Should sacrificing ceremony's/killing festivals be banned?
Unless you are going to legally enforce vegan-level animal rights as unquestionable rules, you cannot ban these ceremonies as long as the animal is a non-primate and isn't legally the pet of an individual that is not consenting to it.
To ban these ceremonies, you would need to legally equate all non-human animals to human beings but then they'd just resort to insects most likely (religion, despite its apparent rigidity is actually very adaptable with times).
It's not practical to protect animals to the level we do human beings because not only can animals not testify in court due to language barriers but too many people would riot and protest the moment meat was banned, let alone milk or eggs.
Animals definitely do not and never will benefit from killing festivals. Whole pods are killed, family's, friends are killed. this acceptable? It's not and it's not in the animal's best interest either. This reckless behaviour isn't beneficial for the environment either and it's affecting not just that species of animal, but the whole food chain. This isn't even debatable, this is happening for no reason, apart the killers pleasure. Here animals are suffering for no reason and it's terrible to think that this is also legal. These animals never did any harm to us do why are we knocking them out of existence, no wonder why all these species of animals are going extinct. No one understands what they are doing, how much harm they are causing not just for each individual animal but the whole planet!
When you say 'ban', you mean legally prevent. If you want to enforce such laws, you must first upgrade animal rights to near-vegan levels.
You have yet to explain how you could successfully do this in today's society.
It cannot work from a practical standpoint. It's not animal abuse since it counts as simple slaughter and they can easily say they were intending to eat it but it was off etc.
It's easier to let them occur as it leaves everyone at peace and as a leader of a nation you want this.
I would like to know where you have gotten all your information form. I would also like to know some of your main points to back up your arguments seems although you haven't provided any so far and this is the last round.
You do not need to go through the processes you have suggested to create a ban anyway because I have signed a petition to stop a organisation like this. By signing this I helped stop the festival, the 'Yulin dog meat festival' where dogs are stolen from owners, tied to a rope and dragged along the road by a car to the next house. This happens in the dark of the night. Once they have gotten enough dogs they then take it back to "HQ" or whatever you want to call it to process the meat etc.
Thanks to over 3 million people signing this petition this festival was banned this year, so what were you trying to imply? You are also trying to put across the point that these animals don't matter. I am making this clear for you also, this is a website were you show your opinion and share you knowledge and information through debating. Not at any stage did I say I was going to start making a major fuss out of this and take it to court etc. like you are trying to imply I am simply informing and debating your information and comparing it to mine. At no point did I say that I would ever stop this I am just suggesting to people to take a stand. I am just informing people of the terrible things that happen. I am just persuading people to join my side.
These types of festivals are so terrible and should not exist, they are terribly wrong and have horrific slaughtering done for what reason? No reason. Is this what animals deserve?
Perhaps Pro is not familiar with debating but one of the most basic concepts in debating are the roles of each side and what the resolution is:
Negative/Con: The side that “negates” the resolution (is “con” the issue).
Resolution: A specific statement or question up for debate. Resolutions usually appear as statements of policy, fact or value.
Statement of policy: Involves an actor (local, national, or global) with power to decide a course of action. For example, Resolved: The United States federal government should implement a poverty reduction program for its citizens.
Statement of fact: Involves a dispute about empirical phenomenon. For example, Resolved: Global warming threatens agricultural production.
Statement of value: Involves conflicting moral dilemmas. For example, Resolved: The death penalty is a justified method of punishment.
This resolution could be seen as both a statement of policy and a statement of value. Regardless, the term ‘banning’ in relation to the sacrificing of animals is mentioned in it. Pro has been upholding this resolution the entire debate and yet in round 3 acts shocked that I would dare to accuse them of using this term when the very resolution they are upholding (and wrote themselves) uses this specific term.
The legal definition of ban[http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...] is a proclamation, or public notice any summons or edict by which a thing is forbidden or commanded.
That is not just some random Internet definition, that is, itself, from a further source: A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Now, please enlighten me as to how Pro has entirely evaded any practical issues regarding both the feasibility of getting the law passed and the inevitability of violent uproar at such an unpopular law that would require animals to have the same rights as humans, in the legal sense.
Whether we look at more or less economically developed countries it’s a stark minority that are vegetarian (let alone vegan).[ http://www.raw-food-health.net...] 3.2% of USA is estimated to be vegetarians, 3% of Austria, 2% of Belgium, 0.3% of Portugal and many other shockingly low stats for vegetarianism in a nation mean that so many nations would be in huge uproar if the laws of animal rights changed to equate killing an animal to murder.
According to this survey: http://www.vrg.org... based on USA’s population and based on the adult population (18+), 2.3%, never eat meat, poultry, fish/seafood (vegetarian) and 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish/seafood, dairy products/eggs (vegan, except for possibly honey). How would you democratically pass a law in a nation where only 3.7% of the adult population would be in support of it and not be actively against it?
Assuming this resolution is relevant to USA, or perhaps EU or China, these are the world’s superpowers in meat production [http://www.businessinsider.com...] with Brazil being a superpower in poultry and beef but not pork, unlike its competitors worldwide.
I conclude that no legal banning of these sacrifices could ever be realistically implemented in anywhere other than a vegetarian-dominated nation such as India, where these sacrifices never really occur anyway.
Pro has consistently stated that they find personal issue with the sacrificing of animals as well as the treatment of the animals in the ceremonies prior to their execution. Perhaps the abuse of the animals prior to their slaughter could be legally clamped down on but the sacrificing itself realistically could not.
Pro concludes their case by stating they do not want to take it to court and would never go as far as to seek legal prevention of these activities yet this is the only ‘ban’ that could ever work towards wiping these ceremonies out.
|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||4|