The Instigator
MyDinosaurHands
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Jackconway
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Birds Ought to be Exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

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 4 votes the winner is...
MyDinosaurHands
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 594 times Debate No: 63431
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

MyDinosaurHands

Con

Resolution: Birds ought to be exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

I will argue that they should be included in the HMSA, and my opponent must argue that they should continue being slaughtered outside of HMSA restrictions.

Round 1 is for acceptance only. The final round may hold no new arguments, only responses to arguments made in the round previous and closing remarks.

If there are any questions, please ask before accepting. Blame for any confusion that arises which could've been solved by the asking of a simple question will befall my opponent.
Jackconway

Pro

Please let me state that I love all animals and respect all life. And the only reason that I am debating this is to play the devil's advocate.

The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 only protect animals that are considered "livestock". The term Livestock is restricted to farm animals that are useful beyond their value as meat. For example, a cow can be turned into beef, but it can also be use to pull a plow. Poultry has no significant value beyond eating it or it's products (eggs). Therefore, poultry should be exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958.
Debate Round No. 1
MyDinosaurHands

Con

I would like to note that my opponent violated one of the rules set in round 1.

LIVESTOCK QUALIFICATION
My opponent defines livestock as:

"...farm animals that are useful beyond their value as meat."

My opponent then almost immediately shows that chicken are livestock when he admits that poultry provide eggs. He says this in a dismissive manner, as if that 'doesn't count'. However, if a chicken can do something besides be eaten, such as lay an egg, it has met the qualification my opponent has set for something to be considered livestock, assuming 'value as meat' means 'able to be eaten'. Were my opponent to suggest that 'value as meat' means 'things that meat can do' such as lay eggs, then he would also be including a cow's ability to pull a plow, as that as something 'the meat' can do. Obviously this way of defining livestock completely renders the term livestock useless.

Aside from what my opponent said about egg laying, poultry are used for other things that make it even clearer that they fit the definition of livestock. Poultry are used for, "eggs they produce, their meat, their feathers, [and] sometimes as pets."[1]

I count 3 other things they are used for. To add to the list, chicken are used for 'shows'[2], like many other creatures considered to be livestock[3][4].

WITHOUT THE HMSA
Since poultry are not included under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, they are killed in extremely brutal ways. I'll just explain through quote.

"Birds are first dumped or pulled from transport crates and snapped into shackles, often causing broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging. Next, they are shocked with electrified water; the majority are paralyzed but may not be rendered unconscious.

Some miss the water tank and aren"t even paralyzed. Birds then have their throats cut, but according to the USDA, millions miss the blade and drown in tanks of scalding water while conscious and able to feel pain."[5] (emphasis added)

To quote Morrissey, who could possibly be that hungry?

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.poultryshowcentral.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://thepigplanet.com...
[5] http://www.humanesociety.org...
Jackconway

Pro

Thank you. I respectively contend that I did not violate any guideline explicitly states as a "rule". The only rule that I could suss out is "The final round may hold no new arguments, only responses to arguments made in the round previous and closing remarks." The previous round was not the final round.

I would also like to note my use of the word "significant" in my statement "Poultry has no significant value beyond eating it or it's products (eggs)" I do not consider chicken feathers as a "significant" asset. Perhaps chicken feathers could be considered as a significant asset before advent of synthetic materials. But chicken feathers do not have significant monetary or utilitarian value today. A sheep's wool is different. Certainly, synthetic materials could replace natural wool. However, natural wool still holds significant monetary value in the current marketplace.

I also do not consider a pet as a significant asset. I am sure that a chicken can be kept as a pet. However, there are other animals that make much better pets, i.e. dogs and cats, which show more affection and desire to want to be around human beings.

I contend that a chicken could technically be used for almost anything. One could use a chicken as a pillow. But a chicken's value as a pillow is completely insignificant.

A chicken's value as a farm animal is much less than a cow's (which can be used for meat, clothing, power, etc.) or a horse's (which can be used as animal feed, transportation, power, etc) or a goat's (which can be used for meat, clothing, etc.) If a chicken's skin could be used for clothing, then I would agree that poultry has more significant value than it currently does.

I would also like to contend that a chicken's meat and it's eggs are synonymous as food. An egg is simply part of the chicken, like the leg, thigh, or breast.

[Not part of this argument BUT] Again, please let me note that I love all animals and never want to see any hurt. Personally, I don't even eat eggs because eating the unborn just doesn't sit right with me.
Debate Round No. 2
MyDinosaurHands

Con

DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK
My opponent has attempted to show that poultry do not have significant value beyond their value as meat, and therein, should not be considered livestock. However, if we return to my opponent's very own definition of what livestock is, we can that it is:

"The term Livestock is restricted to farm animals that are useful beyond their value as meat."

Note that the word 'significant' is not in there. All that is required for livestock-hood is that something have some kind of use beyond as meat. Just as a station wagon can't reach speeds as significant as a Ferrari but is still considered a car, so too should poultry be considered livestock, even if their value beyond meat is not as significant as other animals commonly thought of as livestock.

My opponent has not actually denied the uses poultry have beyond as meat that I have shown. All he has done is try to downplay their significance, when significance of the other uses is not the issue, but rather the mere existence of the other uses. I'll just stop here and reiterate: According to the definition my opponent provided himself, chicken are livestock. Being livestock, they should not be subjected to the brutal deaths that billions suffer every year.

RULE VIOLATION
"I respectively contend that I did not violate any guideline explicitly states as a "rule". The only rule that I could suss out is "The final round may hold no new arguments, only responses to arguments made in the round previous and closing remarks.""

Rule that he missed:
"Round 1 is for acceptance only."

I understand my opponent is new to the site, so I won't push this issue too much. For his future reference though, 'acceptance only' means all you do is accept the debate and type 'I accept' in the first round.
Jackconway

Pro

Jackconway forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jackconway

Pro

Jackconway forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jackconway 3 years ago
Jackconway
Just playing the devil's advocate. I agree with you. All animals should be treated humanely. I just want to take the side of something that I personally disagree with.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Didn't think anybody would actually accept this.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
MyDinosaurHandsJackconwayTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
MyDinosaurHandsJackconwayTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited R3 and R4, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Arguments - Con. Pro had the burden and failed to overcome the challenges presented by Con. Due to leaving Con's challenges standing, Pro loses arguments. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources throughout this debate whereas Con did. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
MyDinosaurHandsJackconwayTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
MyDinosaurHandsJackconwayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF allowed for all of Con's arguments and rebuttals to hold up. A pity, really, as the debate was going pretty well up until that point.