The Instigator
AmeliaFausty
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Chaos_Heart
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should chickens be allowed in city apartments?

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 3 votes the winner is...
The_Chaos_Heart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,009 times Debate No: 26839
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

AmeliaFausty

Con

Should loud, clucking, chickens be allowed in city apartment buildings as pets?
The_Chaos_Heart

Pro

I accept the debate, and will be arguing that chickens should be allowed in city apartment buildings as pets. I divert to Con for opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
AmeliaFausty

Con

If you've got more than one chicken, they will pick on the weaker and sick ones and kill them. They defecate EVERYWHERE and you can't control it. Chicken's can give sicknesses and diseases to people like the Bird Flu.
The_Chaos_Heart

Pro

No one desires to experience true harm. Even a masochist only desires certain harms. Things they do not desire then for them would be considered real harms. So given that no one wants to experience true suffering, as a species, we should therefore seek to maximize happiness. How do we do this? By maximizing freedoms, and limiting harms.

So whether or not chickens should be allowed in apartments comes down solely to the potential harm of doing so; any petty moralization of the issue outside of that is nonsense. So the question is, which is more harmful? Allowing chickens in city apartments, or banning them?

The latter is clearly more harmful than the former. Chickens are just another animal; they are just another form of pet. They are not some special, unique animal. Chickens should be allowed in apartments, primarily because banning them, an infringement upon one's liberty, is more harmful than any harm that could be brought about by having the chickens there. This is because banning the chickens is an injustice. No one deserves to be demanded to not own certain animals. If someone desires to own a beast, let them. It does not matter what harms befall the owner; they've chosen to own the animal in question, and therefore, they've accepted any potential harms to themselves. To prevent them from potentially harming themselves is a greater wrong than any harm that could befall them by owning a chicken. And chickens themselves are harmless to any other apartment dwellers when properly cared for, so there are no appeals to be made that they harm other innocent individuals. As seen by my opponents case, the only case that can be made is that it harms the owners.

We should not be policing one's self though, and dictating that one can and cannot do to their own life and body. It is an unjust infringement upon their liberty and sovereignty as an individual, and therefore, morally wrong. If we desire a truly free and good society, we must maximize freedoms, while limiting harms. Part of that is accepting not everyone sees the same thing as a "real harm", and therefore, you have no right to moralize and dictate the happenings of someone else's life as it only affects them.

Unless my opponent can demonstrate how owning chickens is harmful to other innocent, non-consenting individuals, and also demonstrate how this harm is a greater harm than infringing upon one's liberty and sovereignty as an autonomous individual, my opponent has failed to make a case stronger than my own.
Debate Round No. 2
AmeliaFausty

Con

AmeliaFausty forfeited this round.
The_Chaos_Heart

Pro

My opponent has forfeit the round, and in doing so, has failed to make any form of counter argument. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TigerTime 4 years ago
TigerTime
AmeliaFaustyThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
AmeliaFaustyThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes several assumptions but does not really turn them into arguments, nor provides any justification or logic for them. While Pro did set a frame work for their arguments.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
AmeliaFaustyThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by con, better arguments by pro.