The Instigator
HANJU
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rajun
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Controversial foods should be continued

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 1 vote the winner is...
rajun
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 747 times Debate No: 37211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

HANJU

Pro

Controversial foods should be continued
definition
controversial foods? Debatable kinds of foods in which some people agree
ex) dog meat, shark fins, goose liver
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly agree that controversial foods should be continued because it can be nutritious.
seal is a controversial foods which people eat
The canadian government allowed citizens to eat controversial foods because it can provide a sustainable, healthy meat to people.
Also, shark fin which is another controversial food, contains protein which can be beneficial to a person's health.
There is shark liver too. Shark liver extract as a broad-spectrum antiviral medication, as well as a therapy for macular degeneration
In conclusion, controversial foods should be continued because it can be beneficial to your health.
rajun

Con

I accept to debate against the topic.
Debate Round No. 1
HANJU

Pro

Thank you for debating
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly agree that controversial foods should be continued because it can be nutritious.
seal is a controversial foods which people eat
The Canadian government allowed citizens to eat controversial foods because it can provide a sustainable, healthy meat to people.
Also, shark fin which is another controversial food, contains protein which can be beneficial to a person's health.
There is shark liver too. Shark liver extract as a broad-spectrum antiviral medication, as well as a therapy for maculae degeneration
There are goose liver too.
It contains many kinds of vitamins and proteins which can be beneficial to the health
Second, people have the right to choose what they want to eat
As people has the right to do what they what to do, they have the right to eat what they want to eat.
For example, even if other people think that controversial foods are disgusting,
it is the eating person who should think about it and not other people who are just looking at.
rajun

Con

Thank you Pro, for your points...Controversial foods... Like Shark fin? We can easily have large breeding grounds for ducks and hens but for sharks it is not possible. Same for seals here. Such situations will lead to extinction of animals. Take the example of whales here. and trust me, enough people are dying out of diabetes and obesity. Controversial foods are so called because it might contain Vitamin D but it will also contain some factor that can make you unhealthy. Also, if controversial foods are continued. It will lead to distress and finally strikes and turmoil. Instance? Beef for Hindus is like Satan for a pope. In such a case, if one comes and starts eating beef infront of a Hindu, it is going to create some problem. *gasp* I see Pro's second point counters this... but,

" For example, even if other people think that controversial foods are disgusting,
it is the eating person who should think about it and not other people who are just looking at."

Right to eat? If such a right was ever present, it is sure that the people have reconsidered it and removed it...for the better. Just an instance, if now some group thinks that they should eat humans because eating them will give them all the nutrients, it is insane. but hey! I have the right to eat! So, I take this person, cut off his limb and chew it up infront of him... Think about it. Right to eat is an insane thought.
Debate Round No. 2
HANJU

Pro

Controversial foods should be continued because people have the right to eat what they want to
I agree with 'funwiththoughts' comments. Right to eat anything they want is different from right to assult or kill.
This is a free country. People have the right to say their opinions, say what they want to say, and eat what they want to eat. If this is not allowed, they would not call this a free country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If other people think that controversial foods are disgusting, they could just not eat that food or not go to places that sell controversial foods. If a person should stop eating foods they want to eat because of others it is actually violating the person's right to eat what they want to eat. Also, from Con's opinion, if other people thinks that eating beef or anything is disgusting, they should stop eating it. Or if a person thinks reading books are bad, people should not read it? It is inappropriate for people to stop eating what they want to eat because others does not like them.
rajun

Con

Thank you Pro, for your response.

First of all, Argument dropped. " We can easily have large breeding grounds for ducks and hens but for sharks it is not possible" and as we see, the debate ends, so my argument goes unopposed. Another argument of "obesity and diabetes" go unoppsed too. Now, as for the rebuttal...

"I agree with 'funwiththoughts' comments. Right to eat anything they want is different from right to assult or kill. Or if a person thinks reading books are bad, people should not read it?"

Of course it is. I never said it was same as right to kill and as for the example of books, It is not appropriate with the motion. See, reading and eating are far away points. As for the Human flesh thing, what I wanted to say is that suppose a person dies..now, one thinks that human flesh is awesome...so, he goes and eats that corpse. See? Now, will it be a nice and good thing? Even if it was neither an assault or a murder, is it right? People will disagree with that man and he willbe called a lunatic.Yeah... right to eat. Man should know his limits. A free country is based so that the people as a whole can be happy and not a group either be it the majority or the minority. Now, how can one be happy if his roommate is killing birds like pegions in front of his eyes and eating them?

It of-course (at times) is inappropriate to stop eating if someone thinks what we eat is gross but the controversial foods aren't something which are considered gross but harmful. Harmful to the environment, society, religion, health etc... As my unopposed argument goes " We can easily have large breeding grounds for ducks and hens but for sharks it is not possible" such a condition is harming the environment while another "obesity and diabetes" argument says that controversial food can cause harm to human health.

In conclusion, I agree that one shouldn't just stop eating because someone thinks waht he eats is gross but as for controversial foods like Shark fin or Whale liver etc... it is a different case and it will be better off if this controversial foods are not continued.

THANK YOU.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Of course the US has a strict line between politics and religion, however that does not mean that you get the right to kill someone just because your religion requires it. You have the right to freedom of religion but you do not get to infringe on other people's right to life (or their other rights) just because you are religious. Likewise, in a place where right to eat does exist, this does not mean that you can infringe on other's rights just because you are eating something.
Posted by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
However, they cannot practice human sacrifices, even if their religion requires it.?????

Just false. The Us govt. doesn't restrict any person from rituals.... USA has drawn a strict line between politics and religion. The government doesn't interfere in such matters....
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Here is a similar example to illustrate the difference: in the US, people have the right to believe in whatever religion they want, because it doesn't effect the people around them. However, they cannot practice human sacrifices, even if their religion requires it.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
That it is "just an example" does not change that it goes beyond the freedom that "right to eat" would allow.

Also, I actually would not have a problem with someone cannibalizing the dead.
Posted by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
duh... just an example funwiththoughts... and why not? BOP on Pro now.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Right to eat is not the same as right to assault or murder, rajun.
Posted by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
seems like a troll debate to me... Yes, this is a troll debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TeaPartyAtheist 3 years ago
TeaPartyAtheist
HANJUrajunTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a better job of responding to Pro's points.