The Instigator
fwakeling
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
eltigrey
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

Horses should be used for meat.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
fwakeling
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,488 times Debate No: 18611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

fwakeling

Con

Horses should not be killed for their meat.
eltigrey

Pro

horse (n.) a large, solid-hoofed, herbivorous quadruped, Equus caballus, domesticated since prehistoric times, bred in a number of varieties, and used for carrying or pulling loads, for riding, and for racing.

meat (n.) the flesh of animals as used for food.

Round 1 is for acceptance

Round 2 is for debate

Round 3 is to attack and defend

Good luck, you may start
Debate Round No. 1
fwakeling

Con

It is chiefly for practical reasons that horses should not be used for food, however one shall additionally object to the slaughtering of horses to safeguard the health of the animal and human community.

The current leading practice in place to slaughter a horse is the bolt gun, an unusual instrument that penetrates the thick hide of the healthy horse, a large animal, aiming not to puncture any vitals but to bleed the horse into a miserable death. The bolt gun is intended for killing stockier, heavier animals like cattle, not the sinewy horse, and this overkill can often ruin useable meat. Furthermore, the horse, often bred for sport, have little useable meat to begin with on their lithe, muscular frames.

Horses are increasingly used to reduce rates of recidivism in prison inmates and bolster emotional health of the ailing elderly. By slaughtering the horse, a loyal and therapeutic companion, we blur the line between our homes and our slaughterhouses. When we slaughter the animals we keep on our own property as beloved pets, we lose the sanitary comforts of having our food processed outside the home. Our pets, our dogs and cats, come to be viewed as food by our neighbors and countrymen.
eltigrey

Pro

I did not want to participate in this debate in the first place, but I will not concede

Over the years, cows, ox, and horse, have been a very helpful instrument in the agricultural world. The Cow, a popular food source, and work force for small farms, is similar to the horse at a work source, unlike the cow, a horse does not consist as much edible meat. Horses are also helpful workers in the city, and country. Horses are very kind, and the slaughtering of a healthy horse is unjust (I also believe it is illegal). What I am getting at is that you shouldn't waste a dead horse (unless it contained a disease of some sort). In other countries, where food is scarce, after their horse dies, they use that meat, because, again, food is not grown as much as it is here.

Rebuttals

" (Con) The current leading practice in place to slaughter a horse is the bolt gun, an unusual instrument that penetrates the thick hide of the healthy horse, a large animal, aiming not to puncture any vitals but to bleed the horse into a miserable death."

Okay that's wrong, but what does this have to do with eating horse meat? Just a point I might bring up

" (Con) Horses are increasingly used to reduce rates of recidivism in prison inmates and bolster emotional health of the ailing elderly"

Where is the proof, why does it boost the health of the elderly, how, give me proof

" (Con) When we slaughter the animals we keep on our own property as beloved pets, we lose the sanitary comforts of having our food processed outside the home."

I do not believe that a living horse, that is healthy and young age should be slaughtered. A dying horse, that is put out of misery, should be eaten, or if you do not have it in you to eat a beloved pet of yours, give it to some one who needs to eat.

Good luck next round
Debate Round No. 2
fwakeling

Con

The pro-side representative has mentioned that he does "not believe that a living horse, that is healthy and young [sic] should be slaughtered" and agreed that "the slaughtering of a healthy horse is unjust."

This leaves only horses that have already died for our food. It is unlikely that the owner of any horse would be expecting it to die, unless it is extremely old or sick. Thus, the horse will be exposed to decay and toxins, as it lies dead on its owner's residence, waiting to be noticed. Even young, seemingly fresh meat would become unusable upon death. To add to this, any sickly or excessively aged meat is already unhealthy for consumption and would lead to health problems if ingested.

However, if a consumer is willing to brave the health concerns listed above, the fact shall still remain that the use of a once beloved horse for meat abruptly severs the emotional bond the horse and its owner once had. In the pro-side representative's proposed situation, a prospective horsemeat eater disregards any affection the owner had for his/her dead companion. If we allow horses, even dead horses, to be eaten, we disrespect these animals that have become almost human in many of our hearts, and horses go the way of the chicken, becoming a useful household tool, yet never more a cherished companion. If we decide today to use horses as resources for food, we lose one emotional connection. But greater, we oppress all animal rights and the potential bonds that humans can have with all animals. Lose the horse today, and tomorrow the human race shall lose its love for all animals, becoming a utilitarian, efficient society not unlike Nazi Germany.
eltigrey

Pro

Again, I will disregard if I lose this debate, I strongly agree with the con, but I decided to take the debate, I'm not conceding I'm just stating my excuse for competing in an unfit debate. My opponent is new to debate, why not let him have an easy win.

Now I'm going to try and turn this debate AROUND! (hopefully)

" (Con) However, if a consumer is willing to brave the health concerns listed above, the fact shall still remain that the use of a once beloved horse for meat abruptly severs the emotional bond the horse and its owner once had"

Now I do believe I mentioned that an owner would not consume his own dead horse in my previous argument, because it basically eating your own pet. Ex: Eating your own dog, YUCK!

" (Con) It is unlikely that the owner of any horse would be expecting it to die, unless it is extremely old or sick. Thus, the horse will be exposed to decay and toxins, as it lies dead on its owner's residence, waiting to be noticed. Even young, seemingly fresh meat would become unusable upon death. To add to this, any sickly or excessively aged meat is already unhealthy for consumption and would lead to health problems if ingested."

Yeah that's true, again, in other countries, people use all the food they can get there hands on, unlike the U.S, where we have access to lots of food

" (Con) If we decide today to use horses as resources for food, we lose one emotional connection"

I don't believe horses will become a "main" recourse as food, because, unlike cows, horses are very useful as work resources, but they shouldn't be wasted, again with the other countries

" (Con) Lose the horse today, and tomorrow the human race shall lose its love for all animals, becoming a utilitarian, efficient society not unlike Nazi Germany"

Sure, whatever you say

Again, no disregards for losing this debate, but if you feel nice maybe you could........I don't know award a few points to the pro, THANKS

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LeroyJenkins 4 years ago
LeroyJenkins
I WANT Horsey MEAT NOMNOMNOMNPMNOMNOMNOM
Posted by eltigrey 5 years ago
eltigrey
My friend just joined debate, he wanted to get a free win, so might as well try, not gonna do this for him again though
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Pro, why did you accept a debate you were not interested in?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
fwakelingeltigreyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side really made good arguments. Kinda unique topic though.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
fwakelingeltigreyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter votebomb by max_p
Vote Placed by max_p_robertson 5 years ago
max_p_robertson
fwakelingeltigreyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
fwakelingeltigreyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A 'free win' is not a good reason for a debate. Con made a good ethical argument, but Pro could easily have focused on the differentiation between 'pet animal' and 'livestock' and poked holes in the distinctions made.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
fwakelingeltigreyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side provided any proof for any claim made in this debate at all. It might have been an interesting joke debate had it been argued and formatted better.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
fwakelingeltigreyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to fulfill his burden of proof, meanwhile con failed to provide any refutation higher than "give me proof" or "simply not true"