The Instigator
yorks863
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
yukonhenry
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Animals should be killed for satisfying human life

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,308 times Debate No: 27353
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

yorks863

Con

I think animals should not be killed for satisfying human life,but they can be killed if it is an emergency.for eg. if a tiger attacks a child,for saving that child we have to kill the tiger.in this case it is ok to kill an animal,but nowadays we can see in our society that animals are killed for getting various products like fur,teeth for making valuable materials so that human can earn money easily.i am completely against this view
yukonhenry

Pro

First I would like to start off by saying that we, as a species, are designed to eat meat. Meat, for most of our existence, has its source in animals. The one exception to that is in the modern era of synthetic meat from labs, but as far as I know that has not really hit the market for consumers. So killing an animal to eat it is satisfying human life and is not wrong, under the circumstances I am about to lay out. Killing an animal to eat just one portion of it, say its thigh, and discarding the rest of it is not right (unless of course the rest of it is poisoned and/or diseased). So the first justifiable reason to kill an animal to satisfy human life is to eat it. Let's say there are portions of the animal that cannot be eaten, like tusks, fur and the other materials that you referred to. As long as the animal's meat is eaten and the other portions of the body are used, such as turning teeth into art, or a tool or something else, then this kill is also okay. The second justifiable reason to kill an animal is to eat it AND to use the uneaten portions in a useful way. Lastly, I would like to say that you are correct about killing an animal solely for its fur, teeth or other body parts to make money off of it. Taking an animals life just for its tusks, or just to mount its head on the wall is not right. But killing an animal to satisfy human life in the form of eating it is legitimate. Further, a person killing an animal to sell it to a butcher who would then sell it to someone to eat would also be ok. As long as the animal is killed with the intent of using the whole body in a useful way. I would like to note, however, that these should be animals that the culture deems edible. By that I mean that here in the U.S. the mainstream person doesn't eat dog, but that may be acceptable in other cultures therefore killing a dog to eat it in the U.S. is not right. Also, whether or not another culture does or doesn't eat dog is irrelevant, I am just using it as an example to show which animals can be killed for food. To sum up, I think it is ok to kill an animal to satisfy the human need of hunger (thereby satisfying human life itself) so long as the whole of the animal is used in some way and the intent of the kill was to eat it.
Debate Round No. 1
yorks863

Con

yorks863 forfeited this round.
yukonhenry

Pro

yukonhenry forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
yorks863

Con

yorks863 forfeited this round.
yukonhenry

Pro

yukonhenry forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by yukonhenry 4 years ago
yukonhenry
I will argue against that as soon as you post your next argument.
Posted by yorks863 4 years ago
yorks863
God has not made animals as human food.they have the right to freedom,they can enjoy their freedom.
No votes have been placed for this debate.