The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Deadboy_ThePro
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Purchasing chicken eggs from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty

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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 376 times Debate No: 81281
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

First time creating a debate. Looking for an opponent. I'm of the opinion that if a person buys chicken eggs from a supermarket he or she is endorsing animal cruelty.
Deadboy_ThePro

Con

Firstly, before starting my side of the debate I would like to thank stupidape for starting the motion of: Purchasing chicken eggs from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty. I the contender do not agree to the motion. To define my thoughts and evidence first, Chickens can lay eggs whether they have been mating with a male or not and under those circumstances, eggs laid without any mating process is never fertilised thus in no way having a chick inside it.Further more animal cruelty is defined as the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival.
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org...
In the process of this, we are not eating any live animal in the egg thus there is no suffering or harm upon any type of animal and also for the fact that if we were to eat with something inside it still won't be defined as animal cruelty as we do it with the need of survival as the necessity of food forces us to. Thus there is no animal cruelty or any endorsement and I find that this motion is flawed.

Thank you once agin for reading this argument and I await a argument, I am always open to receive POI and would love to improve to argument as this is my first debate
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

I agree to the Wikipedia definition of animal cruelty. For simplicity sake I agree about the unfertilized egg.

"if we were to eat with something inside it still won't be defined as animal cruelty as we do it with the need of survival as the necessity of food forces us to. T" Con

I disagree on the ground that eating an egg is not imperative to human survival. There are many healthy vegans in the world. The only vitamin that is in question is vitamin b12. Which a supplement can be used. Next, b12 comes from bacteria, not animals.

"Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives" Biochem Soc Trans. 2005 Aug;33(Pt 4):806-10.Vitamin B12: chemistry and biochemistry.Kr"utler B1.

As for protein beans have plenty of protein. Vitamin D can be gained through sunlight. Calcium is found in leafy greens like kale. There is no survival reason for humans to eat eggs in this era of abundance when vegan alternatives exist.

Cage-free, organic, and free range eggs are not except. As seen in the links below. By purchasing eggs from the supermarket you are endorsing the suffering of mother hens and death of young roosters. "to approve, support, or sustain: " dictionary.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.peacefulprairie.org...
http://humanemyth.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Deadboy_ThePro

Con

Deadboy_ThePro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

My opponent forfeited the last round. Clearly my argument is superior. The evidence speaks for itself and cannot be disputed. Purchasing chicken eggs from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty.
Deadboy_ThePro

Con

Deadboy_ThePro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sarai.K82 1 year ago
Sarai.K82
StupidapeDeadboy_TheProTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave Pro the edge in use of the English language. I spotted at least one spelling in Con's presentation. Pro put forth some convincing arguments and Con failed to counter them, in fact forfeiting most of the rounds. Pro had more reliable sources. Con's one primary source was Wikipedia in terms of an undisputed definition.