The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,191 times Debate No: 61050
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




The title seems self-explanatory, but just in case my oponent to be is of the school which regards the definition of art, for instance, controversial, I will define the terms.

Art: The expression of concepts and emotions by external signs.

Bullfighting: By bullfighting we will understand the standard form of "toreo" (Corridas de toro) in Spain

Some terms will be in Spanish, as some terms would be in French if we were to speak of fencing, in Japanese if judo or English if rugby. I will try to reduce this to a minimum and will always provide at least an approximate translation.

Round 1 is only for acceptance and round 5 only for conclusions.

Good luck.


I accept. I am going to argue that we, by all understandings of the word 'ought', ought not to do harm unto others for personal pleasure. I ask that your opening argument considers well the justifications you have for exploitation and cruelty. For this is pretty much the only grounds I have for disagreeing with you. And to me, it is the only relevant angle from which I can debate this issue.

Hope to have a good debate with you.
Debate Round No. 1


Con states he believes I cannot be right by any definition of the word "ought" as bullfighting is exploitative, cruel and brings harm unto others. I recognize I will be asking our readers, as well as my opponent, to make a judgment contra cultura, against their culture's common perceptions. My argument will hinge upon convincing you of two things: first, that tauromachy is an ethical form of expression and second, that it is not a bloodsport but rather a form of art that transmits something valuable. In this first round I will merely outline the argument, in hopes we can go into further detail as the debate goes on. I will also leave sourcing to the later arguments as here I will only give a general case.

Bullfighting as an ethically sound activity

The statement that we "ought not to do harm unto others for personal pleasure" both confuses the respect due a human with that due an animal and reduces art to pleasure, when it is a valuable tool for the transmission of cultural values and complex philosophical concepts. One of these is precisely that although animals deserve respect they are not humans, and therefore to respect them is to treat them according to their nature, and not our own. I noted, when looking through my opponent's previous debates, that he is a defender of vegansm. I am glad to say that this is not a concept extraneous even to his own tradition, as vegans also engage in some degree of phylogenetic discrimination every time they eat a fruit salad. All life does not require from us the same treatment, vegetable life does not have the same capacities as insects who do not have the same capacity as reptiles who do not have the same capacity as mammals etc. Even amongst mammals there are different degrees of intelligence, and different modes of interaction are required. One must not, for instance, treat a wild animal as one treats a domesticated one, or ignore their physical capacities and natural instincts in making a value judgment as to their treatment.

In the case of tauromachy, the specific animal used is not a common bull. The toro de lidia (fighting bull) does not follow the same evolution as the common bull, but rather descends directly from wild aurochs and lives in a state of only semi domestication. They are domesticated in the sense that they live in private dehesas (vast areas of grassland in Spain) and are bred by livestock farmers, but in every other way they live wild. Bullfighting exists because of their temperament and territorial nature, and is structured around the bull's bravía (roughly, aggressive courage). Con then must show not that it is generally undesirable to harm animals, but that it is specifically unethical to fight the toro de lidia.

Although I do not have space to extend myself here, I will also note that there is a difference between being an ecologist and being an animalist, and that these tendencies are often opposed to each other. Animalists often conflate humans and animals and regard each individual animal as an object of protection, whereas ecologists consider that our duty of stewardship is towards groups and not individuals. The elimination of bullfights would be destructive to the biodiversity of those areas in which it is practiced. Not only would the toro bravo disappear as a species uniquely linked with bullfighting, but as tauromachy is a millennial (or, in places such a Mexico or South America, secular) activity around which much wildlife has evolved to live in the habitat of the dehesas, which would disappear along with the activity.

Bullfighting as an art

There are those who try to portray tauromachy as a mere bloodsport, which exists for the viewers to derive pleasure from the bull's pain and death. This is fine as a slogan or political tactic, but anyone with a love of truth, howevermuch they oppose bullfighting, must oppose that tactic. To reject something one must understand it, and one cannot understand bullfighting if one does not see its artistic dimension.

In the course of its history bullfighting has attracted a great number of artists, not as bloodsport but as an art. From Goya to Mario Vargas Llosa or Gabriel García Marquez passing through Dalí, Picasso, Miró, Valle Inclán and Federico García Lorca, the greatest defender of bullfighting as an art form. Even foreign artists such as Ernest Hemingway and Orson Welles were captured by the aesthetics and the transmission of values of tauromachy. Welles so loved bullfighting, and had such an intense friendship with the torero Antonio Ordoñez, that he asked his ashes to be placed in his friend's estate in Ronda. This list is not an improper appeal to authority, but rather a challenge. If these people, poets with souls as sensitive as García Lorca or Picasso (who would often say "el toro soy yo", I am the bull) could see the value and beauty of bullfighting, we must at least attempt to see what it is that tauromachy truly represents in the broader culture before condemning it.

1. Man's relationship to nature: respect and dominion

The first time I went to a bullfight I went believing the propagandized view of it as a gladiatory bloodsport. I had assumed the people would cheer every wound inflicted, and would especially cheer the bull's death. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the beginning, the comments of those around me were centered upon the bull, and the torero's capacity to understand him. The incessant comments about the bull's personality, tendencies, physical characteristics and family line were all tinged with a note of respect I had never expected to find. The moment of the bull's death in particular was met with a complete silence, and when I later asked why I was told by an old man with a cigar in his hand: "Hay un torero que va a arriesgar su vida por el arte, y un toro que ha luchado con nobleza. Si no se respeta eso no se respeta nada" [There is a torero who will risk his life for art, and a bull who has fought nobly. If one doesn't respect that one doesn't respect anything"].

The worldview bullfighting advances, then, is one in which man is certainly above nature. It is the bullfighter who marks the different steps of their dance, and it is generally the case that the bull dies at his hands. He knows himself, however, to be nature's custodian and not its master. One must respect the bull as an opponent, and in facing him, the bullfighter must risk his own life. This parallels what man's behavior towards nature must be generally. Yes, we must exercise dominion over it, as we till the land, build our houses from wood and stone and mine the earth. We must never be fooled into believing ourselves the master of it, however, and always treat it with the respect it deserves.

2. Facing death «temple» [/tem-pleh/]

The bull, as a symbol of nature, is also a symbol of death. Tauromachy has its roots in pagan times, but it comes to us through Catholic Spain, and we cannot expect that to have happened without affecting its meaning. We must always face the possibility of death, and yet the message of the bullfight is twofold: first, that a man must face death with what we call temple, or calm assertiveness in the face of danger, and that death is, while formidable, defeated in the end by putting oneself in the position of suffering it. It is in the final stage of the fight, when the torero reveals his chest and heart to the bull's horns, when the bull is finally defeated.

3. Victory of civilization over barbarism

Bullfighting shows the intelligence of a patently weaker being defeat the brute force of a stronger one. It is, in that sense, the triumph of civilization. A man facing an animal who weighs over 1,000 pounds must use his faculties and inventiveness to the utmost in order to avoid death. This runs parallel to the triumph of Civilization against barbarism. At first glance civilized values such as cooperation, respect for the weak, the rule of law run contrary and are inferior in a pinch to the simple law of the jungle, by which it is the strongest who succeed. By the bull's defeat at the hands of the torero, what is shown is that civilization has a quiet power which, although challenged seriously by barbarism, finally triumphs.


In an aesthetic display of shapes, movement, color and music; bullfighting represents the transmission of cultural values which enrich those who understand it.

In this introduction I have shown some of these values, along with a prima facie justification from an ethical point of view.

Sadly, most arguments against bullfighting ignore its cultural dimension and are based more on sensibility than reason.
I am sure that will not be the case in this debate.


You argue its an art. I agree, skills can be described as art, art has a very loose definition.

I argue that it ought not to perjure, as its essentially the same as the Roman Amphitheatre. One is forced to suffer, in order to give pleasure to others more powerful. This isn't about the human impact, its about the bull.

I ask you, would you play the part of the bull, if you could? If not, then doesn't that mean you agree with me: that's its wrong?

I think you can sound as smart as you like, and waffle on about art and symbolic meanings to the sport. But at the end of the day, you just are not wise enough to appreciate the feelings of the bull. If it was a human you wouldn't agree, so why do you agree with a bull? You must believe that he suffers less, well he doesn't. So you are either ignorant to this fact, or you don't care about it. Which one is it?

Can you tell me if you fit into any of these categories: 1st. You know the bull suffers, you don't care enough. 2nd. You don't think he suffers. 3rd. You know its wrong, and would be rid of it in a perfect world, but believe the benefit too society is so great it should perjure.

Your argument is that it 'ought to perjure'. 'Ought' just means 'should'. You didnt say for whome it should. So maybe for the humans it 'should' continue, on the grounds that it offers some benifit. (I would argue that it doesn't benifit humans, but this argument is deep and difficult to grasp, so I will say no more at present). But for the cows, it should not continue, if they are to benifit. You did not say who it ought to perjure for, and so on them grounds your statement is false.

My arguments are as follows.

1 - 'Ought' means 'should'. What we 'should' do is subjective, but that's the word used in the argument. I think if we are to search for a universal and all-encompassing understanding, of what 'ought' to be done, it would be the most morally justified act. Morality is about not causing harm and acting with compassion, rather than selfish gain. To make a bull suffer the name of 'sport', art or business, is not morall by any standards. So if its not the most morally correct path, then by most standards, we 'ought' not to ensure its continuation.

2 - You say 'ought to perjure', but you don't state for whom it 'ought' to perdure. So I argue that for the cow, it 'ought' not to perjure, for no one should prolong their suffering. So your statement isn't universally true.

3 - I argue that it ought not to perjure because it doesn't have a very positive impact on society. The event and sport might have a positive impact like football, but the fact that its a bull fighting with a man, is not essential for this impact to happen. It's the event, not the sport, that brings about a positive social impact. For bullfighting doesn't happen in other countries and all is just fine. But bullfighting, I think, gives a less than ideal message to society. For it dismisses the rights of those who may be considered 'less' than ourselves, it glorifies violence, it endorses unfair fighting (on the bulls behalf), and least of all it doesn't exactly educate or help us become more enlightened. Indeed, those things it does endorse, actually diminish enlightenment and intellectuality.

4 - Give the bulls a break. It's not nice. Stop it. That's what you would say to a child if they started tormenting an animal. It's just an immaturity, a tradition that has been passed down from an age of 'immaturity' and barbarism. It ought not to perjure in an enlightened age.


--First 'hinge' argument: "its an ethical form of expression"

Since when is captivation, forced fighting and killing ethical? It's not 'ethical' whatever you say. 'Justified' maybe, but not 'ethical', unless we are living in topsy turvy land.

--Your second 'hinge' argument: "it's not a bloodsport, it's a form of art transmitting value"

No it is both. (Bloodsport-'sport in which blood is shed'). Bulls shed blood, it's a bloodsport. It might be art too, but that's not important compared to suffering. I'm sure there is an art to murder and there is certainly an art to torture. The 'art' argument has no place in ethics, for no amount of pleasure can match even the smallest amount of suffering.

--You argue that because its been force bred its ethical. I don't understand why this makes any difference.

--You argue we have stewardship. No we don't. We are just another animal, nature has got on fine for billions of years before we started to dominate. And even now, if we are a steward, we are a pretty lousy one. We should be ignored. Indeed, who gave you this right of stewardship?

--You say it highlights a relationship between man and nature that is one of dominance. This is a bad approach to teach people about our relationship with nature. We should teach people to be humbled by nature and recognise its power over us and its majesty. Not our domination over it! That's what gets us into all this environmental damage we are in!

--Teach us to face death? Maybe it does. But we can be taught in other, less exploiting ways. Other cultures do just fine without it.

--You say it teaches us about civilisation over barbarism. I cannot thi"k of a better way to express your civil nature than by stabbing a bull to death in front of a jeering crowd. Seriously?

--I am not going to argue with you about it being an art, for I believe this to be true. It's just irrelevant. Yes, we ignore the cultural dimension because its less important than suffering. But we acknowledge it, just we feel its not important compared to the conditions of the bulls. If we stick to our cultures of the last 2000 years, we will be in a right mess. It's time to move on, you DON'T need bullfighting to legitimise your identity, it's just a "sport".

(I say 'sport' in inverted comers, because its not technically a sport. Sport is a game between two or more CONSENTING parties)

Thank you, I look forward to your response.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2


After a rather long-winded and morally indignant introduction my opponent condensed his position into what he generously describes as four arguments. Let us address these in full. before I go on to defend my own arguments.

1. "Ought to" means "should" Morality is about not causing harm and acting with compassion (...) to make a bull suffer in the name of sport, art or business is not moral by any standards.

Ought does indeed imply moral preference, that is what I am arguing for. Well done. Now, what pro has done is to completely ignore the gauntlet I had thrown when I spoke of the difference between different animals, and how one cannot simply assume that what is moral behavior towards a human is moral behavior towards a bull any more than towards a turnip. This does not mean that there is no immoral behavior towards bulls, I can even think of behavior towards turnips that I would frown upon, but it does mean that Con must do more than simply assume his simplistic view without defending it.

Bulls are not self-aware, by which I mean they have no concept of being alive, much less of death. The particular bull used in tauromachy, the toro de lidia about which we will speak more later on, does not have the same sensibilities or horror of pain and death that my opponent has and simply ascribes to them. If, instead of emotional appeals, we go to scientific literature on the fighting bull, we see this is not so great an objection as is made out. Dr. Juan Carlos Illera del Portal, veterinarian and professor at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid studied the effect of Bullfighting on over 300 different bulls.(1) His study showed that the animal suffered more from the stress of being confined in a truck and taken from the Dehesa to the plaza than during the fight.

The threshold for pain in this species of bull is particularly high because it was bread specifically for its aggressiveness and pugnacity. It releases a greater amount of during fights and has, what Dr. Illera del Portal describes as "peculiar mechanisms for the regulation of stress and pain" when it is fighting (be it in the Dehesa defending its territory from another bull or in the plaza against the torero) which leads it to become more entrenched in the fight rather than suffer from the damage inflicted.

Treating this animal ethically implies, not treating it as if it were a puppy or my opponent's second-aunt, but treating as what it is, a strong and noble beast whose impulses gear it towards fighting.

2. For whom ought it to "perjure?" It ought not to perdure for the cow, for no one should prolong their suffering.

I don't recommend perjury to anyone, as it is often a crime and always a grave sin, and I would be loathe to have the destiny of their mortal souls endangered due to my advice. As to the suffering, it has already been addressed, except to stress that were tauromachy to end, the bos taurus ibericus would become extinct within a generation. For that species to perdure, bullfighting must do so as well.

3. Negative impact on society. Bullfighting gives a less than ideal message to society, for it dismisses the rights of those who may be considered "less" than ourselves, glorifies violence, endorses unfair fighting and is unenlightened.

Here we get into the crux of our disagreement. Let us take his three contentions which lead him to calling bullfighting unenlightened individually.

According to Con, bullfighting dismisses the rights of those who are considered "less". I disagree. It cannot dismiss nonexistent rights. To treat each being according to their traits and abilities is not problematic. What is problematic is the claim that the rights of a self-aware being with the capacity for abstract reason necessary to create art, culture, science as well as to even consider this ethical problem has the same rights and ought to be treated the same as the planarian flatworm.

Con also believes bullfighting glorifies violence. One need only speak to those who attend bullfights or read the literature produced by the great minds who have been enthralled by it (Picasso's paintings, Lorca's poetry or García Marquez's literature are enough to show how foolish it is to say bullfighting can "diminish enlightenment and intellectuality") to see that what attracts people is not violence, but the aesthetics, the valor and the principles conveyed by tauromachy.

4. Argumentum ad idontlikeitum. It's not nice. Stop it. It is a tradition that has been passed down from an age of 'immaturity' and barbarism. It ought not to "perjure" in an enlightened age.

Here we come to the true reason for opposition to bullfights: they are opposed to your cultural sensibilities. It is fine to have them, my own cultural sensibilities lead me to dislike the use of tattoos or body piercing. What one can't do is expect their sensibility to be considered an argument in any relevant sense.

A defense of my own claims:

Against my claim tauromachy is an ethical form of expression:

Since when is captivation, forced fighting and killing ethical? It's not 'ethical' whatever you say. 'Justified' maybe, but not 'ethical', unless we are living in topsy turvy land.

If something is justified it cannot by definition be considered unethical. Captivation is perfectly fine in any case, as one can hardly find anything to object to "attracting and holding the attention of (someone) by being interesting, pretty, etc."(2) I fail to see the relevance.

Against my claim tauromachy is not a bloodsport but a form of art which transmits cultural values:

No it is both. (Bloodsport-'sport in which blood is shed'). Bulls shed blood, it's a bloodsport. It might be art too, but that's not important compared to suffering.

We have already seen the answer to the bit about suffering, but I should clarify I was not complaining there was no blood (that would be odd) I was saying it was not a gladiatory bloodsport. Gladiators are two people engaging in a mortal competition, this is in no way the case, as there is no competition, but rather a highly refined and almost choreographed series of encounters.

Against my comment about semi-domestication:

You argue that because its been force bred its ethical. I don't understand why this makes any difference.

I didn't argue that its breeding made it ethical, I argued that its breeding informs the type of treatment that is due to it. It is a semi-domesticated animal, and therefore must live freely apart from the specific purpose it has been bred for. It would be immoral, for instance, to attempt to put a fighting bull in a barn, as it is accustomed to living freely with hectares to his own and would suffer tremendous stress from that situation. It would also be immoral to run the species into extinction because of heightened sensibilities and a lack of respect for cultural diversity.

Against the value of stewardship, civilization, and death expressed by tauromachy:

Suffice to say my opponent does not share the values being transmitted or hopes the values could be transmitted another way. Personal preference in this, however, is irrelevant. If pro cannot show it is unethical, the neutral position is to allow for a cultural expression even if one disagrees with it. I don't particularly understand the type of society kabuki theater shows, and quite vehemently disapprove of the view of society set forth by Woody Allen movies. None of that constitutes an argument for the prohibition of a millennial cultural expression. I close with a reflection by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow on this type of globalist ethnocentrism:

"We are prepared to dialogue with the West, but only as equals, because what is certain is that in our days we are allowed to say and preach anything on condition that we do not touch the fundamental basis of their philosophy. Their adepts have assumed the right to evaluate everything according with their scale of moral values, and wish to reduce to their model the variety of the world."

Unless you are able to prove bullfighting is morally unacceptable with logical argument rather than raw indignation, your peculiar sociocultural sensibility alone is not enough reason to eliminate what is to you a foreign peculiarity, and to me an integral part of my nation's history and culture.




Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


It is a pity for my opponent's own sake that he forfeited the last round. He has as of yet neglected to answer any of the points I set forth in defense of the ethical licitude of bullfighting and, as in the last round he cannot set forward new information, I find his position unenviable.

I extend my arguments and provide for your entertainment an extract of Bizet's opera Carmen:



I apologize for my misconduct. I had written an argument, but I fell asleep after clicking review, forgetting that you have to click submit. I am just informing, I expect to be marked down.

I think your right that this argument boils down too our different beliefs about the bulls mentality. For all that matters to me, is the bulls suffering, if it wasn't for that there would be no debate. Nobody can seriously dispute that its an art, nor that is has some positive cultural impacts. For it does have positive impacts on society, and cultural expression is a good thing.

cultured activities shouldn't be continued at the expense of defenceless animals however.

However, if the bull was a human you would disagree with it. So the problem is that you don't see the bull as important enough to be treated with the same respect as a human. You liken them to turnips for example, and say they have "non-existent rights".That is what this debate is about. For this is the attitude that I wholeheartedly disagree with. That is what this debate has been about.

My opponent likens a bull to a turnip, he clearly has a very old-fashioned opinion of non-human life. For those of you who also share this attitude, I will attempt to quickly bring you up-to-date.

My opponent says: "Bulls are not self-aware, by which I mean they have no concept of being alive".There are a number of things wrong about this. Firstly how can anyone know for sure? Secondly; whether they are self aware or not, it doesn't mean they don't suffer. 'Suffering' is an adaptation used by mobile creatures to avoid death and damage, its primeval. Because it is such an ancient mechanism, its probably the similar to experience for all mammals. Therefore, intellect doesn't make suffering worse. So my opponents argument that, because we are more intelligent, Bulls don't deserve rights that protect them from suffering, is founded one on a false assumption. It is wrong because being intelligent doesn't make you suffer less, and so its not right no make others suffer, on the grounds that you are more intelligent. The same reasoning legitimizes almost all cruelty in the world. My opponent is one of those people who cannot see what they are doing, as they are too caught up in their culture. They struggle to see outside of their culture, and others must suffer for there traditions.

Your entire argument is only legitimatised on the grounds that bulls are 'like turnips'. If, one day, you realised that other life forms are also important and not so very different, perhaps you would disagree with bull fighting. There is nothing more to it than a lack of empathy or lack of understanding of the creatures that you use for your game.

Modern societies wouldn't allow it, because they have moved on. More primitive societies take time, members of that society struggle to see outside its paradigms. Its easier from a more forward perspective to look back, than for more backwards societies to look forward. I am not more philosophically enlightened than my opponent, I am mearly part of a more enlightened culture.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
You have clarified perfectly, what more would you have to say?

I fully expect to lose this debate, as I don't labor under the delusion that any but rather exceptional foreigners can understand the ethos that surrounds tauromachy (and its admitted oddities such as the use of terms like "nobility" applied to irrational creatures). I have ceaced to take only debates I think I can win or in which I think I will convince at least someone and am taking (and offering) those which I find worth defending quite apart from the result.

Your vote is perfectly coherent from the cultural milieu you are working from.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago

Pro contradicts himself. He wants it both ways; when describing the art and beauty of bullfighting, then the bull fights "nobly". When defending the killing of the bull, bulls aren't "self-aware".

Pro had BoP here. He defended bullfighting as an art--which is all well and good, but HIS burden was arguing that bullfighting SHOULD endure. He, first of all, gave no reasons for it to continue. He just justified it as art and tried to argue that bulls are morally equivalent to turnips. Neither really makes the case that bullfighting SHOULD continue. Further, Con pointed out the exploitation angle, and Pro's only defense was part of his contradiction.

Pro: It seems this is an important concept to you. But you really need more rigor here, to defend it--don't focus on the pathos appeal of the beauty of the art, because most would concede the artistry and a pathos appeal on that isn't going to get you very far (at least, not with me). You really need to spend more time on the ethics of the killing of the bull for art--particularly when your burden is that it SHOULD continue (as opposed to, say, arguing when your opponent has BoP).

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
Yay! No forfeit! I got scared there for a while, sorry about the unjustified jitters.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
I would be particularly disapointed by a forfeit on this debate.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
I will post my argument tomorrow, as it is quite late in Spain now (3:22) but I would like to thank you for taking up the debate. I hope it will be a good one.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
My admiration for his steadfastness to his Catholic faith when faced with the choice between being rich and powerful or becoming a martir by losing his head.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
This is completely unrelated to the debate, but why is your profile picture Thomas More?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate! There were two parts of this resolution: that bullfighting is an art form, and that it should perdure (i.e. not be discontinued). Pro offered a compelling case showing that bullfighting is, indeed, an art form, and Con never really contested that. Thus, the debate all came down to whether or not bullfighting should perdure. Pro did successfully show that there is no reason for it *not* to perdure by defending its ethical soundness via the bulls-are-basically-turnips argument. Con's case was centered around trying to disprove that notion, but, as Pro pointed out, his argument was nothing more than a fallacious appeal to subjective cultural sensibility (i.e. "argumentum ad idontlikeitum" lol), and so, the resolution was ultimately not negated. Hence, I vote Pro. I am not taking Con's rebuttal to the turnip argument into account because it was unfairly brought up for the first time in the final round. And, on that note, conduct to Pro for the FF.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 3 years ago
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