The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Legalize dog fighting.

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...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 93894
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Dog fighting ought to be legalized. This is a source of income that has not been exploited. God gave man dominion over animals and animals have no souls, therefore this action is justified.

http://biblehub.com...
tejretics

Con

I accept.

Since Pro has merely offered an introduction, I'll do the same. Pro's BOP is to show that dog fighting "ought" to be legalized - in that there is an obligation to legalize dog fighting. Therefore, Pro has to affirm that dog fighting has to be legalized in all societies, regardless of context, in the modern world. As my model, I will defend two separate points, namely that (1) dog fighting is unethical, and the government legislating on it prevents it, and (2) even if dog fighting isn't unethical, there are certain social contexts where dog fighting should not be legal, to reflect the values of society as a whole (rather than the values of individuals). The former is true under most moral frameworks, in that dog fighting is inherently a form of inflicting suffering, which outweighs any satisfaction it causes to individuals, and there is government interest in preventing a condition of suffering when there is no compelling reason not to change such a condition. The latter is true in that dogs are traditionally considered "man's best friend," and society values the conscious experience of dogs more than other animals - at least certain societies (e.g. the United States, India), so dog fighting shouldn't be legal in those societies.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

First, factory farming is considered cruel by many, yet allowed. [2] If factory farming is allowed so should dog fighting. There is many detrimental health affects with overcompensation of meat. Therefore, factory farming is the same as dog fighting, causing suffering to an animal for pleasure and profit. With every dollar customers vote that factory farming is moral. This action of causing suffering to animals for human benefit is reinforced as moral on a daily basis. Impact, dog fighting is moral.

Second, my opponent brings up two countries United States and India. In India factory farming has already taken root. [3] As for dogs being man's best friend, I find that distinction arbitrary. We shoot pigeons for fun [4], wrestle with pigs [5], and factory farm all legally. There is no relevant difference for causing pain and suffering between a dog, a pigeon, pig, cow, and chicken.

Therefore, I have show that dog fighting is moral even in the United States and India and should be legalized.

2. http://www.worldwatch.org...
3. https://www.youtube.com...
4. https://www.youtube.com...
5. https://www.change.org...
tejretics

Con

I'm short on time at the moment - I am typing this at 9:40 P.M. in the night, and I still have homework left, so I apologize in advance if my arguments are poor.

Governments pass laws when there is a government interest to do so. A government interest is formed when the end upholds the values of the society the government functions upon. The reason governments exist is to help civilization function as a whole, and to uphold social order. Social order is only upheld when what a society values is upheld. But since there is a lack of cultural homogeneity in multiple nations, they have to legislate as per universal values: maximizing positive mental states, and minimizing negative mental states. In nations with cultural homogeneity, it depends on the context, and I will argue that the context of certain nations does not permit dog fighting.

I will first argue that in nations that lack cultural homogeneity, dog fighting undermines universal values, and should thus not be permitted.

Pro agrees that dog fighting causes wanton suffering for dogs. It's a particularly brutal sport. It's easily among the most serious forms of animal abuse. It is a blood sport, and often results in serious injury and death to the dogs. Hanna Gibson explains, "After the fight, both dogs are critically wounded, often with massive bleeding, ruptured lungs, broken bones, and other life threatening injuries. Generally, the loser of a match dies or is killed, unless he has any salvage value to his owner. When dogs are killed after a match, it is not done by humane euthanasia methods, rather the animals are shot, beaten, or tortured." [1]

Animals ought to gain ethical consideration for two reasons. First, needless abuse is unjust, because it goes against the purpose of justice. Christine Korsgaard explains, "When you pity a suffering animal, it is because you are perceiving a reason. An animal's cries express pain, and they mean that there is a reason, a reason to change its conditions. And you can no more hear the cries of an animal as mere noise than you can the words of a person. Another animal can obligate you in exactly the same way another person can . . . [s]o we have obligations to animals." [2] Essentially, if there is a reason to change the conditions of A and no reason not to, then not changing the conditions of A is unjust.

The very reason human rights exist is for that. There are reasons to change conditions of suffering humans, regardless of rationality. Similarly, if there are reasons to change conditions of animals, and no reasons to not do so (i.e. the suffering being inflicted is needless), then there is a moral obligation to change the conditions of animals. As such, animals are due the right to not suffer without purpose. Pain is intrinsically undesirable. Animals have stress and trauma on experiencing pain, just like humans do, because pain is defined as an undesirable feeling. They - like humans - seek to avoid pain, and have an interest to do so. So, as Korsgaard says, there is a reason to change the conditions of animals - in this case, dogs. There's no reason not to outside of the satisfaction of very few people.

Second, there are very few morally relevant differences between humans and animals. The only sound way to differentiate between humans and non-human animals morally is based on rationality. But there's no logical reason to believe that rationality is a criterion for rights. Currently, even those that are severely mentally enfeebled sufficient to be non-rational are granted some basic rights such as the right to life and right against torture. Similarly, animals " which are of similar mental states " should be granted such basic rights.

Outside of rationality, humans and animals are essentially the same psychologically, since they are able to experience pain and pleasure - both of which are important in intuitive moral calculations. Pleasure is inherently valuable in itself, since humans and animals both seek to maximize this pleasure. The same way, suffering is inherently undesirable, and both humans and animals seek to avoid it. As explained above, granting a right against needless suffering is required by justice because there is a reason to bring change to conditions of suffering and no reason not to. Since humans and animals are psychologically the same outside of rationality (and rationality isn't a sound basis for recognizing morality, because there's no reason to do so, and even animals have such subtle, unique psychological differences, e.g. stronger senses), they should all be considered individuals worthy of moral consideration. Justice is, by definition, treatment without needless discrimination. Since any such discrimination is arbitrary and there are no morally relevant differences between humans and animals, it is unjust to deny animals basic rights.

Pro raises concerns about factory farming. There are two responses I have. First, factory farming is out of the scope of the resolution. Merely because factory farming is allowed doesn't mean it "should" be allowed, and that is a debate for another day. Second, factory farming has more moral than dog fighting, on balance, because the outcomes of factory farming are significantly more positive than mere satisfaction of a few individuals - if factory farming were to be banned, it's possible that the rise in meat prices would cause significantly larger levels of food insecurity, which pales in comparison to any impact from banning dog fighting.

--

Pro is wrong that there's no difference between dogs and other animals from the context of society. The difference is that people *value* dogs more - even if they incorrectly do so. Dogs have a special place in the society of places like the United States, and have been elevated into a status of "man's best friend." Regardless of the accuracy, people place more value on dogs than other animals, and feel emotionally incensed at cruelty toward dogs more than other animals. As such, we must analyze this issue based on the context of various different societies instead of declaring moral obligation immediately. Our legal, and social, status quo is speciesist whether we like it or not.

Sources:

1. https://www.animallaw.info...

2. Christine Korsgaard, "The Sources of Normativity," p. 153
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

I find my opponent's argument arbitrary. First, the laws are important, then talks about suffering in dog fighting. Next, how factory farming is more justified than dog fighting. This doesn't make any sense, we don't need meat to survive. In fact, humans are healthier on vegetarian diets. Face it, when we eat meat we are eating for sheer pleasure, the same as dog fighting and pig wrestling.

From the below link you can see that the natural killer white blood cells have twice the cytotoxicity in vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians. Meaning those white blood cells are twice as effective. You can also watch Forks over Knives and Healing Cancer from Inside out films.

At least with my argument I am consistent and do not draw arbitrary distinctions between various animals. Legalize dog fighting and some of the income can be used to maintain churches and build new churches. Thanks for the debate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.youtube.com...
tejretics

Con

Pro does not address that factory farming is beyond the scope of the resolution. The fact that factory farming is legal has no bearing on the resolution whatsoever, because the status quo is not necessarily the ultimate normative end. I'm not necessarily advocating for the status quo. In the world of informal fallacies, this is called an "is/ought conflation," in that what is the current state is not necessarily the desired state. So even if factory farming is immoral, it has nothing to do with dog fighting: I have no problem with ending factory farming. I also agree with Pro that eating meat is not necessary for survival from a biological perspective, but Pro doesn't address this from a socioeconomic perspective, which is what I argued. Banning factory farming will cause meat prices to go up, and there's incredible uncertainty with regard to the negative impacts of that. I argued that it's possible that this could endanger food security - one more argument that Pro doesn't address. So the reality is, the negative impact of banning factory farming far outweighs the negative impact of not allowing dog fighting (and Pro lacks any offensive case, further strengthening this point).

With regard to "arbitrary distinctions," I agree that distinctions between dogs and pigs are arbitrary. From a perspective of my personal ethics, I think dogs and pigs are equal. But my values don't decide what society, as a whole, values. Pro doesn't dispute that the role of the government is to aid the function of civilization, and to promote social order, and concedes (by omission) that social order is promoted best by legislating according to what each society values. American society, for instance, values dogs as "man's best friend." The value extended toward dogs in American society - and in multiple other societies where factory farming is legal - is greater than the value extended toward pigs and chickens. Regardless of whether this "value" is accurate, the sad fact is people hold that as a value, and in societies with relative cultural homogeneity, the values of the majority should be upheld, to promote social order. Political decisions have to acknowledge the realpolitik of the scenario, and shouldn't be based merely on moral impulses of individuals. Indeed, 74% of Americans don't support legalized animal fights, including dog fighting. [3] But even otherwise, I've proven that animal welfare should be valued from a more objective perspective - another argument that Pro doesn't dispute outside of the irrelevant response relating to factory farming.

So, in conclusion, this debate isn't close. The factory farming example is an is/ought fallacy; regardless, the harms from factory farming are outweighed by the harms from dog fighting. Dog fighting goes against societal values of multiple homogeneous societies, and against universal values of pleasure/pain calculations. The argument from economic benefit is outweighed by the harm posed to animals, and to social order, by dog fighting. There's no dispute that the status quo reduces dog fighting. Dog fighting is brutal and torturous, and causes harm to animals which far outweighs benefit from "maintaining churches". The harm caused to social order, and values of society, also outweighs any non-quantified benefit from Pro.

For all these reasons, vote Con.

Sources:

3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mharman 2 weeks ago
Mharman
@Disciplus_Didicit: Don't forget he mocks Christianity.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 6 months ago
Discipulus_Didicit
In conclusion, pro makes a clickbait title for the debate, probably hoping an innexperienced member would take it. After tej accepted pro tries to derail the debate into being about vegitarianism (which is what he was planning from the start) but unfortunately for him tej countered his attempted derailing with walls of text and logic that pro was unwilling to completely go through and respond to. Landslide victory for con.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: edawg99// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro is a sick f*ck.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a condemnation based on personal perspective.
************************************************************************
Posted by greatkitteh 6 months ago
greatkitteh
I came here for planes. Much sadness
Posted by tejretics 6 months ago
tejretics
Thanks for voting Hayd
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: warren42// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct + S&G were even. Arguments: Con. Pro calling Con's distinctions "arbitrary" repeatedly weren't sufficient, and that alone would give Con the win, but additionally he set up a framework as to the legality. Even if Pro had won the moral argument, morality doesn't necessarily equate to legality. Sources: Con. Consistently using YouTube isn't sufficient.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to specifically assess points made by both sides. In this case, the voter does somewhat assess Pro's point, apparently preferring legal interpretations to moral ones, but fails to assess any specific points made by Con. The distinctions and legal framework hint at that, but none of that analysis explains why the voter found these points convincing. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter isn't required to find value in the usage of Youtube, but if they wish to vote on the basis that it is used, then it should be clear why that was so damaging. The debater used other sources, so even if the voter discards the Youtube videos, he's still required to assess the other sources presented and compare them between the two sides if he wishes to award these points.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
I don't really consume milk products either, but for the record, that's only on factory farms and not from organic sources... plus cow slaughter is discouraged in India both by social norms and by, in some states, the law.

And don't worry about the vote, it'll be removed.
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
"Con. Consistently using YouTube isn't sufficient."

I never understand these reasons for voting. How is youtube bad? A picture paints a thousand works, then a video must be awesome.
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
Animals die from vegetarians. Dairy cows are slaughtered when exhausted.
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
@Stupidape

I thought you might want to know this: I'm a vegetarian.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Discipulus_Didicit 6 months ago
Discipulus_Didicit
StupidapetejreticsTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro compares dog fighting to factory farming, but con easily counters this because pro never gives any good reason as to why factory farming should be allowed in the first place, which they would need to do if they want to use factory farming as a basis for allowing dog fighting. Sources are given to con not for their good use of sources, but rather to penalize pro using sources poorly. Sources should be used to support an argument that a person has made, instead pro makes some completely random statements about vegitarianism and links some sites to support said statements. They never actually explain how this has anything to do with the resolution about dogfighting. Anyway those are my reasons for arguments and for sources. This RFD will probably be reported based on the comments section of this debate so, yrah. Let's see how that goes.
Vote Placed by Hayd 7 months ago
Hayd
StupidapetejreticsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts by explaining that since factory farming is terrible but legal, dog fighting should be allowed as well. But this is irrelevant to the debate, as Con points out. It also assumes that we can?t make factory farming illegal as well, thus it has no impact. Con?s arguments are that dog fighting causes extreme suffering to dogs, and we ought to morally value animals based on metaethics theory, thus since the government acts upon utilitarian means (maximizing good and minimizing harm), and dog fighting is a net harm than good, the government ought to make it illegal. Pro?s response to this in R3 makes no sense whatsoever. It's not relevant to any of the important arguments of the debate, and I can?t make any logical sense of it. Regardless, Pro doesn?t respond to Con?s rebuttal of his factory farming relation or respond to Con?s main argument at all. Thus Con wins