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

Cannibalism should be legalised

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 53454
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




After my last debate were i searched a bit about hunter gatherer societies and their practices I started wondering why is cannibalism illegal in our society.

I think there is no reason for cannibalism to be illegal.

Word limit is 4.000 words not 8.000. First round acceptance only.
No religious arguments. Whoever wants to take part in this debate has to argue as a secularist.


I accept and define "Cannibalism" as "eating the flesh of the same species".
Debate Round No. 1


I am honored to be your opponent.

First off all
As with any food product that is being sold there has to be regulations around trading human meat as well. Most of them will be similar to the ones used for other meats already. To them there must be added some more that are listed bellow.

*All operations regarding human meat sourcing , processing and selling it will be handled by a state-owned company (lets call it Humancorp) :-D.
*No meat shall be allowed to be consumed that is sourced from a human that is still alive.
*No Human is allowed to pre-sell his body as meat.
*No human meat shall be sold that has being sourced from individuals that have being killed with the intend of selling the flesh.
*All human meat being traded must be sourced from volunteers or be donated/sold to Humancorp by his closest relatives. A protocol that is similar to the one used for organ transplants will be followed.
*The identity of the donor as well as the identity of the costumer of the meat must be confidential.
*Human carcasses can be donated or sold to Humancorp. Humancorp can decide on prices potential processing and distribution of the meat as it sees fit as long as it adheres to the appropriate food safety regulations.
*A protocol will be developed with which each human carcass will be individually evaluated in terms of safety of consumption (such protocols already exist for other meats).

About the Health concerns.
Human carcass and human meat consumption is a big health risk in terms of spreading diseases.
However science has advanced so much that we can now safely remove parts of the body from one human and place it directly inside another human safely without any type of disinfection (transplants).
Compared to that consuming of safety human flesh in terms "that is intended to be cooked and digested and not inserted directly in the body" should be fairly easy with the knowledge the food industry has about safe meat handling.

Consuming human meat is a taboo. However there is no obvious reason to enforce this taboo by law.

On the other hand legalizing and regulating a human meat can have positive results.
*There may be a huge market of human meat out there that can prove a significant source of revenue for the state.
Such an opening of human meat market will also offer even more benefits to society such as
*Give to the citizens the option to assist their loved ones financially even in death.
*Allow people willing to consume human meat the option to do so.

With cannibalism in modern society everybody wins :-).


I will post new points before I rebut yours.
Why cannibalism shouldn't be legalized


This photo is supposed to be of cannibalism, but Airmax thought it was so bad he censored the whole entire scene. So bloody, violent and gore!!

2. Cannibalism encourages new ways of bullying
As all of you know, bullies tend to beat people up. And sometimes those people get skin-scratches, and part of their skin falls off. What happens? Well, meat is very addictive, especially human meat. So, obviously, everyone would rush to eat the fallen-off skin and start ravenging crazily.

3. We do not have "Freedom of eat"
Although the constitution provides many freedoms, some which are not mentioned, as said so in the 9th amendment, freedom to eat is not one of them. You cannot eat raw meat (unless it's sushi or you're crazy). You cannot eat abiotic natural stone material. And most of all, you cannot eat your own species! It gives a sense of guilt to you and you feel weird and sink to a sense of forever depression as you cannot undo the eating of human meat. Because of this, even if human meat was allowed on the market, nobody in their right mind would buy it. It's common sense! Nobody wants to eat their own kind! We are all very similar, and you are me and I am you and etc. etc. We're all one big family! No reason to eat our own family!

Now, unto the rebuttals.
"Positive,,,benefits...consume" I already rebutted all of this above.
"Everybody wins". UH-NUH! Villains could actually just cook up a human he recently killed, and voila! No fingerprints or anything on the victim, because the victim didn't exist physically on the planet any more! Normally, even the most twisted minds cannot resort to this. But now, it's legal and wide-spread, so it becomes a natural method for killing another human. The money spent on the new technology and heavy stress on the police force is way more than the financial benefits cannibalism gives.
In conclusion, only very few people win in this dumb new court ruling and spreading of the dinning on human meat, and it should never be legalized! NEVER!!!
Debate Round No. 2


I will start with rebuttals

"1. BLOOD. SO MUCH BLOOD". Here my opponent claimed that cannibalism is to bloody.
Eating meat involves blood, that is not new. But just like the vegetarian community who feel uncomfortable eating meat because they consider it brutal people who are uncomfortable to eat humans can chose to not do it. I don't see the problem.

"2. Cannibalism encourages new ways of bullying". In that argument my opponent supported that by legalising cannibalism we will give even more motives for humans to harm each other in order to cut flesh for consumption. He reached to this conclusion by assuming that human meat is addictive. However he provided no evidence to support that.
That is of course because that there can be no evidence. No large scale studies regarding the possibility of physiological dependence on human meat for cannibals has ever been conducted.
On the other hand as I stated in round 1
"*No meat shall be allowed to be consumed that is sourced from a human that is still alive."
Which will make cutting body parts for food a double crime.

"3. We do not have "Freedom of eat"." In this argument my opponent irresponsibly projects his own personal view on cannibalism for all of humanity as something that is repulsive.
However evidence are not on his side Cannibalism is a taboo. Nobody is willing to admit to it publicly and people often forget that it exists. On the other hand s there have been known many cannibal cases around the world.
Here is an example of a successful human meat business.
This incident suggests that there is room for a human meat market if we give it a chance!

The opposition also made the argument that the economical benefits will be outweighed by the increased cost of police work since eating humans is destroying evidence in homicides. This is a weak argument as according to this line of thought incinerating corpses is equally problematic. It is a well known fact that police removes and preserves all useful evidence before giving permission for anyone else to handle the body.

Now unto a new argument for the Pro side.
Legalising cannibalism will give people willing to consume human meat an exit to there desire without forcing them to resort to actions that are a threat to our society like digging bodies out of their graves and murders.

I have now countered every single opposition argument and showed how cannibalism can be beneficial for every member of tour society. Even for those who do not want to consume human at or sell their own.


"I don't see the problem". Becuase the scene is censored. :P

As for no research, here's some for you:

" digging bodies out of their graves and murders..." actually, more of this will happen. It is hard to tell who a rotting person is if you remove their tombstone and selfishly steal the person for your restaurant. Legalizing canniablism will encourage all the (evil and immoral) restaurants to go to a graveyard and shovel-up a person just to earn more money. It would be extremely pain-staking for the restaurant to ask a family for permission whenever they want to obtain the body from the grave and sell it for others to eat. There are some families that believe that if and only if the body is still there, then the soul will rest peacefully. Some superstitious families will not let the restaurant to dig up their dead relatives in order to sell them for food, but those bad restaurants which violate the law complicate the matter even more, adding yet another possible crime to be commited in our country, which is already bad as it is with underage drinking, driving and texting, and etc. etc.

Onto you, pro.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent does not even read his own sources.
He referenced in order to support that cannibalism is addictive. However the article makes clear that "the chances of the average person becoming addicted to cannibalism are exceptionally low." The article makes clear that there is no distinct chemical agent to be addicted to (Addiction may only occur to psychopaths and even amongst them it is a rare condition. All these make human meat significantly less addictive than Coffee or chocolate).

My opponent conveniently ignores the conditions of human meat trade that I set in round two" . He claimed that "Some superstitious families will not let the restaurant to dig up their dead relatives", and that "It would be extremely pain-staking for the restaurant to ask a family for permission whenever they want to obtain the body"
Both these assumptions are null as I have clearly stated in round two the that all human meat trade will be centrally controlled by a government agency and the meat will be harvested following a protocol similar to the one used for organ transplants.

Summarising Pro arguments
1) Human meat trade is a profitable market and can prove a great source of revenue for the government and for individuals.
2) Human meat trade is giving the option to people willing to consume human meat the option to do so.
3) By legalising access to Humans we remove the source for all crimes related to cannibalism.
4) Human meat trade is a humane practise that gives people the option to assist their loved one financially even in death.

My opponent by supporting that restaurants will risk going illegal to acquire human meat he admits that human meat trade is viable market with a lot of customers and profit to be made.
As a result Con is forced to accept arguments 1) and 4) of the Pro side.

I have now shown that properly regulated human meat trade intended for food is a profitable business, and beneficial for the whole of society.



Your third point is not backed up in any way.
Plus, already so many crimes and businesses exist, the government would need too much sources and money to support such new advances. The country already has billions of national debt as shown in Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by OliveJuice 2 years ago
So many ideas for both sides that could be brought up; amusing topic. ^.^
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
I know an argument for this on the Con's side, but I'll see what happens first before I say anything.
Posted by Kienzan 2 years ago
I seems you are right most countries don't have laws directly prohibiting consumption of human meat as long as the owner is donating his body for that purpose.

However the debate still stands as i am proposing commercial trade of human meat.
Posted by Kaneo 2 years ago
What is the point of this debate? Cannibalism isn't actually illegal in most places. Murder is illegal, but if you just eat human meat that in and of itself is not illegal.
Rick Gibson ate the flesh of another person in public, he didn't kill anyone or hurt anyone to get the flesh. England does not have a specific law against cannibalism.
None of the cannibals in Japan were arrested here:
In the U.S. there are no laws against cannibalism:

Pretty much the only places where there are laws against cannibalism are places that have some sort of cannibal problem. e.g. North Korea.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 2 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 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: I hate to say it, but Pro definitely had some good points that were not refuted by Con. Con's arguments are not very strong. Too much assumption.