The Instigator
TeaPartyAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Eating Cats and Dogs is Morally Acceptable

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 2 votes the winner is...
Duncan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,453 times Debate No: 37053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

TeaPartyAtheist

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
Duncan

Con

I accept your debate, but I couldn't help but notice the almost oxymoronic username you've chosen. The tea party is a conservative group with traditional christian values, not something an atheist would follow. Please satisfy my curiosity next round.
Debate Round No. 1
TeaPartyAtheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and have answered his question elsewhere. I first want to mention that all cultures have eaten animal meat throughout human history. Name me one culture that lived on a truly vegetarian diet. Given that different cultures and cuisines that evolved completely separately all include meat as a staple of the diet, it is a reasonable conclusion that humans should eat meat. After all, there are many other carnivorous and omnivorous animals. The argument that we should not eat animals because they were once alive also holds no water, as plants were also alive at one point.

If we accept that it is acceptable to eat meat, then this debate becomes about whether it is moral to eat some meats, but not others. Many people believe that it is not acceptable to eat dogs and cats as they are viewed as pets. Many animals have been domesticated throughout the world. Is it all of a sudden immoral to eat a chicken, cow, or pig because someone believes it to be special or sacred? If we allowed some people's feelings on every animal to dictate our diets, we would not eat beef (due to Hindus) or pork (due to Jews). Also, dog and cat meat is traditional in some cultures. Should it suddenly become unacceptable for these people to eat as they have for centuries? There is no reason why it is not acceptable to eat cats and dogs, while it is acceptable to eat cows, pigs, and chickens.

Finally, it is important to note that I am not arguing that it should be legal to go over to someone's house and shoot their pet. Dogs and cats would be breaded separately, meaning that ones breaded for food would be separate from those breaded for domestication. There would be no problems for the pet market, as different breeds would tend to be used for meat compared to for pets.
Duncan

Con

Cats and Dogs have a unique place in human society. For generations, humans have kept them as pets, even worshipped them or used them as guard dogs. The bond we hold with them has even caused us to give them human qualities. Giving non human things human qualities is call anthromorphic personification. When we apply human features like loyalty and love to animals, eating them can be seen as akin to cannibalism, as dogs and cats are known to display emotion. Cannibalism has always been seen as a barbaric action, and only to be used when necessary. The same should then apply to dogs and cats. Notice how we apply different aspects to different animals, cows as calm, pigs as gluttonous. We see dogs and cats as the closest to us because they portray emotion most clearly. If it was truly necessary, cannibalism of this kind could be accepted, but dogs and cats wouldn't provide you much meat, and dogs like huskies are even known to have high vitamin A count making organs like their liver toxic. You could ignore that and say that cannibalism of this sort is necessary, but each culture chooses its own sacred animals, we choose the most emotive in the west, cows are sacred to Hinduism, pigs, while not worshiped, are not to be eaten in Islamic counties. Vegetarians hold an attachment to all life in this way and cannot choose to detach themselves from animals like cows and approve their slaughter. I am not one myself, but I would only approve of humane culling of animals, not slaughterhouses. But if you go by "it's another culture" as your argument, Islam has a culture in extreme tendencies to mistreat women. The Golden Rule is the one of the few moral points we agree upon, and if we give animals human qualities, character, per say, they would cease to be animals, and extension of humanity representing our virtues, loyalty and innocence. I'll see you next round.

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 2
TeaPartyAtheist

Pro

One of the keys to understanding this debate is to understand that dogs and cats, regardless of what emotion they may show, are not human. Humans are the only species that can ever be human. All natural carnivores and omnivores (as humans are) do not choose what animals to eat based on factors such as what emotion an animal displays. If you are ever attacked by a deadly animal, try showing it genuine fear to get it to not eat you. It would not work, and you would be dead. The natural way is to eat what will provide the necessary nutrition to survive. In cases where there are ample food sources, similar to the situation in which many humans live, then it is only natural to choose what to eat based on taste. The idea of animals displaying human emotions is highly subjective and open to too much human interpretation.

I accept that many people have a special bond with dogs and cats. However, I want to reiterate that people could still have this bond. No one would go to someone else's house and eat their pet. In fact, certain dogs and cats would be breeded for human consumption, while others would be breeded for domestication. Also, the fact that some people have an affinity for dogs and cats should not matter, as there are people who have special relationships with any variety of animals. People care for fish tanks, but also eat fish. Some people even grow to be attached to chickens, cows, or pigs, three of our primary sources of meat. In short, the fact that people like some animals, such as dogs and cats, should not mean that it is morally unacceptable to eat those animals.

It is morally acceptable to eat dogs and cats.
Duncan

Con

While it is true that humans are animals, we create a line between humans and other members of the Animal Kingdom by producing tools. This changes everything. We can get bored easily, we don't have to be alert for predators and we don't have a crisis to reproduce, in fact we already have overpopulation problems. We also build roads, create works of art, and ultimately become much more immersed in luxury. Because we have this distinction, we try to find meaning in it. Many people search for human shaped things in the world, faces and voices in images and sounds. It would be considered immoral for similar reasons as to why animal testing is oftentimes attacked for animal cruelty, as we are a species that can choose to be picky about what we eat. When you even consider in practical terms, cats are not a farmable species. They are small, territorial, and will try to escape from any pen you put them in. Combined with the emotions they can display which relate to humans who have already separated ourselves from other animals (little species outside our own follow legal systems), you would have to need to eat cat meat since there was no alternative. It is true that we already breed fish, but the fish we keep as pets are not appropriate for food, mainly due to size.

In conclusion, we as a species have made ourselves not so much superior, but distinct from other species. We try to make other species more human like, anthromorphising them with emotions familiar to us. If we view humans in more aspects than just the physical, then we should judge other animals in that regard too. A tie in question would be if you could create an AI that felt emotions, would torturing it be immoral? It's not human...

I would like to than my opponent for an entertaining debate and hope to discuss further matters with them in the future. Yours sincerely,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by midgemodge123 3 years ago
midgemodge123
eating cats and dogs is sick kill yourself mate
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
TeaPartyAtheistDuncanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Decent argument... Con I advise not wasting space in the argument asking about user names, such could go into the comments. I was glad to see you quickly learn to separate points into multiple paragraphs (walls of text are annoying at best). ARGUMENT: I am very tempted to give this to pro, yet I realized I was looking for holes in con's position to support my bias (I've had this debate using dogs), thus I shall not vote on argument (heck under the right circumstances, I don't even view cannibalism as immoral) . All other areas were equal.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
TeaPartyAtheistDuncanTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument that cats and dogs are more like humans and should be treated accordingly was compelling.