The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Should dogs be eaten?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 71262
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that dogs should be eaten. YOUR job is to argue that they shouldn't be.
1st round: Acceptance
2nd round: Argument.
3rd round rebuttal
4th round: rebutting the rebuttal/conclusion/talk to the voters if you want to.


I accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you. I will start my argument. 2

Dogs are edible, just like pigs and cows,
Eating dogs would be basically like eating pigs, cows, and other animals we"re eating. Except for that they"ll taste like".dog.

2. The process of killing dog may be changed.
An argument against killing the dogs were that the way of butchering dogs are too cruel. If we just change the process the dogs are butchered, it"ll be humane and reasonable to eat the dogs, just like humanely butchered cows and pigs. (And ducks".goats..lambs".etc)
3. "Dogs are the friend of humankind and therefore they should not be killed for food." This argument is void.
The dogs may or may not be the friend of humankind depending on how you raise the animals. Did you raise it as a pet or as a food? We could simply compare this to pigs. Pigs may be raised as a pet, or they may be killed for bacon. Some people will argue that since humans are also animals, we should be able to eat human (AKA legalize cannibalism) if we"re allow to eat dogs. I find several problem with this.
In most countries (Excluding the countries in anarchy), murders are illegal. Raising humans as livestock will also violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had stated "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." I am pretty sure that a human raising another human as livestock is not a spirit of brotherhood.
We"re in some way superior to the animals. We had invented thousands of things and managed to built a civilization, whereas animals had barely done any major achievement. Therefore we should not be compared to the animals.*

This is my arguments. I made this debate to improve my debate skills, so please feel free to criticise me as long it"s not very rude.
* Kind of ignorant, but also kind of true in terms of religion. I will let the voters decide whether this argument is valid or not.


You mention that people also raise pigs as pets, which is a good point, but there are different breeds of pig and the ones we use for bacon and the ones we raise as pets are very different. It is very, very rare for you to find a pig in someone's house while dogs are extremely common.

The other farm animals you mentioned give us more than just meat as a dog would. Cows give us meat and milk, chickens give us meat and eggs, and goats give us milk and meat in some cases. The pig is an exception, but being very fatty they would give us much more meat than a dog would. I think it is plainly unnecessary for people to eat dog. In countries where being hungry is common and people are generally poor, it is hard to come across a dog anyway. Besides, cows and chickens are a better choice considering you can domesticate them and use them to give you food periodically (like milk and eggs)

In the US, 47% of households own a dog. Only 2% of households own a pet pig. It is easier to bond with a dog then a pig (for most people, at least) considering people can do much more with dogs as pets. Logically speaking, dogs do not have the amount of meat on them other livestock do. Something else I would like to add is that dogs are omnivores, unlike most livestock. If they eat an animal with a disease, it is very easy for them to pick it up. My point here is that dogs are more likely to pick up diseases than other livestock, and if eaten could spread it on to humans. This is yet another reason why they would be an illogical food source.

In conclusion, people should not eat dogs because in places where food is scarce they are hard to come by anyway and they aren't a logical food source. Almost half of US households own a dog and many consider them as part of the family. Where it is a choice, very few people would openly chose to eat dog. It is a lot easier for dogs to pick up diseases, which could in turn make people very sick.

Since I noted you are looking for criticism to strengthen your debating skills, most of your argument was about why we shouldn't legalize cannibalism, which is not our topic. I would agree with you on that point.

Debate Round No. 2


I'll forfeit this round due to an unexpected tight schedule (Projects, exams, homeworks) I sincerely apologize. I'll forfeit 7 points. I will TRY to make an argument to the last round.


beachgirl67 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Dynasty2468 forfeited this round.


beachgirl67 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by beachgirl67 1 year ago
No problem Pro, whenever you have time is fine. I'm in no hurry.
Posted by really12 1 year ago
Does the context of "should" imply that we should start a whole dog meat production for such a type of meat to be consumed As regularly as cow or pig meat?

Or does it imply that in the instance of famine or starvation, we have no choice?
Posted by cerbspanda 1 year ago
If it was necessary, there wouldn't be a reason not to.
Posted by sp03 1 year ago
How can you possibly think that dog eating is good. It is a ridiculous topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were based on a statistical analysis of human emotional bonding with dogs, and Pro's rebuttals were to expected arguments that were never posted. S&G and sources are equal; both sides forfeited rounds.