The Instigator
uj0320
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ironhead56
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Should "Dog-meat" be unconstitutional?

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  
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: 7/14/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,543 times Debate No: 4684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

uj0320

Pro

In many countries, certain types of dogs are considered as food. However, eating dog is considred to be unusual and absurd to many people. It can be either because dogs tend to have more friendly faces than the faces of other animals, or because people have always distinguished livestocks and dogs separately. Those who eat dogs question the difference between cows and dogs, while the others claim that eating dogs is inhuman and cruel because dogs have always been next to human-beings. What is your opinion?
Ironhead56

Con

I believe that eating dogs as food should be legal where it already is legal, therefore i'm pretty much saying if they want to eat dogs in china then let them have dogs, and if they say migrate, or are visiting in America, i dont believe we should stop them. it is part of their daily lives, like our chips or burgers.
Debate Round No. 1
uj0320

Pro

I agree that we should be tolerable of cultural differences in other countries, regardless of we accept to the concept. However, we should not let the cultural difference interfere our own culture. Even though we should be open-minded, and not to discriminate against the cultural differences, we must also try our best to conserve our very own culture at the same time. While we accept all the different cultures from other countries that are against our social concept, or ideas that we are intolerable of, our own culture will soon disperse into a disappearance.
Ironhead56

Con

here's a big fyi 4 ya, this is AMERICA, famous for being a stewpot of cultures and ideas. we've had few pure american ideas or inventions. Pretty much everything has been influnced by other countries and cultures. if we deny them their culture we are going against wat little culture we actually have.
Debate Round No. 2
uj0320

Pro

Of course Amrica is the "stew-pot" of different cultures of other countries.
However, I disagree with the idea that our true culture should be the amalgam of the cultures of other countries.
Even though the history of the United States is shorter than that of other countries, it surely has its own culture that needs to be conserved over periods.
I am not advocating that we should discriminate other cultures or America is superior to others, but we should conserve our culture from being overwhelmed by different cultures because we already are in the state of "stew-pot".

Accepting different cultures surely has many adventages, but unreasonable acceptance can result America being packed with the people who convince their cultures to others to follow. Accepting other cultures should be limited and regulated by itself, to prevent the "stew-pot" from boiling too much and eventually cannot be controlled.

Therefore, eating dog-meat should be regulated in this country, although we should respect such cultural differences that exist in other cultures.
Ironhead56

Con

i'm not saying we should completely swallow the whole 'let's eat our dog idea' all im saying is that its not like a whole lot of people are going to suddenly turning on their dogs and making labrador stew. i mean honestly, we as americans have been raised around ogs as companions. we are not going to eat our dogs, so i see no problem with them eating dogs in our country as long as the dogs are strays or they bring their own supply
Debate Round No. 3
uj0320

Pro

However, the false assumption that American people will be tolerable of the immigrants eating dogs can lead to another discrimination in a different way. Since most of American people are not allowed to eat dogs because of the social taboo that exists inside the country, they will not support the law that legalizes dog-meat as constitutional. It brings up another question that whether immigrants should be allowed to have dogs as food because it is not against their social-taboo. If the answer is yes, that means the law should legalize dog-meat only for the immigrants, because legalizing dog-meat for Americans can cause a massive protest that can be already anticipated by the majority's opinion.

However, does not it create another discrimination? This time, the discrimination is against the American people instead of the immigrants.
Thus, the law should prohibit every person from eating dog-meat in this country in order to prevent incontrolable protests or political oppositions.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do.", the immigrants should try to do what Americans do, instead of opposing it. Although it is important to guarantee every person's right regardless of his or her origin, what is more important is to preserve a justice that is not opposing to social taboo.
Ironhead56

Con

these immigrants come to this country to escape the either poor conditions in their countries or because they believe they can get BETTER RIGHTS here, therefore we would be letting them down and besides, even if we legalized dog eating for every American, it doesn't mean the whole country would rise in mass protest. Yes, there is going to be the pockets that say it is bad, but every law or bill passsed has such groups. The Americans will reialize that they DON'T HAVE TO DO IT just because its legal. It's like the freedom to bear arms, just because its legal doesn't mean you have to do it. How many Americans walk around with guns in their pockets? Doesn't that right have major opisiton as well?
Debate Round No. 4
uj0320

Pro

Yes, immigrants come to this country in order to live in a better condition. That means that majority of them are already willing to abandon their previous laws that existed in their homelands, and adapt to new environment and regulations. Some of them even might have imigrated to America because of the fact that they hate the dog-meat culture that existed in their origin countries. Immigrants are aware of the different laws, they will not complain much about the fact that America has different regulations.

On the other hand, however, Americans have no choice but to be more caring about the laws as America is their homeland. It is true that some points that I made previously could be a little bit exaggerated;however, if it is anticipated that the strong opposition will occur by legalizing dog-meat with no doubt, there is no reason to encounter the opposition by passing a such law.

Because immigrants can always visit their homelands where they can follow their own countries' laws and beliefs, it is highly doubtful that there is any immigrant who wants to eat dogs where he or she can be surrounded by other people who loathe such an act, and calling it "inhumanity".

The number of immigrants who support dog-meat is ambivalent and few, while the number of people who are against it is quite a lot. Those who support the idea of dog meat might be protecting the right of immigrants to eat dogs, whereas the immigrants really do not simply care about the issue that much. Therefore, eating dogs should not be constitutional, and should not be legalized in the United States.
Ironhead56

Con

Dog meat should be consitutional because like u said, the immigrants don't care and/or are willing to adapt to new rules and regualtions. Another point, the millions of immirgrants in this counry aren't surrounded by hostile faces. many follow what is called chain migration, where one person moves here, then they send back messages about how America is so wonderful and other people of the SAME ORIGIN come and move in around where the first immigrant moved in, creating ethnic neighborhoods, where people of similar cultures live. So if one person for a dog-eating part of the world lives in an area, chances are there are others in that area too. But overall, if we deny them this right, then we are denying the fact that America is a stew-pot of cultures, embracing other cultures and traditons. Plus they would be living without a major part of thier diet. Lets see you move to India for the rest of your life and go without your burgers and steaks!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ironhead56 8 years ago
Ironhead56
that was a good go for a first time, this is my only like 3rd debate
Posted by uj0320 8 years ago
uj0320
That was my first time debating on this website.
Actually I wanted to be on the other side cause I actually support dog-meat but I chose the opposite side accidently haha.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
...and by cows, I mean he never talked about the thousands of cows slaughtered everyday.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
I'm very surprised that CON never directly said anything about the first amendment. He also didn't use cows as an example. This should have been a clear win for him/her.

However, the debaters were equal. I'm not voting for this one.
Posted by Ironhead56 8 years ago
Ironhead56
good debate man, real good
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ironhead56 8 years ago
Ironhead56
uj0320Ironhead56Tied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
uj0320Ironhead56Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
uj0320Ironhead56Tied
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