The Instigator
Aric
Pro (for)
Losing
50 Points
The Contender
harlequine
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

People should be allowed to donate their bodies to cannibals and necrophiliacs after they die.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,597 times Debate No: 8776
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (19)

 

Aric

Pro

I believe that people have a right to their bodies. People should be allowed to choose what happens to them after they die. And for the most part, they can. They can be buried, cremated, or donated to science. However, they can not donate their body to those who may wish to consume it and/or have sex with it.

I believe that if donated their bodies to cannibals/necrophiliacs, less cannibal/necrophiliac crime would be committed. Also, this would ensure necrophiliacs the same rights that normal people have. Most people with "normal" sexual fetishes can express themselves sexually without it being discriminated by the law. However, several more "taboo" fetishes are illegal, necrophilia being one of them. Many crimes each year are committed by necrophiliacs, but if we give them the opportunity to express themselves sexually, I believe these crimes would be lower. Not to mention, Necrophiliacs would be given the right to have sex as every other human being does.

The system for distributing these bodies would have to be regulated. The deceased would have to either pick someone they know to give their body to, or let their body be given away on a first come first serve basis. Background checks would follow, of course, to make sure the criminals would not traffic the bodies for money.

Thanks you to whomever decides to take up this rather off-beat argument.

Definitions

Cannibal: One who consumes human meats and fleshes.

Necrophiliac: One whose primary sexual fetish is a fetish for the dead.

The Deceased: The Deceased will refer to a theoretical person who has died and wants to donate their body to a cannibal/necrophiliac.
harlequine

Con

Pro, this is a very unusual and undeniably unique topic. I couldnt resist.

I must alter your definition of "Necrophiliac: One whose primary sexual fetish is a fetish for the dead," to read "Necrophiliac: One who posses a sexual fetish of performing sexual acts on or with the dead" as your definition reads like a "Necro" (as I will refer to them) has a fetish simply for the dead.

Pro says "However, they can not donate their body to those who may wish to consume it and/or have sex with it."

- Both of these acts that said body would be donated to are illegal and morally wrong. There would be a separate debate entirely on legalization of those acts. But to donate ones body would be to encourage an illegal act, which is in turn morally wrong.

Pro says "Most people with "normal" sexual fetishes can express themselves sexually without it being discriminated by the law."

- How many states exactly have passed a gay marriage rights law? Homosexuality, I would consider, is a pretty normal fetish. If donating ones deceased body to satisfy another's sexual urges whos to say it isnt wrong for people to have sex with animals, or children for that matter? We cant just let people do whatever they want for sexual pleasure.

Pro says "Not to mention, Necrophiliacs would be given the right to have sex as every other human being does."

- Necros have the right to have sex as every other human being does already. They dont, however, have the right to commit illegal acts, and should not be encouraged to do so.

Pro says "The system for distributing these bodies would have to be regulated. The deceased would have to either pick someone they know to give their body to, or let their body be given away on a first come first serve basis. Background checks would follow, of course, to make sure the criminals would not traffic the bodies for money."

- How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this? Part of it is the thrill of knowing that theyre dong something wrong, the crimes would still be commited and the registry or "business" would fail.

Thank you for your opening arguement.
Debate Round No. 1
Aric

Pro

Con, I must thank you for posting such a quick reply. But, let's ditch these formalities and get to the "meat" of the matter. (Pun totally intended.)

First of all, I accept your change to the definition of Necrophiliac. That was very kind of you to edit my mistakes. Second of all, you say that "Both of these acts that said body would be donated to are illegal and morally wrong." I will assume that these acts are in reference to cannibalism and necrophilia. While they may be morally wrong to you, they are far from illegal, per say. Now, I know I said they are illegal, and I must apologize for not being more specific. Necrophilia, is not illegal. Cannibalistic, is not illegal. However, to PERFORM, necrophilia or cannibalism, is illegal.

Why? Because, to have sex with a dead body would require a dead body. To obtain one, you would have to kill someone or steal one. If you kill someone, you will most likely be charged with homicide. Even if the killing is consensual, you could be charged with assisted suicide. If you steal a body, you could be charged with petty theft or grand theft, depending on the value of the coffin. However, I decided to kill you and have sex with you when you are dead, I would receive a first degree homicide charge. But I would receive no additional charge for having sex with you when you are dead. Cannibalism is the same. Yes, I would have to kill someone, which is illegal. But eating them, is not illegal. I challenge you to find any law that directly bans having sex with a corpse or consuming a corpse.

Now, I can agree with you, we can't let people run amok when it comes to sex. But if we can help people, I believe we should. I support gay marriage for the same reason. And if I can help someone by letting them have sex with a corpse, then I will.

"Necros have the right to have sex as every other human being does already. They dont, however, have the right to commit illegal acts, and should not be encouraged to do so." I concur. But if they are doing nothing illegal, then shouldn't they have the right? What I hope to do is allow Necrophiliacs to be able to use a government run system which would be quick and effective. I also hope to use this government run system to educate people about the possibility to help people who are cannibals are necrophiliacs.

"How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this? Part of it is the thrill of knowing that theyre dong something wrong, the crimes would still be commited and the registry or "business" would fail."

I disagree with you 100% here. While I cannot speak for cannibals, a study on necrophiliacs show why they have such a odd fetish.

* 68 percent were motivated by a desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner;
* 21 percent by a want for reunion with a lost partner;
* 15 percent by sexual attraction to dead people;
* 15 percent by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation; and
* 11 percent by a desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing power over a corpse (pp. 159).

See http://en.wikipedia.org...

Don't go anti-wikipedia on me, because the source was from a semi-famous book.

Thank you again for taking up this debate.
harlequine

Con

Pun appriciated!

As an answer to your first two paragraphs (I dont want to post because that takes my characters :)). You said to have cannibalistic or necropheliac tendencies and desires is in fact NOT illegal, but to act upon those desires or "PERFORM" them is. So in theory what you are suggesting is the legalization of these ACTS and furthermore the legalization of donating one's body to satisfy the pleasures of those who would be commiting the ACTS. I would like to ask, if its resonable to you to legalize these fetishes, why not other fetishes? What will your suggestion be when rapists say that its a fetish and that they want rights too? Every human has a temptation or desire, that doesnt mean that they have rights to fulfull them however.

Pro, you posted statistics on why they have the fetish. You didnt answer my question, I asked: "How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this?" I will re-ask in a different context.

- Out of 100 necrophiliacs (it seems as if thats what this discussion is REALLY about), how many do YOU estimate would come and register for this program?

I also have another personal question on the matter if you will accept it.

- How would you feel if your mother, child (if you have one), or the closest person to you decided to donate their body to this program? Would you be comfortable knowing that someone were to eat or have sex with that person?

Also, would this program require a class on proper handling of human bodies? Would registrants be required to have a licence? Who would fund this program? Would our tax dollars go to this fetish?

Thank you for round 2!
Debate Round No. 2
Aric

Pro

Con, I am afraid you have misinterpreted what I was saying, unfortunately. I was saying performing the acts were illegal because to reach said act you must commit other illegal acts. Let me illustrate this for you.

How to have Sex with a Dead Body
Step one: Obtain a dead body.
A) Kill someone and take their body. (Illegal-First degree homicide)
B) Steal a dead body from a cometary. (Illegal- Theft, Trespassing)
Step two: Perform sexual acts with the corpse. (No laws against this)

Do you see what I'm reaching at here? You CAN have sex with a body or eat a body. But in order to obtain this body, you must perform illegal acts. My system provides a legal alternative which let's necrophiliacs and can
nibals get their fill. Because cannibalism is legal. Because necrophilia is legal. But because homicide and theft are not.

"Pro, you posted statistics on why they have the fetish. You didnt answer my question, I asked: "How many cannibals or necros do you suppose would REALLY come forward and register for this?" I will re-ask in a different context. Out of 100 necrophiliacs (it seems as if thats what this discussion is REALLY about), how many do YOU estimate would come and register for this program?"

If we can make the program anonymous, 100/100. Same with cannibals. Why? Because, they have no other legal way to obtain a dead body.

"I would like to ask, if its resonable to you to legalize these fetishes, why not other fetishes? What will your suggestion be when rapists say that its a fetish and that they want rights too? Every human has a temptation or desire, that doesnt mean that they have rights to fulfull them however."

No, you're right. But if we can satisfy at least one fetish and at least one culinary taste, we have helped the world.

"How would you feel if your mother, child (if you have one), or the closest person to you decided to donate their body to this program? Would you be comfortable knowing that someone were to eat or have sex with that person?"

Honestly, kind of disturbed. It would be very uncomfortable. But I would be able to suck it up and accept my child's needs because I can realized that they are not my property. It's not hurting anyone, so if they want to do it, who am I to judge? Besides, it's better than having their body be a useless waste of space.

"Also, would this program require a class on proper handling of human bodies? Would registrants be required to have a licence? Who would fund this program? Would our tax dollars go to this fetish?"

Yes, no, and yes. On the tax dollar thing, it would benefit the people by reducing crime.

Round three is almost over. We are soon approaching our conclusions. I suggest a more aggressive debate.
harlequine

Con

"My system provides a legal alternative which let's necrophiliacs and cannibals get their fill. Because cannibalism is legal. Because necrophilia is legal. But because homicide and theft are not."

I suppose theres not much to argue then on the legality of physically performing the acts.

"If we can make the program anonymous, 100/100. Same with cannibals. Why? Because, they have no other legal way to obtain a dead body."

In your first arguement you stated that background checks would be done to ensure people arent profiting from this. In the above statement you are suggesting that registrants would be anonymous. Which will it be?

"No, you're right. But if we can satisfy at least one fetish and at least one culinary taste, we have helped the world."

If were going to satisfy one we may as well help them all. According to your theory to satisfy one or two helps the world, how much better would the world be if we satisfied everyones urges? How about we make it a grand system where suicidal persons can go and sign over their bodies to this program (satisfying suicide). Then homicidal people can kill them (satisfying homicide). After that Kleptomaniacs can come and rob the bodies of personal belongings (satisfying theft). And finally all the bodies can be turned over to the cannibals and necro's. Also of course you would have people who simply willed their bodies to be donated to this program. As you can see... you cant just satisfy one or two urges without all others demanding theirs be satisfied as well. As ideal as this program may sound to you, its drawbacks far outweigh its benefits.

"Honestly, kind of disturbed. It would be very uncomfortable. But I would be able to suck it up and accept my child's needs because I can realized that they are not my property. It's not hurting anyone, so if they want to do it, who am I to judge? Besides, it's better than having their body be a useless waste of space."

I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it. Also, the body would eventually become what you call a waste of space because the bodies would have to be disposed. Once there was no more edible parts the body would need to be turned in and most likely buried. When the body began decomposing (which happens as soon as death occurs) it would no longer be safe for sexual intercourse and would need to be turned in and buried.

"Yes, no, and yes. On the tax dollar thing, it would benefit the people by reducing crime."

So youre proposing that our tax dollars would go toward funding sexual and cullinary disires? I dont think that the number of crimes commited solely to fullfill these two disires is high enough to pass this through congress.

I think that 5 rounds was a bit high for this debate. There really isnt that much more that can be said on the topic.
Debate Round No. 3
Aric

Pro

"In your first arguement you stated that background checks would be done to ensure people arent profiting from this. In the above statement you are suggesting that registrants would be anonymous. Which will it be?"

Both. The government will do background checks, but, it's not like someone can just look up their names and be find out if anyone they know did it with a dead body.

"If were going to satisfy one we may as well help them all. According to your theory to satisfy one or two helps the world, how much better would the world be if we satisfied everyones urges? How about we make it a grand system where suicidal persons can go and sign over their bodies to this program (satisfying suicide). Then homicidal people can kill them (satisfying homicide). After that Kleptomaniacs can come and rob the bodies of personal belongings (satisfying theft). And finally all the bodies can be turned over to the cannibals and necro's."

I'm working on it.

"I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it."

That's subjective. You can't tell me what I'm thinking.

"Also, the body would eventually become what you call a waste of space because the bodies would have to be disposed. Once there was no more edible parts the body would need to be turned in and most likely buried. When the body began decomposing (which happens as soon as death occurs) it would no longer be safe for sexual intercourse and would need to be turned in and buried."

I disagree. The body could be incinerated. By a waste of space, I was referring to how most people get buried. It kills me to see graveyards, because the space they use could be used for more important things, like housing.

"So youre proposing that our tax dollars would go toward funding sexual and cullinary disires? I dont think that the number of crimes commited solely to fullfill these two disires is high enough to pass this through congress."

Lack of evidence makes negates your case.

"I think that 5 rounds was a bit high for this debate. There really isnt that much more that can be said on the topic."

Agreed. Let's toil through round four.
harlequine

Con

"I'm working on it."

Ok let me know when youre done...

"That's subjective. You can't tell me what I'm thinking."

I didnt tell you what youre thinking. Ill quote myself here "I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it." That statement is a matter of opinion as a parent.

"I disagree. The body could be incinerated. By a waste of space, I was referring to how most people get buried. It kills me to see graveyards, because the space they use could be used for more important things, like housing."

Doesnt cremation increase our "carbon footprint" or increase global warming (I am aware that global warming is just a theory). So now on top of all the other negatives were harming the environment as well? Good plan Pro, good plan...

"Lack of evidence makes negates your case."

What evidence do you have that the number of crimes prevented would be significant enough to pass through congress? So it looks like were both at a lack for evidence here.

Round 4 done. It looks like final arguements are due. Good luck Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
Aric

Pro

"Ok let me know when youre done..."

Ahaha, will do. =)

"I didnt tell you what youre thinking. Ill quote myself here "I think that if you were actually put in the position where your child were to be eaten or his/her body had sex with you would be outraged. Its easier to say you would keep your cool than to actually do it." That statement is a matter of opinion as a parent."

And it's just that. An opinion.

"Doesnt cremation increase our "carbon footprint" or increase global warming (I am aware that global warming is just a theory). So now on top of all the other negatives were harming the environment as well? Good plan Pro, good plan..."

The environment can blow me. Trees don't scream when they die. But I don't want this to become a global warming debate, so w/e.

"What evidence do you have that the number of crimes prevented would be significant enough to pass through congress? So it looks like were both at a lack for evidence here."

The evidence I was looking for was annual cannibalistic and necrophiliac crimes. But I can't find it, and I don't think you can either, so it looks like that's public discretion.

But if even one necrophiliac or cannibalistic crime is committed this year, that's too much.

In conclusion, if we allow people to donate their bodies to necrophiliacs and cannibals, it will have a positive effect on crime rates. Not to mention, if someone wants to do it, who are we to judge? It doesn't concern us, so I think it's best to just let it lie.

Well, I thank my opponent for a fun and entertaining debate. Good luck!

And by the way, when I die, BBQ at my place. Formal dress attire. Bring your own beer.
harlequine

Con

"And it's just that. An opinion."

Isnt this whole debate a matter of opinion?

"The environment can blow me. Trees don't scream when they die. But I don't want this to become a global warming debate, so w/e"

I just about fell off my chair when I read this I was laughing that hard, I cant even make a statement about it. I even had to tell my husband! He said, "oh I guess you had to be there"

"The evidence I was looking for was annual cannibalistic and necrophiliac crimes. But I can't find it, and I don't think you can either, so it looks like that's public discretion."

So neither of us can factually proove or disprove that your program would decrease crime rates due to these specific urges.

In closing, my opponent failed to fully prove that the population would benefit from his proposed program. Quite the opposite in fact, Pro stated that funding would come out of our own taxes, as if our money doesnt go to enough rediculous causes already. The idea that Pro is defending would also do harm to our environment due to Pro's proposed plan of incenerating the used bodies. My opponent also neglected to answer my question of what would happen if a rapist, or murderer said that they wanted fairness and a chance to legally fulfill their urges as well. People should not be able to donate their bodies to this cause as it would inevitably do much more harm than good.

Ill be at your BBQ, but Ill bring my own burgers, made from COWS!
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
THERE IS NO VICTIM. The body is given, and someone accepts it. No one suffers.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
And what's wrong with that? Who is the victim? :P
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Of course crime rates would be lower. If you make a crime legal, then it automatically reduces crime in that the "crime" is no longer against the law.
Posted by Mike_BSU 7 years ago
Mike_BSU
I feel that perhaps the cannibals and necrophiliacs should pay into this deal much more than the public. Not once did the debaters mention the cost to the users of the service. Sure, using the service may be lower, and crime is not effected as greatly, but the crime rate would still lower.

I also believe that the Con disregarded Pro's statement that the crime rate would be lowered, despite whether it was lowered or not.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
B/A: Tied/Con
Conduct: Tied - It was equal for a while, but when Pro started making some interesting comments like 'the environment can blow me', for example; I thought it was humorous, but still a bit... uncalled for; then Con slowly started following in that same path; but, as far as actual conduct, they were both extremely kind to each other. That was a big plus.
S/G: Pro - Con made a few mistakes here and there throughout the debate.
Arguments: Con - Although there were some logical problems on Con, the fact that Pro essentially blew off the environmental argument AND the argument I considered important, the 'legalization of all fetishes', which, at first, seemed like a bit of a slippery slope, but I was eventually convinced that, while it may not necessarily happen, affirming this resolution certainly opens that door. Then, of course, you have a couple of little arguments about things like the tax dollars, and definitely the 'parent concerned about his/her child donating his/her body' argument.
Sources: Tied - While the statistics may have come from some legitimate book, they didn't really seem to impact the round at all, and they didn't seem to really cling to any single argument, so I basically ended up having to disregard them after reading them.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Con should have argued public health reasons, which are compelling of themselves.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
RFD:
-B/A - Con/Con
-Conduct - Tied
S&G - Pro
---A few mistakes.
-Arguments - Pro
---Pro's arguments made much more sense.
-Sources - Pro
---Con used none.
Posted by harlequine 7 years ago
harlequine
WOMP WOMP thats all I read in the comment below...
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
B/A: PRO.
Conduct: TIE.
S&G: Though this was pretty close, Con had some annoying errors. PRO.
Args: PRO. Con's arguments were illogical and fallacious.
Sources: Pro cited a book, Con cited nothing. PRO.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
"more happy" should have been "happier" in the below comment. Me no spek english gud.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Karma 6 years ago
Karma
AricharlequineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:61 
Vote Placed by BlueNotes 7 years ago
BlueNotes
AricharlequineTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
AricharlequineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
AricharlequineTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by greatstuff479 7 years ago
greatstuff479
AricharlequineTied
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 
Vote Placed by numbany 7 years ago
numbany
AricharlequineTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by doomdayer 7 years ago
doomdayer
AricharlequineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Mike_BSU 7 years ago
Mike_BSU
AricharlequineTied
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 
Vote Placed by blue_10_9 7 years ago
blue_10_9
AricharlequineTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
AricharlequineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13