animals having different treatment, I can conclude that he was arguing against animal abuse to pets. Obviously, this is the correct and moral path, but I'm going to try to dissect what my opponent was saying a bit more. He seems to think that it is completely right to eat animals, and seems to have no issue with factory farming, so that isn't the argument. It seems, in fact, given the fact that he uses the term 'die and be eaten', that he is referring to people eating dogs and cats.

What my opponent failed to realize, however, was that our love of dogs and cats is not universal, but rather cultural. As I'm sure most voters are aware, China eats dogs, and cats, while unacceptable to be consumed nearly everywhere, used to be a common source of food for many Asian countries a few hundred years ago. However, my opponent doesn't seem to acknowledge that. I would argue, therefor, that if you are to treat one animal with higher respect, you should assume it of all animals. Or something.

I didn't even really need to post much of anything, my opponent forfeited and so, unless he replies in the next round, I guess I claim victory.
Debate Round No. 2
Saving_The_Lost

Con

Saving_The_Lost forfeited this round.
ThinkingPunk

Pro

I have nothing else to say, opponent FF'd.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Saving_The_LostThinkingPunkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure Con ever clarifies what the debate is about. Are we solely concerned with cruelty towards pets? What kinds of cruelty? Why only pets? I don't get anything more than a random assortment of thoughts from Con in R1, and he forfeits the remaining rounds. So the debate goes to Pro.