The Instigator
icedragon66
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MistyBlue
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

That the sale of fur should be banned

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...
MistyBlue
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,729 times Debate No: 37183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

icedragon66

Con

The sale of fur has many benefits that are helpful to the economy. If we shut down the fur-trade, a whole trading sector will collapse and may be the cause of a later Global Financial Crisis. 15 billion dollars are spent each year in the fur trade industry and if we ban the sale of fur, millions of jobs will also be lost. Many people depend on the fur trade, including the farmers, designers and the international auctioneers. It is very clear, that the sale of fur should no be banned.
MistyBlue

Pro

I accept.
Your main argument so far seems to be that banning fur would negatively affect the economy.Now, all those jobs are worth a lot, I know. But don't you think that lives of animals are just as important? Also, in this era of technology, faux fur is almost IDENTICAL to actual fur. And there are PLENTY of products on the market warmer than fur. In fact, I bet there is a lot of money to be made in alternative fabrics. The UK, Austria, and Croatia have all banned fur farming, and their economies aren't doing that bad. There is no ethicality about this industry. Animals are killed in whatever way preserves their fur the best. They are frequently skinned alive, electrocuted, etc. They feel excrutiating pain, don't kid yourself.The real thing is that these corporate companies are only concerned with making money. They COULD treat the animals more ethically, maybe kill them before skinning them, give them more than a few steps of space, but they don't. This won't change.
Debate Round No. 1
icedragon66

Con

I oppose.
You mentioned that faux fur is almost as warm as real fur. Faux fur is derived from non-renewable sources that are petroleum based. Scientists have predicted a dire situation fifty years from now. If we extract more of this finite source, future generations will be at risk. Real fur is also much warmer than faux fur as natural fur has a layer of insulation that has sufficed previous generations. Fake fur cannot provide that comfort.
I also disagree with your argument, that animals are treated under sever animal cruelty. You mentioned that animals are electrocuted and skinned alive. However; this is unwarranted as it is extremely unnecessary and a sadistic act to do. It is easier for the farmers to kill the animal with the least amount of pain, so as to save trouble for themselves. This act also lowers the fur-farmers profit as the animals pelt would have visible blemishes. Therefore; it is in the best interest of the farmer to dispatch animals in a painless and humane method.
MistyBlue

Pro

I came up with a good analogy for the economy: slavery. Slavery was an essential part of the economy, but it was horrific and inhumane, like the fur trade, and was banned even though the economy suffered a bit.
On the subject of environment, fur isn't so great either. The waste from the animals goes straight into the rivers, and kills off river life. One million pounds of feces are produced by US mink farms alone, which pollutes water with phosphorus. So you'd prefer having a dead animal dangling around your neck?
The farmers DON'T dispatch animals in a painless and humane manner. They are killed in any way that preserves their pelts. One of the most common ways are electrocution (which is VERY painful for the animals) and skinning them alive. Their throats are slit while they are still concious, and it all makes for a horrific story. There are no penalties for bad killing methods, and people take advantage of that.
Debate Round No. 2
icedragon66

Con

icedragon66 forfeited this round.
MistyBlue

Pro

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Tulbakra
Yet another example of how capitalism puts growth and making money ahead of ethicality and social progress.
Posted by Sauh 3 years ago
Sauh
What the hell, dumb guy; are you a jaunty French man?, who cares about "the fur trade"?
Hey the 21st century called, we have other methods of clothing ourselves, stop trapping beavers and whatnot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Tulbakra
icedragon66MistyBlueTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree laws need to be enacted to promote animal welfare, and I reject abolitionism. Animals are not humans, and cannot enter social contracts, so the only right they have is to not suffer. Pro gets conduct, as con forfieted a round. Spelling and grammer tied, arguments tied, both fairly uninteresting. Pro used a questionable source, PETA, but con used no sources so sources goes to pro.