The Instigator
ishant117
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheWorldIsComplicated
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should we eat death row prisoners as meat

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 404 times Debate No: 92767
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

ishant117

Pro

I know it may sound bizarre but I really don't see any problem in eating the death row prisoners for meat.
please don't judge me. I am a normal person, not a man eater, but to create a really out of the box topic, I have chosen this topic. I personally don't believe in this.
But in debate I will use all my possibilities to win.
I request you to keep this debate just a debate and nothing more than that.
TheWorldIsComplicated

Con

I accept this debate. I believe that eating other humans, regardless if they are on death row is simply disgusting. A human that has been killed after death row should not be eaten. How would you like it if your father was given a lethal injection, and then they ate him? You'd feel pretty horrible that you don't get to lay your father to rest because a bunch of people ate them. Humans are not wild animals, we know what we should and shouldn't do and eating a dead one is simply out of question.

Even though someone was executed, they still have the rights afterwards like any of human being would have. Eating other humans is a mental illness. Letting people eating the executed would be promoting an actual mental illness. I can't believe you would even create such a horrible debate.

"Hylen said cannibalism often begins as a fantasy, which the person plays out in his or her head. But when that person gets a taste for real, "the pleasure center of the brain becomes activated and large amounts of dopamine are released "- similar to what happens when someone ingests a drug like cocaine."

Once that happens, Hylen said, the burgeoning cannibal"s brain becomes conditioned to seek out the activity in order to obtain the feeling again, which leads to a cycle of cannibalism that can only be stopped through outside intervention."
Debate Round No. 1
ishant117

Pro

Con,
I have already said that "please don't judge me". I have created this debate just to try something new and creepy, that's it.
One day this idea just popped into my head and I felt to create a debate out of it.

Arguments-
1-See, the prisoners who are injected a lethal injection or who are executed are definitely not social workers or saints,right?.
They are hardcore criminals such as murderers, rapists, etc, who themselves have killed many other humans. I don't think they deserve any human rights and giving them a proper funeral would make no difference between a good human and these dangers to society.
If my father would have committed such crimes and then sentenced to death, I wouldn't have given a 2nd thought about him, because nothing justifies a criminal and that too murderers who get death.

2- Cannibalism is a mental disease, agreed because it involves killing innocent human for eating, but I am not talking about that but about death row inmates and as I said above, they are hardly humans, and should be just eliminated as soon as possible.

3-You are saying that eating other man's flesh is addictive, but that is also true for all the non-veg that we eat. Eating chicken, mutton, beef, pork, etc are all as addictive as consuming cocaine or heroine, BUT have we given up eating those, absolutely not. So why lay extra emphasis on this.

4-You are saying that eating other man's flesh is a DISGUSTING and HORRIBLE idea, OK.
Then why not eating other animals is also considered horrible and disgusting. Why are we comfortable eating innocent animals. Why does 95% of world's population consumes meat.
Eating meat increases our chances of getting heart attack, blood pressure, cancer and many other diseases.
A scientific study has said that If people stopped eating meat, than all the people on this globe will get enough food since 20 vegetarian people's food is equal to only 2 non vegetarian's food.
Because of these meat eaters, lakhs of people are dying and are malnutrition ed in poor countries such as Congo, Ghana, and many more.
But have we stopped eating meat? Certainly not. We don't give a damn about other people dying or the diseases which we are prone to get by consuming meat, because for us, SATISFYING our taste buds is more important than other MAN's life.
Isn't it? In fact meat consumption is increasing by each year.
So definitely humans DON'T know what they" SHOULD DO" or what they" SHOULD NOT," as quoted by you.

5-So basically we are fine eating innocent WILD animals who are CONTRIBUTING so much to our ecological system in which the HUMAN RACE is surviving but we have a problem eating other man who is USELESS to the society, and in fact is DANGEROUS for people. Why?

6- We have no problems when a cow or buffalo is cut which are so much useful to us but we will not except eating other man as food though he is on a death row. If you ask this question to a normal guy outside, he will just say that- "come on man. Eating other man is not right. We are humans, not wild animals" as also quoted by. But can you answer why it is not right? certainly not. One reason for this is that We humans think that we are the most superior species on this planet and deserve every form of respect and dignity, but the truth is that we are the most menacing and harmful species for planet EARTH. REMEMBER, the development which we are doing is only for humans and not for animals and tribal people living in forests but an animal's and tribal's contribution is for them as well as for us. We are also polluting EARTH just to satisfy our greed which has also made life for other species HARDER, SO- "HOW AND WHY ARE WE THE MOST SUPERIOR SPECIE ON EARTH AS HAS WRONGFULLY BEEN ASSUMED BY US". AND why is a HUMAN life more important than an ANIMAL life.

7- Humans tend to believe in what has been taught to them since childhood. We are comfortable eating animals since we have seen this since we were kids, but eating humans is a taboo, as it is considered, and that's why YOU reacted by saying-"how can you even start a debate on such horrible idea".

8- Humans have consumed other human's flesh in cases of famine in Korea and also in 20th century when some 90 people were trapped on a mountain, and since they had nothing to eat they started eating their dead friends, as when they were rescued they were only 45 of them.
So this proves that it is not dangerous for health as all the survivors showed no sign of any kind of health complications after being rescued, and don't forget, it was raw meat, not even cooked.

9- Human eats every living moving object, just man is remaining on his MENU.

10- I am not telling to eat innocent people for food, but the dangerous NON-CONTRIBUTORS to the society.

11- So far you haven't given any solid reason, that why should we not consume death row prisoners and what's wrong in that.
You just have stated that it is disgusting, horrible, mental illness, and other impractical arguments like that

12- Please tell me one good reason why HUMAN life is more important than ANIMAL life.

I am looking forward to some really solid points, which have logic. Please don't again repeat that- How can you eat other human, it is Horrible, Disgusting, How would you feel if someone would eats your dad and other such stuff as I believe that I have countered all those points above.

Looking forward for your arguments.
TheWorldIsComplicated

Con

Prisoners who are executed are abominations to society, but the family is not responsible for what they have done so they have a right to bury them. In a regular graveyard, there are just bodies, it doesn't matter whether they are good or bad people, they are just corpses. If he is your father, and he claims his innocence and then he is eaten how would you feel then? He could be wrongly convicted. The ground already eats people up, we don't need to get involved in that.

After a human being is executed, whether or not you like it, they were someone so they should be able to get a proper burial. What does eating them do? Eating someone does not do anything, therefore there is absolutely no point in eating them. They have faced the hardest punishment, what good would punishing them after they have died do?

There is a huge difference between eating another humans flesh and eating an animals. Humans are humans, they walk, talk, and are somehow associated with our society. Animals on the other hand, are needed to provide the proper amount of protein. Human flesh has little to none, seeing as there isn't much meat on the bones. Eating regular meat is fine, it prevents things like diabetes and helps muscle growth. As they have proven, eating human flesh is addictive, but most people who go through withdraw from regular meat are going through it because they have a sudden lack of protein. That is the key difference: Human Flesh is totally unneeded l, whereas regular meat eaters go through a lack of protein withdraw.

Let me ask you this, would you eat human flesh? Your answer is probably No , right? Chickens are not human beings. They can not think for themselves and probably aren't even aware that they exist. Just think about it, you can play the "why" game all you want, but pigs, cows, chickens, etc have been eaten since the dawn of time, but even way back when, cannibalism was still frowned upon. It isn't my fault that people are starving in Congo, how is that even relevant?

Eating meat can caused diseases if it is processed, but regular meat is fine. The key is moderation. You are going way off topic and seem to be discussing whether or not we should eat meat rather than should we eat dead prisoners. I never said humans don't know what they should or shouldn't do. I said cannibal's brains have an urge for human flesh, they are insane, not everyone.

Like I said earlier, there is a big difference between a wild animal and a executed prisoner. A heard of wild Buffalo will kill you in the wild, so by your logic they are useless to society. This is a moral question, we don't eat humans because they are humans, and in a way wouldn't that like be killing them twice? Humans are humans, wild animals are wild.

You're really just starting to repeat what you have said multiple times already, which I have answered. Prisoners are still humans, wild animals are not. Wild animals will try to kill you in an instant, just like a prisoner would. You wouldn't eat a human, but you would eat meat so don't be a hypocrite. We are the most superior species, we aren't living in the jungle anymore and are far more intelligent than other animals. Can most animals cook and clean or think for themselves? No.

You do realize that most of the global warming is caused by the warming of the Earth right? No us. Animals make other animals go extinct too, it isn't just us. You are WAY off topic again. Let me ask you this, if a car was speeding down a road and you had to save a dog or a child, who would you save? The child of course. Humans have more of a bond than animals. Eating animals has always been normal, eating humans has never been normal.

I never said eating human flesh could make you sick, it is a physiological issue. You are talking about something totally different, there is no need to eat an executed prisoner. If they are in a jail, everyone else most likely has food. Being stranded on a mountain and eating someone is still disgusting, do you think they wanted to eat them? Eating a human regardless of what they have done is sick. You are no better than a killer if you eat their dead body. The Pro has claimed I have offered no valid reasons, but the physiological aspect is very important. You wouldn't want to encourage a mental illness would you? You have not proved anything, you have merely attempted to explain why humans and animals are equal. Humans are more important than animal life because we have evolved more. All animals think that their kind are the most important.

Pro has failed to provide any valid reasons and their argument went way off topic. They have discussed why we shouldn't eat animals, nothing to do with whether or not we should eat dead prisoners. From these reasons vote Con.

http://breakingmuscle.com...
http://www.nutrientrich.com...
https://liveto110.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ishant117

Pro

Con quoted-"Prisoners who are executed are abominations to society, but the family is not responsible for what they have done so they have a right to bury them. After a human being is executed, whether or not you like it, they were someone so they should be able to get a proper burial."
Argument-I never said the family is responsible for those criminals, but who said that they should be buried and why it is important. It is just a ritual which is created by the society and men.

FACT- Burial is very bad and has many demerits-
1- The embalming process is toxic.
2 -Many materials go into a process.
3- Memorial parks use a lot of space and resources.
4- Funeral are very expensive.
http://www.techinsider.io...
So you realize that it is better to eat them and not to bury them and they were just criminals who SHOULDN'T be given a proper burial( burial has many demerits).

Con quoted -"If he is your father, and he claims his innocence and then he is eaten how would you feel then? He could be wrongly convicted"-
Argument- You are talking about a situation which is 1 in 100 and GENERALLY actual culprits are only given death sentences, but exceptions exist everywhere, can't help.

Con quoted- "Eating someone does not do anything, therefore there is absolutely no point in eating them."
Argument- Why eating someone doesn't do anything. It is good because-
1- Many people will get a new dish, food and taste to eat, the same way we get by eating an animal.
2- Many people will get food.
3- Anyways men eats every living thing which is able to move so why not criminals.
4- It's better than burying them as I said above.

Con quoted- "There is a huge difference between eating another humans flesh and eating an animals. Humans are humans, they walk, talk, and are somehow associated with our society. Animals on the other hand, are needed to provide the proper amount of protein"
Argument-
1-Why there is a huge difference in eating a man and eating an animal. So what that men can walk, talk, and are associated to our society. Animals also walk, communicate, and are associated to their animal kingdom.
2-Just because you think that Man is the most superior of species. This is wrong.
3-Who gave you the right to eat animals. Just because some early evil men decided to do so and the society is carrying on the same tradition, It doesn't mean that something is right.
4-Just because we have our brains developed then animals, it doesn't give a right to us to eat them.

Con quoted- "As they have proven, eating human flesh is addictive, but most people who go through withdraw from regular meat are going through it because they have a sudden lack of protein. That is the key difference: Human Flesh is totally unneeded l, whereas regular meat eaters go through a lack of protein withdraw"
Argument-
1- There are crores of vegetarians in the world who are healthy and not have a lack of proteins.
2- If you think you have a lack of proteins then there are many vegetarian food which are very good in proteins and eating meat is certainly not the only option left.
3- Non vegetarians are on a sudden lack of proteins when they leave non veg food but that is because they were consuming non veg food in the first place. Why?
4- Non vegetarians only eat meat because they crave for its taste and are addicted to eat that and cover this fact by giving the reason of PROTEINS.
5- Veg food rich in proteins- Rice and Wheat, pulses, soy beans, corns, carrot, milk, egg, etc.

Con quoted-"Let me ask you this, would you eat human flesh? Your answer is probably No , right? Chickens are not human beings. They can not think for themselves and probably aren't even aware that they exist. Just think about it, you can play the "why" game all you want, but pigs, cows, chickens, etc have been eaten since the dawn of time, but even way back when, cannibalism was still frowned upon. It isn't my fault that people are starving in Congo, how is that even relevant?"
Argument-
1- Chickens are not humans, cannot think for themselves, and also don't know that they exist but that doesn't mean they are not contributing to the society. They are maintaining the ecological balance for you and me to survive. And anyways WHO gave you the right to eat other living being. source- https://www.reference.com...
2- Yes I agree that pigs, cows, chickens, etc have been eaten since the dawn of time but that doesn't make it a RIGHT practice and tradition. does it? ex- Prostitution has also been there since the dawn of time and mankind but then also today it has been banned in many parts of the world.
3- Cannibalism has been frowned upon since ages but that is again created by society and as I said in my previous debate argument, that you grow up believing in what the society teaches you, whether it is right or wrong.
4- It is definitely your fault and fault of every non vegetarian in this world that people around the world are dying because of lack of food. explanation- People demand non veg food, so these animals are deliberately bred and multiplied in huge numbers. Where these animals should have been 100 naturally, now they are 5000 in number. Now in order to feed them and make them healthy so people can consume them, they are given the veg food and water which would have otherwise been given to the humans, and hence people in poor countries are dying because of lack of food. Statistics say that vegetarian food for 20 people = non veg food for 2 people. So, definitely you all non vegetarians are responsible for hunger and deaths in poor countries like Somalia, Congo, etc, because you all are addicted to that taste. aren't you?
Please refer these and you will understand my point and explanation completely-
https://www.youtube.com...

Con quoted-"Like I said earlier, there is a big difference between a wild animal and a executed prisoner. A heard of wild Buffalo will kill you in the wild, so by your logic they are useless to society. This is a moral question, we don't eat humans because they are humans, and in a way wouldn't that like be killing them twice? Humans are humans, wild animals are wild"
Argument-
1- A heard of wild buffaloes will kill you in the wild because their mind is not as developed as humans but that doesn't mean you should kill and eat them for your food purposes. As I said they are doing their contribution to the environment.
And any sane and logical man would not go into the wild without any protection, I believe con!
But yes you can kill anyone to save yourself, may be an animal.
No, it wouldn't be killing them twice as I said, BURYING them has many disadvantages so just eat them right?

Con quoted- "Prisoners are still humans, wild animals are not. Wild animals will try to kill you in an instant, just like a prisoner would. You wouldn't eat a human, but you would eat meat so don't be a hypocrite"
Argument-
1- I am just saying either you eat both prisoners and animals or don't eat any of them, that's it. I didn't get why you are calling me a hypocrite. I am pretty clear on my words.
2-And humans eat chicken, goat, cow, fish, camel, who are friendly and very good pets, These animals are not wild and would not kill you in an instant.
3-Humans around the world generally don't consume any wild animals but these innocent pets and animals are there favorite dishes, so you first get the FACTS.

Con quoted-" We are the most superior species, we aren't living in the jungle anymore and are far more intelligent than other animals. Can most animals cook and clean or think for themselves? No.
Argument-
1- Yes I agree with you, we are the most intelligent species and aren't living in the jungle anymore, but we are definitely NOT the most SUPERIOR because-
a) Humans are doing everything (development in every field, growing, increasing their potentials, etc) only for themselves and not for anybody else. They are doing this to satisfy their greed and curiosity and not so that everybody can live at peace. Poor are still dying but other human doesn't give a damn. In animals, all are equal.
b) Humans are criminals like murderer, fraud, rapist, robber, thugs, goons, etc., whereas no other specie is.
c)Humans are the most GREEDY species on the planet.All other species just use what they need and leave the rest for others but we try to take everything for ourselves.
d)Human communities are never at peace. There are wars, caste, discrimination, competition, etc which is not seen in animals and other species
e)Human species is the only specie where- A single person is responsible for killing millions. This is not seen in animals.
f) Humans living in cities pollute the environment the maximum and very badly because of which global warming is raising habitats are getting destroyed and even animals and tribals are being affected rigorously due to this.

So definitely humans ARE NOT the most SUPERIOR species
INTELLIGENT of all, YES.

- NO ANIMAL is responsible for extincting other animals. It's only we humans. Con is not clear about the facts and framing wrong statements to win.

- Eating animals and not eating humans is normal because society has taught us that and we are grown seeing this BUT that DOESN'T NOT make it right or the IDEAL thing.

- According to con if every prisoner eater is a killer than - every non-vegetarian is also a killer,.(of animals)

-I am just saying that-
There is nothing wrong in eating death row prisoners as I have explained in all my points above.
I conclude by -
-Either you eat both- animals and humans or you don't eat anyone.

http://www.bustle.com...
http://www.peta.org...

Con just has psychological reasons in his arguments but I have given solid ones. Voters, please think something new and don't focus on the tradition path.
TheWorldIsComplicated

Con

Well, what else are you going to do eith a dead prisoner? Cremation is very expensive, so they would have to bury the body. It's important because we can't just have dead bodies lying around, we are civilized. I,frankly, don't want to see dead bodies on the streets or outside of a prison. It is a ritual, but you could argue anything is "ritual." It's failed logic to call it a ritual. I've proven that it isn't a ritual, vote con.

"The embalming process is toxic" well, so is leaving the bodies out and so is cremation. Memorials park do use a lot of space, but many places don't need new ones, it will take years until it is full. Cremation is more expansive then funerals, which is what you will eventually have to do to the bodies.

One in a hundred people is a lot. So if everyone was a criminal, 1% of the population would be wrongly executed. That is a ton of people. No one that is sane will eat a dead body, it is just human instinct to not eat others. Most people would not eat a dead body even it was the last thing that they had. Like I said,d you will eventually have to bury the bodies, you can't eat bones.

Your animal logic is incomplete. A human is way more intelligent, we dominate the ecosystem, therefore we control what goes on. It's a fact man is the most superior species. Can other species develop an iPhone or do Heart Surgery? No. We gave ourselfs to eat animals. Pro is going way off topic and is getting in an animal debate.

Vegetarians need to eat much more to gain the proper amount of protein. Therefore, they would eat more and gain weight which is certainly not healthy. Your point 3 doesn't make any sense. Meat eaters do not lack protein. Your fourth pain has already been explained. It's proven that eating human flesh is physiological, eating animals isn't. Meat has more protein than what you have mentioned.

Pro is going way off topic once again, he is giving reasons why we should eat animals. Pro fails to understand that animals and humans are different. It isn't my fault that others are suffering. You make no sense. I can't control with North Korea's starvation. I guess it's everyone's fault that 9/11 happened...

Your contradicting yourself. You said animals were smart and not superior to humans, so why is it ok for them to kill us but not for us to kill them? We contribute to environment to killing animals, if we didn't they would eventually run out of food in the wild!

http://www.livescience.com...

http://kblog.lunchboxbunch.com...

The rest of your argument is way off topic and is basically saying why humans aren't superior to animals. My opponent has gone way off topic and have barely addressed the topic. For that reason, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SJM// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Since this pretty much revolved around why humans are superior to animals, I voted con because pro failed to explain why being greedy does not make someone superior. Also, pro make the argument that humans make advancements of greed and curiosity, which isn't supported just because there are poor people, and doesn't explain how that denies them being superior. Con did refute his argument about the burial process, and what made humans superior.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both sides. In this case, the voter does so for Pro, but not for Con, instead merely stating that Pro successfully refuted certain points without explaining what arguments were effective.
************************************************************************
Posted by Samuel_Bazarov 11 months ago
Samuel_Bazarov
Chillax people. It's a cool debate topic, although I'm against the partaking of human flesh. I really enjoyed this argument and the points both sides brought up. Although I don't agree with pro, I'm voting him because he made the better argument.
Posted by Jamais23 11 months ago
Jamais23
Unless you are Jeffrey Dahmer, eating a human flesh is disgusting and a truly bizarre idea to suggest. CON all the way.
Posted by compudog 11 months ago
compudog
I LOVE the idea of this as debate, but I don't think it's appropriate on a technical basis; as fascinating a topic as I find it, it's one that can't be debated dispassionately unless everyone involved is either a believer in life after death or a non-believer in life after death.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 11 months ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
wtf
No votes have been placed for this debate.