Cannibalism Should Be Allowed
Debate Rounds (4)
Cannibalism should be allowed under the conditions of the person being consumed had given permission before their death that they could be used for consumption.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Counter-Arguments
Round 4: Conclusions/Closing Statements
People who are willing to be consumed after their death in order to know who would allow their body to become a meal we would need to add Cannibal to a card of theirs like we do with Organ donors.
The Pros :
Develop Immunity to certain Brain diseases.
A Stable and easy to access food source.
Human Flesh is high in protein.
Could help with population control.
I'm not saying promote Cannibalism but allow Human Meat to be a buy-able source of food for people who are well Cannibals. Animals eat animals all the time and we are animals after all as I stated before we have been eating human meat for centuries even in some modern societies people get tempted to try human flesh just to see what it is like. Some say Cannibalism is immoral but if the person who has passed away is fine with being eaten alive then what's the harm in selling their remains as food? It's their body and thus if they wanna be eaten after death then who are we to deny them that request.
Cannibalism is just a great alternative to normal meat humans die almost every single second and with the amount of people dying we could solve some serious world hunger problems.
[Sorry if this argument seems a bit strangely laid out but I am extremely tired as I am typing this ahah.]
1. Dead bodies carry and transfer disease.
Pro actually hinted at an example of this in his argument. Some indigenous tribes of Papua New Guinea are afflicted by a neuro-degenerative disease called "Kuru", which is caused by a prion infection (prions are a kind of nasty protein). The prions accumulate in the brain, causing eventual death; it is then custom to eat the bodies of the deceased, which inadvertently transfers the prion to the consumers, causing them to get the disease as well. While there is some evidence of people building immunity to the prion, the disease itself is incurable .
2. Demand for cannibal food could increase supply.
Pro also touched on this one in regards to population control. I won't address the merits of such a strategy here, as that rightfully belongs in the counter-arguments, but consider the overall implication: more people are going to die so that we can feed the cannibals. It's the same reason we don't buy and sell organs: psychopaths will get the idea of hacking people up to sell their parts. This may be a statistically small risk, but when dealing with human life, it's a risk we can't ignore.
3. Cannibalism violates present cultural values.
Most cultures have a strong taboo against the "desecration" of dead bodies, including cannibalism. Allowing cannibalism could cause a severe backlash with disastrous consequences. Look at abortion: we legalized that and people started firebombing the clinics. Do we really want that kind of chaos surrounding human meat vendors?
Hopefully, these arguments will suffice. I await Pro's counter-arguments in Round 3.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org...(disease)
"1. Dead bodies carry and transfer disease."
While that is true so do a lot of animals the difference is we check the animals for diseases and such which is the very same thing we'd do with human meat. There isn't much risk if we have professionals helping out and checking the bodies. I also stated that eating bodies can also lead to some brain disease immunity which as Pro pointed out the Papua New Guinea tribes and Kuru well according to this source those tribes have now developed a gene that makes them immune to the disease.
"2. Demand for cannibal food could increase supply."
There are a few answers to this:
1. Human Farms: Human farms are basically animal farms except for humans we'd feed them etc. and when they are fat enough let alone grown enough we send them to slaughterhouses where we package them into food and send them to the meat vendors. [Very Inhumane however]
2. We eat prisoners, prisoners on death row and life sentences would be great and easy candidates for a hungry population if demands rise and more people start to become psychopaths it's once again simple if they are doing it illegally we just hack them up and send them to meat vendors as punishment for their crimes.
3. We don't necessarily have to eat bodies people could donate body parts or body parts lost in accidents can be cleaned and shipped once again to the meat vendors.
4. [ The Slaughter Games] This would be only proposed say if things went way out of hands way to fast ideally similar to the hunger games with tributes and such except way, way more people placed in deadly arenas with the hopes of the dead tributes being used for meat consumption and of course the winner just gets to day painlessly for winning. [For extreme meat demand]
3. Cannibalism violates present cultural values.
Oddly enough Con is wrong and right about this part let me explain. In Japan a man had his penis surgically removed so he could cook it up and sell it to people to eat and oddly enough people were happy to pay for the meal and eat his penis as odd as it sounds. Another example is a guy from England who put an ad out on craigslist stating he wanted to eat someone and someone replied. They met have sex he then cut the guys penis and testicles off they both consumed his genitals and then he killed and ate the rest of him. So people are happy to be eaten/eat human meat and while yes there would be backlash there is usually backlash with anything that is against a certain viewpoint anyway.
[I hope the Con is enjoying this strange debate as much as I am] I will await the Con's counter-argument next round.
1. Developing Immunity.
Pro is correct that cannibalism selects for certain disease-resistance genes. The logic here is that consuming a poisonous food will ensure future generations can avoid the effects of the poison. However, ceasing cannibalism would also protect future generations from the disease.
In other words, Pro's point is not so much incorrect as irrelevant. Any disease resistance conferred by cannibalism could also effected by not consuming dead bodies, thereby avoiding the disease entirely. A behavioral change is also faster and easier than a genetic one, and can bestow its benefits within one generation instead of several.
2. Stable and Easy Access to Food.
This is a non-issue for developed countries, as evidenced by our obesity problems. It would only become an issue in the case of famine. The resultant breakdown of law and order would likely lead to cannibalism anyway , rendering the question of its legality a non-issue.
Either way, this argument doesn't support the case.
3. High Protein Content.
Pro linked a video which claimed a 50 kg person could yield 4 kg of protein. This amounts to 80 grams of protein per 1,000 grams of human flesh, or 8.8 grams of protein per 110 grams of flesh. This is less than half the protein content of fish (20 - 25 g protein/110 g flesh), and about 1/3 - 1/4 the amount found in chicken (28 g), lamb (30 g), and beef (36 g top round and 25 g t-bone), as presented in the chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org... . This is why we eat fish, chicken, lamb, and beef instead of other primates.
TL;DR, Pro's claim is incorrect.
4. Population Control.
Pro's suggestions of human farms or eating death-row prisoners would certainly be effective at killing off large numbers of people. The Nazis managed to kill 11 million people by similar methods, and they weren't even harvesting the meat (prime cuts of Jew, imagine that). However, if killing off large numbers of people is the objective, cannibalism would actually make this process slower, as we'd have to invest resources into processing all that meat, and we'd still have the trouble of disposing of the inedible parts. We could adapt our existing slaughterhouses for humans, but this would require a demand for human meat that simply doesn't exist (outside of some very dark websites). Mass graves are a more efficient way to dispose of bodies.
I'm not suggesting we actually emulate the Nazis and kill lots of people. However, the Holocaust remains the gold standard for genocide.
That concludes the counter-arguments. We now move on to the conclusions and closing statements.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org...
 - https://en.wikipedia.org...
I believe we should allow cannibalism because it is an easy to access food source, it gives us a great amount of Pros that in my opinion do out weigh the negatives. It can help us feed the whole world including the starving people in Africa it is also a unique experience that I'm more than sure people who are Pro for it will be pleased with. It's not that big an issue considering it's not illegal in countries like the U.S and Australia and many more! It's just harder to gain access to the meat for consumption so that's why I say we should do something similar to Organ Donors except Cannibal cards so that when that individual dies they can be used by Meat Vendors. I will say Con makes some pretty good points but at the end of the day we're just animals and given that other animals eat their own species why don't we? With that said I thank Con for this argument and hope they enjoyed it.
[I am aware that this is rather sort but I won't be able to do a proper conclusion as I have school and work followed by sleeping and more work and I won't have time to reply to this debate unless I do it now so I do apologize]
Pro outlined some possible benefits to legalized cannibalism. I contend that these benefits could be achieved without cannibalism, and that allowing cannibalism may have unpleasant repercussions (people murdered for parts, etc.). From this, I conclude that cannibalism should not be allowed.
Thank you Pro for this fun debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.