That the sale of fur should be banned
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
icedragon66 forfeited this round.
I extend my arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tulbakra 3 years 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: 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.
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.