The Instigator
Deonatus
Pro (for)
The Contender
Some1_called_Josh
Con (against)

Eating cats should be legal

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Some1_called_Josh has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 357 times Debate No: 101564
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Deonatus

Pro

Looking to debate someone who already accepts the legality of eating other forms of meat.

Debate format:
Round 1- Acceptance and state stances
Round 2- Opening arguments (No rebuttals)
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Final rebuttals and conclusions

Stance: I believe that the US government should allow the consumption and retail of cat flesh as food.

POI 1: I do not believe the federal government should mandate that states allow this but I would argue that all state governments should provide legislation protecting this practice or at least overturn legislation that bars it.

POI 2: My last clarification is that by cat I am referring to the species commonly referred to as house cats otherwise known as felis catus.

Thank you, I look forward to debating this with someone.
Some1_called_Josh

Con

I don't think that eating cats should be legal because cats are used as domesticated animals and not food to eat. Your arguement is exactly like the Yu lin Dog festival in china, where they catch and steals dogs for meat which leads to animal abuse, your arguement relates exactly to that but only with cats not dogs. I have 2 cats and they are the best pets in the world and I would rather die than eat precious cats. cats and other animals should be treated as animals and not food.
Debate Round No. 1
Deonatus

Pro

First of all I would like to thank some1_called_josh for agreeing to represent the Con side of this debate.

I would however like to point out that my opponent introduced arguments in the first round, breaking the suggested rules of debate. Additionally, he states that, "cats and other animals should be treated as animals and not food." This suggests that Con does not already accept the legality of eating meat as was a prerequisite for this debate due to the fact that it completely alters the focus/topic of the debate. If I am wrong in the way I interpreted their statement then I apologize and look forward to the debate at hand. I will introduce my arguments with the assumption that I did misinterpret the statement and will introduce my arguments as if my opponent has accepted the rules of the debate seeing as he did not clearly state otherwise. I will also wait to rebut his argument until the next round as was initially the format described.

Just as clarification, the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 does not expressly ban the consumption of cat meat or even the retail of it; it has however, been misinterpreted to ban retail. In addition, many states have added legislature that specifically bans cat consumption and retail. For instance, California"s Anti-Pet Eating law bans the consumption of "any animal traditionally or commonly kept as pets" which is ridiculously subjective and vague. (1)

Intelligence is not a factor.
First I would like to point out that we already eat animals of greater intelligence. The argument that cats are smarter than your average farm animal and that this somehow puts them above an unspecified benchmark of intelligence that grants them exemption from consumption is, quite frankly, flat out ignorant. Pigs, which are the third most commonly consumed animal in the U.S., have been proven to be more intelligent than cats, dogs, and even chimps. Adult pigs have passed memory tests that many three year old children can"t. Obviously this proves that cats have fairly low levels of intelligence compared to other commonly eaten animals and, consequently, intelligence is not a legitimate factor in determining the morality of eating cats.

Cultural Favoritism
The overriding reason that people have rejected the idea of protecting one"s right to eat and sell cat meat is a cultural attachment to the animal. This is insanely hypocritical considering we as a nation are the highest world consumer of beef. Hindu"s, although a minority, have a religious attachment to cows and we ignore this while simultaneously restricting the consumption of an animal for a similar reason. In essence, what we are saying as a country by this is that the rights and protections of the majority"s ideology bears more weight than that of the minority.

Overpopulation
We need to also address the enormous overpopulation of cats in the US. Cats are put down every day; in fact, 2-4 million cats are euthanized every year and of those approximately 860,000 were already in a shelter (2). This is a wasted food source. If people were able to donate or sell their cat to a farm or business for retail as meat that would benefit society more than sending them to an overcrowded humane society where they have a 1 in 4 chance of being euthanized anyways. And if a person or family wanted their cat to live on and find an owner they could still donate them to a now less crowded shelter where they will have a better shot at being adopted. I would also like to point out that many cats are left on the streets and these stray cats pose a threat to children and your pets; so, if you really love your pet kitties you should be in favor of the consumption and retail of cats as food which would give incentive to eliminate threats to your cat and replace them with an efficient food source.

Benefits National Health
There is no logical argumentation against the fact that cat farming would effectively benefit national health. Cats are easily domesticated, require very little space, and are able to reproduce very rapidly due to their estrous reproductive cycle and large litters. A single cat could produce 6-12 pounds of meat (discounting the head, tail and bones) without all the genetic enhancement involved in farming other livestock. Compared to the small space they require and the low cost of production that"s a fairly large quantity of meat. Cat meat has often historically been used in times of famine due to the fact that it is a nutrient rich and more healthy form of meat much like rabbit meat.

I look forward to reading my opponents arguments.

(1) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov...
(2) https://www.aspca.org...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Deonatus 1 year ago
Deonatus
There have also been multiple instances where people have been prosecuted for eating cat meat. And multiple states have laws against it. I'm hoping someone will be able to give credible reasons for this.
Posted by Deonatus 1 year ago
Deonatus
Agreed. Though while in speech and debate in high school I proposed a student congress bill much like this that actually garnered a surprising amount of controversy and surprisingly I never heard an argument against meat consumption among these.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago
Dookieman
It would be pretty difficult for somebody who believes in the legality of eating all other animals to defend the claim that eating cats should not be. There is no difference in eating a pig and cat, for example. The only argument I think somebody could use to defend this view would be that eating cats would upset the sensibilities of cat lovers.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.