The Instigator
britkit_francis
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Eat endangered animals. Whatcha gotta say?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 2 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2015 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 71065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

britkit_francis

Pro

eat da aniamals

OR

no eat da aniamals

What do you say?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
britkit_francis

Pro

k den

eat du animals wit lotss of ketchup!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO's burden was to defend the proposition that we ought to eat endangered animals. So far, he has not done that, so he has not fulfilled his end of the burden of proof.

I'm only going to provide a single constructive argument at this time.


(1) Eating an endangered epecies is morally wrong


The reason that an animal is placed on the endangeed species list is that it runs the runs of becoming extinct. By eating these animals, we're doing nothing more than depleting the environment, foregoing diversity, and placing our own hedonistic tendencis before the preservation of wildlife. It is not a necessity to eat endangered animals in order to survive, nor would we by any worse off by opting not to, so we must conclude that the harms of eating endangered animals are far greater than any benefits--especially because PRO provides us with no benefits.
Debate Round No. 2
britkit_francis

Pro

Look dude I'm doing this for fun so...
I will act like a mental guy

EAT THE ANIMALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eat the animals because they are great in nutrients and they might later die off anyway without anybody eat any at all so we might never know what they tasted like. Besides bragging rights would be great if you ate a special animal.

munchies.vice.com/articles/eating-endangered-species-might-be-the-best-way-to-save-them
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO states, "Eat the animals because they are great in nutrients and they might later die off anyway without anybody eat any at all so we might never know what they tasted like. Besides bragging rights would be great if you ate a special animal."

Addressing these in reverse order, bragging rights are in no way something we ought to be proud of--in fact, per my own contention which PRO completely drops, this would in fact be immoral, and there is no reason or logical reason that we should applaud ourselves amid our own immorality. We should be ashamed by our selfish depleting of resources and inability to restrain ourself in order to maintain the beauty of the environment.

To his second point, he claims that we might not know what these animals tasted like. Why does that matter at all? There are plenty of other plants and animals we're able to eat on a regular basis. He provides us with no reason at all to care about whether or not we get to know what these animals taste like. Morality ought to outweigh sheer curiosity in all cases, you vote CON on this point.

PRO says that animals are "great in nutrients"--he doesn't tell us how, or why eating them for said nutrients would be superior to eating any other animal. There's no evidence for the claim, so you shouldn't buy it anyway, but even if you do, you should prefer my remarks on morality because, again, PRO provides us with no *need* or *urgency* to actually eat these animals, or reason why there aren't valid alternatives that doesn't completely deplete the environment, especially when, if we destroy the envronment, we hinder our own survival.

PRO's remark that they may "die off anyway" is ludicrous, because eating them ACCELERATES the pace at which they die off, or the pace at which we've killed so many of them that they're unable to sustain themselves any longer. This implicitly acknowledges that allowing them to die off is an urgent issue, and instead of taking measures to protect them, we wants to do nothing more than throw in the towel, give up entirely, and--not only that--but actually push forward with the intent of mind of bringing about that conclusion. What benefit does this provide us? Once again, prefer morality over hedonism.


Also, PRO has completely dropped my contention on morality, the beadrock of society, and this will outweigh any of the conceivble benefits he would bring up--though he didn't bring up any, anyway, so you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
======================================================================
>Reported vote: Pro-lifeConservative // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Pro, you need to change your opinions. Those animal were made by God! Your statements (pro) were poorly constructed, if at all.}

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD fails to explain the full 7 points. It also votes based on personal bias. Pro-lifeConservative clearly doesn't understand the point of the site; it's *not* to vote based on your own personal opinion and then lecture the debaters for even deigning to take a position that you disagree with. Judges must be tabula rasa, and leave their personal opinions at the door.
======================================================================
Posted by britkit_francis 2 years ago
britkit_francis
This was fun dude.
Thanks for beating me.
:)
Posted by realerthanlifeJK 2 years ago
realerthanlifeJK
cool
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
That's fine. He has three days, lol.
Posted by realerthanlifeJK 2 years ago
realerthanlifeJK
HEY ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Britkits can't reply after 3:00

(satellite reasons)

(i'm his cousin)
Posted by realerthanlifeJK 2 years ago
realerthanlifeJK
sup man,

you got to need a lot of KETCHUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
britkit_francisResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Conduct - Tie. Both had adequate conduct throughout, I do dislike Pro's approach to this debate, but will be docking S&G due to his antics. S&G - Con. Pro had several spelling and grammar issues throughout this debate. Regardless of his intent, Con had no such errors, thus is awarded these points. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to provide any substaintial arguments affirming his position, and furthermore failed to adequately rebut any and all points raised by Con. Due to Con being unchallenged, and Pro's failure to maintain his BOP, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate, I believe Pro tried, but I could not open his link properly thus it is a moot point.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
britkit_francisResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro barely made an argument and abused spelling/grammar. Not sure Pro wasn't a troll.