Should dogs be eaten?
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
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.
beachgirl67 forfeited this round.
Dynasty2468 forfeited this round.
beachgirl67 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.