The Instigator
DBA10
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romaniiii
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Eating Dog Meat Should be Illegal

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...
Romaniiii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 304 times Debate No: 90867
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

DBA10

Con

First round is acceptance.
Romaniiii

Pro

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
DBA10

Con

Well, my opponent's account has already been closed. Assuming it won't be reopened I won't bother writing an open argument. Pro's making the claim (that dog meat should be illegal), so Pro has burden of proof. Failure to prove that statement warrants me the automatic win.

For good measure though, I'll quickly state that dog meat should be legal because consumption of cow, pig, and chicken meat is legal in most of the world, and dogs are also non-human animals. Assuming Pro's account isn't reopened, that argument is good enough to warrant me the win (in case any voters try to put burden of proof on me).
Romaniiii

Pro

== Dog is man's best friend ==

We should criminalize the production & consumption of dog meat because dogs have a special place in our society. We have collectively elevated the canine genus to a semi-anthropomorphic "pet" status, thereby justifying exclusive legal protections for dogs above all other animals (except perhaps cats).

It doesn't matter that dogs aren't significantly different from cows, pigs, and chickens on a neurobiological level, because our legal status quo is fundamentally speciesist. Humans beings with severe mental retardation are cognitively akin to rodents, yet there's a radical disparity between the two groups' legal statuses. The former group receives virtually all the same legal protections as everybody else, whereas the latter group receives no protections whatsoever.

In other words, we as a society do not decide our legal/moral standards on the basis of neurobiology -- we decide them on the basis of emotional attachment.

Don't let our best friends get eaten. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
DBA10

Con

DBA10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DBA10

Con

DBA10 forfeited this round.
Romaniiii

Pro

Romaniiii forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
That sucks. Just don't forfeit the debate, and post a voting reminder here once the voting period starts.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
DBA10RomaniiiiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff more times, so conduct to Pro.