The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Fur is murder.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 685 times Debate No: 83532
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)





r1. Arguments, pro makes pro's argument and con makes con's argument.
r2. Rebuttals, pro rebuts con's r1 argument and con rebuts pro's r1 argument.
r3. Defense, pro defends pro's r1 argument against con's r2 rebuttal and con defends con's r1 argument against pro's r2 rebuttal.

Con's argument

I hear the phrase fur is murder a lot. It makes no sense to me. Animals are dumb. They don't feel pain nor are they sentient any more than a rock or piece of clay is. I don't understand this nonsense. A rock reacts to stimulus just like animals do. Killing an animal is the same as breaking a rock into smaller pieces.

My best guess is people are confusing reacting to stimulus with sentience. For example, if I turn on a light bulb a light goes on. A person could say the light bulb is alive! When the light bulb is turned off, sometimes people use the phrase "kill the lights." Is this murder? Turning off a light bulb? Nay, I say.

More examples are fire. A fire is often called alive. Yet, are fire fighters killers? When they snuff the flames with their flame retardant is this murder? Nay!

How about alkali metals? They have stimulus and response. Ever see what happens when an alkali metal reacts? Its really neat see the below youtube video. [1]

How about metal? Does not the metal react to the stimulus of heat, increasing in temperature and color? Think of a blacksmith. With each stroke of the hammer the metal reacts to stimulus.


Fur IS murder. I would agree with you that fur is not murder if they sustainably hunted animals for fur. Or even when they need other parts of the particular animal. But when animals are targeted for fur, without using their meat or any other body parts, just for profit, is unnecessary and IS murder. Who eats cheetah meat? Who eats tiger or bear or wolf meat? Unless for the odd locals?? Hunting fur just for profit is illegal and immoral. If the hunter has the means to replenish the particular species completely, then he can openly hunt for fur. But that's not the case.
Debate Round No. 1


Con's rebuttal of Pro's r1 argument.

Definition of murder " noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" [2]

The common definition of murder is to kill another human being. Searching on the internet fur comes from foxes. [3].

"The most farmed fur-bearing animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchillas, lynxes, and even hamsters are also farmed for their fur" [4].

Mink, foxes, chinchillas, lynxes, and hamsters are not human. Unless the fur industry starts using killing humans for their skin and selling human skins, fur is not murder. Since, the animals used for fur are not human thus killing an animal for fur does not fit the definition of murder.

"Hunting fur just for profit is illegal and immoral. If the hunter has the means to replenish the particular species completely, then he can openly hunt for fur. But that's not the case." Pro

I wasn't even thinking of hunting. Most furs comes from factory farms. "Eighty-five percent of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive on fur factory farms."[4].

More to the point, causing the death of animal is not the definition of murder. By definition Con's argument is correct.





If con is going to base his argument on definition, then fur is not murder. Fur means the outer skin of animals. And murder means the killing of a person by another person. But this debate is not about that. We all understand that murder means any act of killing. The meaning of murder has evolved through time. And it's no longer one person killing another. Its evolved to define the act of killing itself.
So con is saying that if we keep animals captive and then kill them for fur, nothings wrong. By all means, let's kill all the zoo animals, I'm sure there must be some valuable products that can be obtained..
We dont cause the death of animals, we KILL animals. (We being human beings).
"Eighty five percent of the fur industry's skins come from animals living captive on fur farms."
This is only because of the extensive laws against hunting and killing. If there weren't I'm sure there would much more real fur coats out in the world and many exotic and rare species extinct..
This debate is not seen from a definitive viewpoint. Its about the legality of the action and the importance of the fur providing animals in the ecosystems.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent made no attempt to rebut my r1 argument so I'm finished debating.


I'm truly sorry about that, I forgot to reread the structure. I'm really sorry.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sdio 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. Con got a bit technical and Pro came in with a great rebuttal. Pro disregarded the debate structure as mentioned in R1 so he looses conduct points for that....other than that you both did great.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ended the debate abruptly without any reason as to why. There was no reason for him to stop the debate simply because Pro didn't give rebuttals. No rebuttals on Pro's part would've made for an easy win for Con. This was a violation of the structure rules on Pro's part, so conduct goes to Con. However since Con pretty much forfeited the debate, the arguments points go to Pro.