The Instigator
MASTERY
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
tyler3923
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty.

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 1 vote the winner is...
MASTERY
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 49051
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

MASTERY

Pro

Welcome to the debate
I define animals as "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli". I define cruelty as something that intensely hurts the animal for joy NOT true necessity.

Please NO pictures of animal cruelty, or any rude language, swearing etc.

Thank you.
tyler3923

Con

I accept. I would like to point out that as per your definition of cruelty, your arguments must demonstrate that the perpetrator was largely if not solely motivated by experiencing joy from the act.
Debate Round No. 1
MASTERY

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.
I would like to make a clarification that 'TRUE NECESSICITY" does NOT include religious purposes, or situations where a cruelty can be avoided. It ONLY includes situations where a person is desperate, and has to make the animal endure cruelty. Even in starvation, an animal may be humanely killed. Onto my argument

Firstly, animals have to endure unacceptable pain when exposed to cruelty. Imagine you were an animal. Would you like to endure such pain? If, say you were hit on the leg, you might scream, but animal cruelty is MUCH MORE than that. Imagine humans were treated with cruelty; you would be screaming with agony, filled with terror etc.

Thank you.
tyler3923

Con

You stated that true necessity did not include religious practices but I would like to point out that to a person whose religion dictates sacrifice for salvation, the alternative is probably eternal damnation. If that were your belief, would you not view it as an unpleasant necessity? Would you take joy in that practice? Most likely, no. Additionally, most animal sacrifices involve a slaughter technique consistent with how the animal is typically butchered. For example, the slitting of the throat or breaking of the neck. While neither of those practices are painless, the resulting death is swift and therefore humane.

Unfortuntely, it is a cruel world in which we live. just watch National Geographic and you will see what a creature endures during natural predation. It is simply a fact of life that everything dies eventually and its not always "clean."
Debate Round No. 2
MASTERY

Pro

Apart from your religious animal sacrifices and salvation point, the rest of your argument does not explain why "Animals should be exposed to cruelty". You have explained that religion dictates sacrifice for salvation and that sacrifices involve a slaughter technique, but why can't one become a vegetarian then? My opponent has even agreed that those techniques are swift and humane. He has also pointed out that the techniques are painful. Something that is humane does not hurt the animal. Thus my opponents point is contradictory.

"Having or showing compassion or benevolence. "
(Google definition of humane when "Define Humane" is entered into the Google search engine.)

Thank you
tyler3923

Con

Lets extrapolate from the idea of becoming a vegetarian for ethical reasons. Since the capacity for pain is equal, consider all animal life equal in this example.

The first wave of farm related genocide would be the use of pesticides. Pesticides have been linked to the death of ~30% of the US honey bee population.

Next, heavy equipment will crush the life out of a legion insects and rodents.

Thousands of animals will die for you to have a salad.

What i am getting at is that your mere existence will cause animals to suffer. It is simply unavoidable.

"Something that is humane does not hurt the animal." The reason animals are butchered in the manner that they are is because the death is as quick as possible. A few seconds of pain is simply NOT cruelty.
Debate Round No. 3
MASTERY

Pro

The first wave of farm related genocide would be the use of pesticides. Pesticides have been linked to the death of ~30% of the US honey bee population.

Next, heavy equipment will crush the life out of a legion insects and rodents.

Thousands of animals will die for you to have a salad.

What I am getting at is that your mere existence will cause animals to suffer. It is simply unavoidable.

What you trying to get at is that suffering is unavoidable, but that is not the debate topic. You should be arguing that animals should be exposed to cruelty. The definition of cruelty is that "something that intensely hurts the animal for joy NOT true necessity. " So, you are saying all that is unavoidable, thus a true necessity. True necessity is not defined as cruelty so your argument is invalid.

"Something that is humane does not hurt the animal." The reason animals are butchered in the manner that they are is because the death is as quick as possible. A few seconds of pain is simply NOT cruelty.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here either. Defining was in round one.

ARGUMENT
Another reason is animal abuse can lead to human abuse. Animal abuse can be an indicator of sociopathy. "Several famous killers, such as Luka Magnotta and Jeffrey Dhamer started out with animals before they did it on other humans ". Hence animal abuse can lead to human abuse so it is best to avoid it.(1)
(1) http://wiki.answers.com...;

Thank you.
tyler3923

Con

tyler3923 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MASTERY

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the previous round however I will provide a conclusion.

Animal cruelty for joy causes the animal to hurt unacceptably, which is very cruel. Imagine you were the animal how would you feel? You would be begging to escape from the cruel treatment. Also, animal abuse leads to more animal abuse and even human abuse. This has happened with Luka Magnotta and Jeffrey Dhamer.

My opponent has forfeited a round and has not provided arguments on why animals should be exposed to cruelty for joy. He has instead tried to convince me suffering is unavoidable, which is not the topic.

Vote Pro.

Thank you.
tyler3923

Con

My apologies for the forfeit. I was busy yesterday. Will be tonight too so this is all im posting.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tyler3923 2 years ago
tyler3923
"I define cruelty as something that intensely hurts the animal for joy NOT true necessity."

Pro's definition of cruelty was explicit of three things. 1. Infliction of pain. 2. Inflictor enjoys causing that pain. 3. Inflictor lacks a legitimate reason for his actions (short of sadism.)
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Con, I think you misunderstand. The perpetrator is assumed to experience joy from the cruelty. Pro is saying this is wrong, and you are saying this is not wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
MASTERYtyler3923Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. This is a good read, especially tyler's case.