The Instigator
jwvgonzalez
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Should Swine (Pork) be treated as food?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 71591
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

jwvgonzalez

Con

Swine (Pork) is nasty . Pork eat anything in their way .
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

I accept.

Resolved: Should Swine (pork) be treated as food?

As PRO, I will argue that swine should be treated as food, while CON will argue that it should not be. Since we have a normative resolution, the burden is shared.

Definitions

Pork - "the flesh of hogs used as food." [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Food - "the things that people and animals eat" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

In oher words, "pork" is "food" by definition because it is used as food, but CON must be able to tell us why swine shoud not be treated as food--or why we should not eat it.


CON states, "
Swine (Pork) is nasty . Pork eat anything in their way."

Even if this were true--and in the absence of evidence, we assume it isn't--he doesn't tell us why this means we shouldn't eat it. He shows us no reason why eating swine ought to be undesirable or dangerous, and thus we should eat it insofar as it suits our tastes. My primary argument in this debate is that tastes and preferences are subjective, and unless CON can demonstrate some broader public need which outweighs the right of people to eat meat as they please, you're going to default to the freedom of positioning of allowing swine to be treated as food.

Back to CON.
Debate Round No. 1
jwvgonzalez

Con

(Swine) Pigs can either be clean or dirty . but the point is would you like someone eles to eat you ? Pigs have feelings just like man kind . Pigs can contain viruses and bacteria which can be transported to a human when it gets eaten. Swine can effect a human health which can be viruses, and symptoms. You never know when your swine was properly clean well .
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

CON states, "(Swine) Pigs can either be clean or dirty."

This completely undermines his earlier point about pork being "nasty" because he concedes that they *can* be clean. Further, he doesn't provide us with any evidence of pigs being dirty or reason to think they're dangerous.

CON states, "but the point is would you like someone eles to eat you ? Pigs have feelings just like man kind."

This point is completely absurd, as he attempts to morally equate eating human beings with killing pigs. He establishes no plausible reason, save for a nonsensical appeal to emotion, why we ought not eat pigs.

The primary reason we don't afford pigs the same rights as humans is because--and as CON's arguments demonstrate--we're dealing with nothing more than an emotional appeal to "feelings." We have no reason to believe that pigs are nearly as sentient or as intelligent as human beings, nor that they could contribute as much to society as human beings--in fact, they cannot, meaning that their only value to society is as a food source. This does not mean that we can't solve for animal cruely, but we are without any reason whatsoever to actually afford them rights. Rights are contingent upon capacity for action: what will pigs do? What can they accomplish? Most are created for the sole purpose of being slaughtered for meat, which is the only way they serve any purpose at all--as meat. Without the ability to eat any meat, people would starve--an impact which far outweighs CON's emotional appeals, because starving poses a degree of moral hazard whereby people cannot contribute to the economy, cannot feed their children, etc. In fact, Rene Descartes believed that animals were as unfeeling as machines--mere automatons without the capacity for feeling or emotion.

CON states, "Pigs can contain viruses and bacteria which can be transported to a human when it gets eaten. Swine can effect a human health which can be viruses, and symptoms. You never know when your swine was properly clean well "

He provides zero evidence for this position, nor does he prove there's a plausible threat. Why aren't people actively dying from any form of diseased meat? Because we don't eat diseased meat: meat inspectors who work for the government ensure that hte meat is healthy and safe for human consumption, and they may even be *too* careful in the process, because failure to ensure meat safety results in a giant lawsuit. There's a significant chain of command to ensure that the meat is healthy for human consumption, meaning that we *can* in fact know whether the meat was cleaned properly. Not to mention, there's a significant free-market incentive for cleaning the meat properly because people can be put out of business--be it by consumers refusing to buy certain meat, or the government shutting them down--for failing to properly clean the swine or take the necessary precautions to ensure meat safety.

All of CON's arguments have been soundly refuted. Further, he doesn't respond to my weighing in the last round, so you must prefer it. I wrote: "My primary argument in this debate is that tastes and preferences are subjective, and unless CON can demonstrate some broader public need which outweighs the right of people to eat meat as they please, you're going to default to the freedom of positioning of allowing swine to be treated as food."

CON has yet to fulfill this burden, and because neither of us can introduce new arguments in the last round, he isn't able to now. Therefore, vote PRO.

Debate Round No. 2
jwvgonzalez

Con

jwvgonzalez forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Pro

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
How so? Lol.
Posted by Axelthane 1 year ago
Axelthane
This is hilarious.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
jwvgonzalezResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Pro. Con had several spelling and grammatical errors including failure to properly capitalize and misplaced period/comma usage. Pro had no such errors and thus wins S&G points. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to rebut a majority of Pro's arguments. On the flip side, Pro was able to not only rebut each point raised by Con but also remain unchallenged himself for a majority of the debate due to Con's failure of providing rebuttals. For these reasons, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. I'm slightly tempted to leave this as a tie since the only sources used were in order to clarify key terms. However, since Con used no sources whatsoever, I will give these points to Pro for at-least using some for clarification purposes. This is a clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 1 year ago
MrJosh
jwvgonzalezResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
jwvgonzalezResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit