The Instigator
heyyouguys
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nick11
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Atheism lowers morality

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 3 votes the winner is...
Nick11
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 70711
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

heyyouguys

Pro

An Inconvenient Dining Proposal

Why can't we eat young primate flesh?
I remember reading a modest proposal from long ago about eating young animals that had passed away due to a famine in Ireland. I know we eat young animals as fine delicacies. One that sounds fantastically exotic is to boil a young goat in her mother's milk. Why can't we do that with primates? There are literally thousands of primate fetus carcasses burned away each year. If we just cool the incinerator a little, and reduce the cooking time, I'll bet you'll end up with the most exotic cuisine ever. Andrew Zimmern?
Nick11

Con

I would like to thank heyyouguys for this debate.

Let us begin by noting that Pro's ramble about eating primates in no way addresses the supposed correlation between atheism and morality, so it is not clear which proposition I am supposed to be opposing. Nevertheless I will proceed as best I can.

The strongest point in favour of the cannibalism is not even addressed in Pro's opening statement"that primate flesh is delicious. Though most, presumably, have never tasted human flesh, those who have tend to agree that it tastes very much like pork. [1] [2]

Pro wishes to be able to eat a goat boiled in its mother's milk (a practice that is referred to as "exotic" for some reason). This is explicitly forbidden by the Bible three times (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21). Luckily a simple loophole exists: one can eat a young goat boiled in the milk of another mother; better still, one could eat a goat boiled in its own milk. The only question left now is how Andrew Zimmern is not already working on this.

We might also note that this rule is only mentioned in relation to goats. Evidently cows, pigs, and African clawless otters can be boiled in their mother's milk.

As for Pro's "modest proposal from long ago", this ostensibly refers to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick. As fantastic an idea as this may be it does run counter to our hope that the human flesh will be as succulent as the porcine flesh as mentioned above. I quote Swift: "my American acquaintance assured me from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our school-boys, by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable, and to fatten them would not answer the charge." [3]

And so, alas, we must find some other productive use for the "literally thousands of primate fetus carcasses burned away each year".

There is one further interesting point to be made. Pro's comments specifically refer to "young primate flesh". Not primates themselves"just the flesh. This, in fact, can be done. Though it does not seem to be a common practice among any culture, some individuals do choose to eat their placenta or the placenta of others. Several videos of such are available on YouTube; a mere sampling is provided here:

https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

So while we do not kill primates for the purpose of consuming them it is viable to eat flesh of a primate.

The conclusion is therefore inescapable, theists and atheists alike can all come together and break bread over a hardy helping of human flesh (in the form of placenta) boiled in the milk of the mother that produced it. Andrew Zimmern?

Thank you and please vote Con!

1) Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2008. Print.

2) http://www.theguardian.com...

3) http://www.gutenberg.org...
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
******************************************************************************************
Reported vote: TommyB12

Moderator action: Not removed.

Reasoning: The vote is past the statute of limitations. Otherwise, it would have been removed.
******************************************************************************************
Posted by Nick11 2 years ago
Nick11
@heyyouguys: "quote marks always go outside periods and commas."

This is false.

While American grammar typically follows the rule of putting punctuation within the quotations marks, America does not dictate rules of spelling and grammar to the rest of the world.

I am not American so I follow the grammatical rules used by the rest of the world.
Posted by heyyouguys 2 years ago
heyyouguys
For quite a few years now, quote marks always go outside periods and commas.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by debatefox 2 years ago
debatefox
heyyouguysNick11Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: still better stuff
Vote Placed by TommyB12 2 years ago
TommyB12
heyyouguysNick11Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: What the hell was pro talking about? Eating primates?
Vote Placed by John95 2 years ago
John95
heyyouguysNick11Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a good case against Pro's position