The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ChinkaChonka
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Fish farming ban: Is it OK to exploit fish and subject them to physical pain?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 331 times Debate No: 81455
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I pro will make the argument that it is ok to exploit fish and subject them to physical pain.

Con will make the argument that it is not ok to exploit fish and subject them to physical pain.

Definition of exploit "To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents." thefreedictionary.com

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
ChinkaChonka

Con

I accept.

Fish farming causes needless suffering, is immoral and is destroying our oceans.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Fish supply food for humans. Factory farm fishing does not harm the oceans.

"Two crucial ones -- EPA and DHA -- are primarily found in certain fish. ALA (alpha-linolenic acid), another omega-3 fatty acid, is found in plant sources such as nuts and seeds. Not only does your body need these fatty acids to function, but also they deliver some big health benefits." WedMd

http://www.webmd.com...
ChinkaChonka

Con

INTRODUCTION
Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. Before we delve deeper into the topic we need to consider: Is it okay to do something unethical, cruel or damaging for literally no good reason? The answer is of course no. Now, considering this, if fishing is unethical, cruel or damaging, we must have a good reason or it would not be okay...

HEALTH

Omega 3's - ALA, EPA and DHA
It is important to note that humans can get all the omega 3's they need without fish, without any kind of animal products at all, in fact. If these fatty acids are a primary reason for exploiting fish (as it seems to be, based off of your argument), then it is logically unethical. A human can get all the ALA he or she may need from something as simple as flax seeds. [1] There is a common argument that non fish consumers will not be able to get EPA or DHA, this is a myth as the human body can convert ALA into each of these lipids. Even if somebody wasn't able to aqquire as much ALA, EPA or DHA, supplementing is always an option, and a better option than causing unnessecary expoitation of fish. All this information taken into account, the need for omega 3's is not a good reason for exploiting fish.

Mercury
[2] All fish contain some amount of methylmercury, which is the most toxic form of mercury. [3] "Methylmercury (MeHg) is a known neuro-toxicant. Emerging evidence indicates it may have adverse effects on the neuro-logic and other body systems at common low levels of exposure. Impacts of MeHg exposure could vary by individual susceptibility or be confounded by beneficial nutrients in fish containing MeHg.". [4] This study, which looked at the autopsy brain tissue for infants prenatally exposed to methylmercury, concluded that "high correlations were obtained for all brain pairs, suggesting a strong concentration-dependent relationship between mercury intake and brain content.", this was also within the government accepted standards for mercury exposure "In comparison with other human developmental studies and with experimental developmental studies in animals, where toxicity has been demonstrated with total mercury brain levels above 1,000 ppb, this study found no evidence of toxicity within a range of mercury levels below 300 ppb.". This shows that consuming fish can have strong negative side effects.

REBBUTTLES...sort of?
In the previous round you stated that fish is a source of food... which is true. This however is no excuse for exploitation as there are many other sources of food, including (but not limited to): rice, chickpeas, celery, apples and bananas. In all seriousness, if you intended to say that they contain any kind of essential nutrient we cannot get from something else, please be more specific and I have already adressed omega 3's. As well as this you mentioned that "Factory farm fishing does not harm the oceans." while this may be true, the majority of fish does not come from these farms.


SOURCES
[1] - http://www.veganhealth.org...
[2] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Thanks for posting a through response. This is a good debate.

"Is it okay to do something unethical, cruel or damaging for literally no good reason? The answer is of course no." Con

Con has failed to establish a system of which to judge right or wrong. Without such a system, there is no right or wrong or morals, and thus Pro will win by default.

Fish are inferior and humans are superior beings. Humans can create and use weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately there is no justice. There is no mercy for the weak. Humans have conquered the Earth. Might makes right. "The weak will perish." startrek.com

This video shows that humans are powerful and animals are weak:
https://www.youtube.com...

I've established that fish are weaker than humans and thus inferior. Therefore, we can do whatever we please to them. The weak, fish in this instance, exist to be exploited by the powerful, humans in this case.

Health

"There is a common argument that non fish consumers will not be able to get EPA or DHA, this is a myth as the human body can convert ALA into each of these lipids. Even if somebody wasn't able to aqquire as much ALA, EPA or DHA, supplementing is always an option" Jack Norris,RD Veganhealth

Just because the body can convert these lipids doesn't mean this is ideal. Conversion takes energy. Just like it would take energy to convert a gasoline car into an electric car and visa versa. There must be some conversion cost.

Supplements often have side effects. Also, supplements are notorious for not being as effective as food. For example beta-carotene while eating a whole plant is effective. Yet, in supplement form not so much.

" 2010: 1,009 reports of dietary supplement adverse events

2011: 2,047 reports of dietary supplement adverse events

2012: 2,844 reports of dietary supplement adverse events

Exposures to supplements (such as vitamins, herbs, protein powders, and botanicals) accounted for more than 100,000 calls to US poison control centers in 2013." cancer.org

"Epidemiologic studies have shown an inverse relationship between presence of various cancers and dietary carotenoids or blood carotenoid levels. However, three out of four intervention trials using high dose beta-carotene supplements did not show protective effects against cancer or cardiovascular disease" J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Oct;18(5):426-33.

As you can see beta-carontene in supplement form was ineffective in three out of four trials. Yet at the same time epidemiological studies show it was effective in non-supplement form.

B12 again with the side effects of supplementation and supplements tending to be less effective. You could eat a different animal, yet then you would have to rationalize why it would be okay to eat this animal and not fish.

Finally, there is an issue with eyesight when consuming too much ADA omega 3s. "Until more research is preformed, it might be prudent not to consume large amounts of ALA. The studies finding ALA to be linked with eye problems" Norris,RD

Mercury

"found no evidence of toxicity within a range of mercury levels below 300 ppb." Neurotoxicology. 1995 Winter;16(4):689-704.

"This includes materials such as mercury, lead, cadmium, and even arsenic, which can be found in vitamin supplements manufactured for human consumption. While these are, in fact, necessary for proper nutrition in nearly microscopic amounts" Wisegeek

I conclude the mercury in fish is good for human health just as the Thimerosal in vaccines is beneficial to human health.

"while this may be true, the majority of fish does not come from these farms." Con

Got any sources to back this claim up? Atlantic salmon at my local super market always seems to be farm raised.

Sources:
http://www.startrek.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.cancer.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.veganhealth.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.wisegeek.org...
ChinkaChonka

Con

INTRODUCTION
Logically, due to the nature of the debate, burden of proof must be shared at least near-equally. i.e. I must prove that it is not okay to exploit fish, and pro must prove that it is okay. Let's see if this is the case...

REBBUTTLES

"Fish are inferior and humans are superior beings. Humans can create and use weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately there is no justice. There is no mercy for the weak. Humans have conquered the Earth. Might makes right."

This logic is akin to "Fish aren't as intelligent as us, so we can mass kill them.", which is simply absurd. Animals such as cats and dogs are nowhere near a humans level of intellelect, but most western people wouldn't think to hurt one. In some areas of the world, cats and dogs are eaten, and this shows that the only way humans decide which (at least passive) animals are okay to kill and which aren't is due to how they were raised.
For more founded logic, something is clearly wrong if it has negative impacts and little to no positive impacts e.g. rape, murder, name-calling, and something is clearly good if it has positive impacts and little to no negative impacts e.g. complimenting somebody, donating to an organisation or helping homeless people. Regardless of you what PRO may say in an effort to remain consistent, the fact is that most humans would agree with this.

Now let's take a look at exploiting fish, what are the cons?:
-Ocean de-population
-Phytoplankton which produce much of the Earth's oxygen become scarce
-Many health drawbacks

And the pros?:
-...can you think of any?

You do say that we require fish for things such as Omega 3's, so let's get to that now.

"Just because the body can convert these lipids doesn't mean this is ideal. Conversion takes energy. Just like it would take energy to convert a gasoline car into an electric car and visa versa. There must be some conversion cost."

Yes, of course it takes energy... how is this bad at all, that something your body does will burn a couple more calories? If it was 2-3 thousand calories, then of course that would not be ideal, but PRO has failed to give any numbers.

"Supplements often have side effects. Also, supplements are notorious for not being as effective as food. For example beta-carotene while eating a whole plant is effective. Yet, in supplement form not so much."

Here PRO talks about supplements a little. However, he/she chooses to ramble (for lack of a better word) about things such as B12, and beta-carotenes, and makes no mention of omega-3 supplement drawbacks. This whole "rebuttal" is irrelevant.

* It is important to note that at this point PRO has failed to make any legitimate argument, thus it seems likely that I have won. However, I will continue to address his points.

"Found no evidence of toxicity within a range of mercury levels below 300 ppb."

This argument defeats itself and is loosely relevant. Simply showing that levels of <300ppb are not dangerous without giving any sign of the levels of a heavy fish-eater, or a regular animal-eater does nothing to affect my point. If pro could show that the average fish eater's levels were about 200ppb, then pro would have rebutted me successfully, but what he/she's typed is simply irrelevant.

"Got any sources to back this claim up? Atlantic salmon at my local super market always seems to be farm raised."

The second half of your point is an anecdote, and thus worthless, not that it would make an difference. I would say the fact that soon most ocean animals will be extinct from overfishing shows that these aren't raised in farms. This is also due to the trawl and other destructive fishing methods.

http://russgeorge.net...;

CONCLUSION
Is is "ok" to exploit fish and subject them to physical pain? The answer is of course no. Exploiting fish is cruel and unnecessary, nothing like this should be considered "ok". My opponent has failed to out

FINAL WORDS
Sorry I couldn't perform at my best in this debate, but I thank my opponent for being patient with me. As always, I'm open for a rematch, and a debate on similar topics. I hope all readers, and even my opponent will consider at least minimizing animal produce from their diets as it is detrimental to our health, the environment, humans globally and of course the animals.

For more information send me a message, and I'll always be willing to debate these topics.


LINKS EVERYONE INTERESTED IN THIS TOPIC SHOULD CHECK OUT:

Gary Yourofsky's "Best Speech You Will Ever Hear" - https://www.youtube.com...
101 Reasons To Go Vegan - https://www.youtube.com...
Seaspiracy - https://www.youtube.com...

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Yes, consuming fish would qualify as exploiting.

"To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents."
Posted by ChinkaChonka 1 year ago
ChinkaChonka
By the debate, you mean that we SHOULD consume fish? You're not going to play semantics?
No votes have been placed for this debate.