The Instigator
Amedexyius
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Bob13
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal

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: 6/23/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 528 times Debate No: 93008
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Amedexyius

Pro

Round 1: Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Finishing Statements

Bull fighting is an immoral sport and a complete affront to the progression of animal rights and basic humanity, let alone the danger to the matadors.

I will start by describing the process of bull fighting. In Bull fighting, the bull is kept in horrible conditions with little care for it's health or well-being. The bull is teased constantly by fans and audience members to be put in an aggressive state. When the bull is released, it is relentlessly teased, abused and aggravated. Eventually, when time runs out, the bull is tired, or the matador is caught and injured the bull is constrained, and put down in an extremely immoral manner. The matador uses multiple spears to attempt to sever the artery either in the back of the neck or heart. Due to the matador not being an experienced bull-health specialist, it takes multiple times for the bull to be killed. Even when the artery is severed, the bull experiences severe pain until it bleeds to death [1]. Let it be known, that is the summarized version. My source link has much more detail.

My argument is that any person with any form of empathy should realize how much pain the bull, who doesn't understand why this is being done to him, faces in the last hours of its life, until mercilessly and bloodily killed.

(Source: [1] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk... )
Bob13

Con

It is not necessary to ban bullfighting because it can be reformed to not cause pain to the bull.

A bull will charge at a moving cape without being previously infuriated, so the pre-fight torment can be removed. During the fight, the matador doesn't have to harm the bull until the end when it should be killed quickly and humanely. It can then be made into beef, sold, and eaten. With restrictions, bullfighting can become acceptable.
Debate Round No. 1
Amedexyius

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate.

The bull will not be motivated to drive towards the cape without being infuriated. You have no source to back up your claim, I'm afraid. The audience shows up to bullfighting for the sense of danger. Since bulls are not instinctively aggressive animals, they would simply walk around the arena unless being hit or provoked. My source in round 1 backs that up.

I'm not vegan, I don't have an opinion or advocate against farming and herding in questionable conditions, although in bull-fighting there is no cause except for the sadistic joy of the audience to see the matador get hurt or the bull being abused.

They try to kill the bull quickly and humanely, but again. Matadors aren't bull health specialists. My source again backs up that it takes multiple tries to just strike the bull in the artery, and then comes over a minute of bleeding to death in agonizing pain. The entire practice of this sadistic 'sport' needs to be abolished.
Bob13

Con

The matador takes the risk of injury by his own conscious choice, so that is not a reason to ban bullfighting.

The bull will charge without being infuriated, so it doesn't have to be tormented prior to the fight. http://www.livescience.com...

Matadors should have mandatory training to make sure they can kill the bull painlessly.

In conclusion, bullfighting can be reformed to eliminate the harms. It does not need to be banned.
Debate Round No. 2
Amedexyius

Pro

My reasoning to ban bull fighting was not mentioned with regars to the health of the matador, that is just a sub section of my argument. The one being abused in these fights are the bulls who have no choice in participation for their inevitable death.

To give you an example of how abused the bull is in order for it to be infuriated and lessen chances of the matador being seriously injured, I will quote my source: "The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals."[1].

If bullfighting is reformed to lessen the chances of the bull being hurt, it skyrockets the chances of the death of the matador. Besides that, there are farms dedicated to providing beef, you don't need to kill the bull in the middle of the crowd for their bloody entertainment, it's barbaric. Another quotation I shall use to provide evidence that the final kill is not meant to be merciful, but for entertainment is "Even then, he is not allowed a little dignity to leave this world in peace, his ears and tail are cut off (often when he is fully conscious), and his broken, bleeding body is dragged around the ring by mules, to which he is attached by an apparatus made of wood and chains." [1]. The sport is simply to abuse an animal for the fun of the crowd.

Even other animals come at the expense of bull-fighting. In some more sadistic arenas, horses are maneuvered by the matadors. Since taking charge of a horse is not that challenging when they're tame, the matadors take the liberty to provide an extra challenge by the following. "Horses have their ears stuffed with wet newspaper, they are blindfolded and their vocal chords are cut so they are unable to scream in pain." [1].


The arteries inside the bull are so deep that trained bull physicians would have trouble attempting to kill the beast in one try.

And finally, as for your source, it is not founded by any other source link. I'm afraid I can't take it's word for it when it provides no other evidence to bulls being infuriated just by a waving cape.

Reforming bull fighting any other way will still leave serious mental and physical scars to all parties involved in the event. It is best if the practice is just abolished.

Source:
[1] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk...

Good luck to my opponent in the voting.
Bob13

Con

"If bullfighting is reformed to lessen the chances of the bull being hurt, it skyrockets the chances of the death of the matador."

It's still the matadors choice to participate.

"Besides that, there are farms dedicated to providing beef, you don't need to kill the bull in the middle of the crowd for their bloody entertainment, it's barbaric."

Sure, you don't need to, but there isn't anything wrong with it. It's not barbaric either, we're not publicly sacrificing humans to humiliate them. Bulls can only feel very basic emotions, so they can't be humiliated. To a bull, being killed in front of a crowd is no different than being killed in a slaughterhouse.

"The sport is simply to abuse an animal for the fun of the crowd."

Your source says otherwise: "The vast majority of tourists are appalled by what happens at a bullfight and leave after they see what happens to the first bull." Most of the crowd doesn't think it's fun to watch a bull being tortured to death, that's why reforming the practice to make it painless would actually make it more entertaining.

You also mention horses, but that can also be fixed by reform.

"The arteries inside the bull are so deep that trained bull physicians would have trouble attempting to kill the beast in one try."

There are other ways to kill a bull quickly (such as lethal drugs).

"I'm afraid I can't take it's word for it when it provides no other evidence to bulls being infuriated just by a waving cape. "

Read this quote from my source: "Thus, the bull is likely irritated not by the muleta’s color, but by the cape’s movement as the matador whips it around."

The source explicitly states that the bull charges because of the cape's movement. Your objection is baseless.

Conclusion

Bullfighting does not need to be banned. It can be reformed so that the bull is killed painlessly, which would not only make the practice humane, but it would be more entertaining and much less likely to leave mental scars.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
Thanks, Whiteflame. Cheers :)
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
The more I'm looking at this, the more I'm seeing that the vote should have been called sufficient in the first place. So that's my bad. You're right on this one, Tej.
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
Failing to explain a point is sufficient reason to weigh it significantly less, in light of other points. If judging is to stay without intervention, bare assertions are typically not weighed significantly, if at all, and you obviously know that. The judge said: "Con states a good point- "It is not necessary to ban bullfighting because it can be reformed to not cause pain to the bull" but fails to explain how." That's what I would have said too - there's no specific reform proposal given, and no explanation on what reform is gonna take place to solve for harm. So we presume Pro's argument is true - the judge said so: "Pro's arguments were cleverly written with a good sense of persuasion. He clearly states the brutality of torturing animals and how matadors are not bull specialists regarding health etc." So the judge has 1) weighed in an argument from Pro which is properly explained and 2) explained why Con's corresponding argument was not properly explained. Now, let's look to the clash: the judge correctly notes that Con's most major rebuttal was that "bulls can't feel certain emotions," which is an unsupported assertion, as the judge notes. While, of course, this is an instance of poor judging in that Pro also has a burden to explain that bulls *do* feel pain... last I checked, that wasn't the standard for sufficiency.

>Stating that something was missing from a point is not an evaluation of the point itself.

I agree, and that didn't occur in this vote at all. The vote *evaluated* the point simply by saying the point was unsupported, or that the counterplan wasn't clearly advanced, which is clearly sufficient.

>When the evaluation is "what could have made this point better is...", it's not an evaluation of the given argument, it's an evaluation of statement of what could have been.

I fully agree, and that was unnecessary in the RFD... but it was also irrelevant to sufficiency because the vote also *weighed* the point.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
Alright, I've taken some more time to think it over, and I think I might have been a little harsh on this one. If it is on the fence, I usually allow it, and in this case I didn't do that. The vote is a little vague in its analysis of each of Con's points, but it should have been allowed on the basis that it did enough. That's my bad.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
Tej, the only statement made about why the argument from Con was dismissed was that it was lacking something. I've stated this before on multiple votes, but stating that something was missing from a point is not an evaluation of the point itself. It's the same reason we remove votes that only refer to arguments one side could have made rather than referencing points that they did make. I'll admit, I was on the fence about this one, but when the evaluation is "what could have made this point better is...", it's not an evaluation of the given argument, it's an evaluation of statement of what could have been.
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
*insufficient
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
I'll note that I don't think it was a good vote. It was a bad vote. But there's a clear distinction between a vote that is "sufficient" and a vote that is "bad."
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
Whiteflame, I disagree with this. It wasn't the best vote, but it 1) clearly stated arguments made by both sides, namely the argument that torturing animals is bad from Pro, and from Con, the argument that bullfighting could be reformed to not cause pain to the bull, 2) highlighted *why* some of the arguments were dismissed by the voter (the point about reformation being simply that the debater didn't explain how bullfighting would be reformed, and dismissing the point based on those specifics), and 3) highlighted the clash from Con (Con didn't prove that bulls can't feel certain emotions). With those three standards met, despite it being a poor vote, it is clearly sufficient.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: missmozart// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD==> Pro's arguments were cleverly written with a good sense of persuasion. He clearly states the brutality of torturing animals and how matadors are not bull specialists regarding health etc. My only criticism to Pro is that he relied too much on one source to back up his points. The website is called 'stopbullfighting' so there could be some slight bias... Con states a good point- "It is not necessary to ban bullfighting because it can be reformed to not cause pain to the bull" but fails to explain how. Overall, I felt that Con's points lacked detail and furthermore, his source in Round 2 did not in any way support his point. His rebuttals in Round 3 were unconvincing (eg. bulls can't feel certain emotions) because of the way (s)he presented them and also because of the fact that they are unsupported. In conclusion, Pro had more convincing arguments and therefore gets my vote.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters. The voter never clearly assesses Con's arguments, instead merely quoting him once and stating something the voter perceives as missing from those arguments. This is not assessing points given, it's dinging Con for points not made. The voter is welcome to incorporate such dearths in their decision, but they must also assess what is present.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: missmozart// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD==> Pro's arguments were cleverly written with a good sense of persuasion. He clearly states the brutality of torturing animals and how matadors are not bull specialists regarding health etc. My only criticism to Pro is that he relied too much on one source to back up his points. The website is called 'stopbullfighting' so there could be some slight bias... Con states a good point- "It is not necessary to ban bullfighting because it can be reformed to not cause pain to the bull" but fails to explain how. Overall, I felt that Con's points lacked detail and furthermore, his source in Round 2 did not in any way support his point. His rebuttals in Round 3 were unconvincing (eg. bulls can't feel certain emotions) because of the way (s)he presented them and also because of the fact that they are unsupported. In conclusion, Pro had more convincing arguments and therefore gets my vote.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains their decision using arguments made by both debaters.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.