The Instigator
euni
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stupidape
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 94356
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

euni

Pro

Welcome to the debate, ladies and gentlemen.
So under the motion This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat,I would like to go for today's motion.

The arguments will soon be presented as the Con accepts today's debate.
Stupidape

Con

I accept, though there is some ambiguity what the house is. Therefore, I will define it. [0]

Since I am efficiently making the affirmative statement I will go first.

The house, USA house of representatives will allow the consumption of dog meat. This is because of world hunger and food insecure. [1] "In 2012, 49 million Americans struggled with hunger, according to the USDA. That's 16 percent of the population, nearly double the then unemployment rate."[2]

America and other countries could use another source of meat. The answer of course is dog meat. If you look at the statistics, many dogs are euthanized each year. [3] These dogs could instead be feeding the hungry.

Now only that but it costs $2 billion dollar annually in the process. Considering the huge debt America of over 19 trillion dollars it is, the only logical choice is to turn these dogs into food. [4]

Now some people may have some qualms about changing society. Nevertheless, justice trumps uncomfortable feelings. Just as gay marriages are approved by the supreme court. [5] Are we really going to let our uneasy feelings about eating dog meat stand in the way of justice? Nay, the America people will surely convince the House of represnitives to do the moral course of action and feed the hungry.

Thanks for the debate, I look forward to your response.

0. http://www.house.gov...
1. http://www.wfp.org...
2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
3. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
4. http://www.brillig.com...
5. http://www.npr.org...
Debate Round No. 1
euni

Pro

Welcome to the debate, ladies and gentlemen.
So under the motion This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat,I would like to go for today's motion.

The arguments will soon be presented as the Con accepts today's debate.

Thank you very much for accepting today's debate.
Now let's move on to the main debate.

So in our current status quo, there are many people who are violating the rights of the animals. This lead to many individuals, and organizations to oppose and stand for the animals, saying that we have the obligation to protect the rights of any kind of living creatures in this world.

Moving on to the rebuttals, I would like to rebut to the points the Opposition has stated.
Basically what the opposition has been saying is that we could eat other living creatures for our own goods.
Now what I see is problematic, is that we could kill and butcher other creature when we are in need. As a responsible government, I believe that killing another creature is immoral in the first place, and also I would like to rebut other points in my arguments.

Before we move on, I would like to define some few key words in today's debate. This house regards to the democratic government of all nations. Consumption regards to any kind of digestion.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to move on to my first two arguments.

1. Justification
The proposition believes that it is not justified to kill another creature living in this world. Every single living creature deserves the life to live, as long as there are no third-party harms. Ladies and gentlemen, what the animals lack than the human being is, intelligence. They are capable of doing everything else, like eating sleeping, or expressing emotions. However, they lack intelligence to judge, to make decisions, and whatnot. So what the opposition is basically saying, is that we could also kill the people who lack intelligence, like disabled people! The proposition believes that what the opposition has been saying is very offending to the others. Therefore, we believe that killing animals is not a legitimate action for human beings to do.

2. Animal Rights
Ladies and gentlemen, we believe that animals have the rights to be protected, and whatnot. The proposition believes that it is the government's role to set the moral standard in the society. In other words, we believe that the government the obligation to tell people what is wrong, and what is right to do.

Ladies and gentlemen, is it okay to eat your companion if you are lacking of food? Is it okay to give up your dignity when it comes to scarcity of food? The proposition firmly claims that no matter how hungry you are, you should never ever eat your companion. Dogs are different from horses, cows, chickens, and pigs. Those animals are not raised as your companion. Some people may have them as pets, but do they actually care much as dogs and cats, where you buy them clothes, shoes, and feed them with food that are even higher quality than the food YOU eat? The answer is a clear NO. Therefore, I am proud to propose.

Thank you again for Con to accept the debate.
Stupidape

Con

Thanks for continuing the debate.

One interesting note my opponent made was using the word creature. My opponent actually wants to protect all living creatures should not be eaten, that includes plants and bacteria. We would starve.

"a. A living being, especially an animal: land creatures; microscopic creatures in a drop of water." [6]

"Before we move on, I would like to define some few key words in today's debate. This house regards to the democratic government of all nations. Consumption regards to any kind of digestion." euni

Considering some countries are second and third world, I think this put an undue burden on them. I was willing to argue just in the USA, but if you want to make the argument much more difficult by protecting dogs in third world countries, so bit.

To reiterate, this discussion is about eating dogs worldwide. I strongly disagree. There is too much world hunger. When human children are starving to death we can't worry too much about animal rights.

"Total number of children that die every year from hunger 1,250,000" [7]

Tragically, one and a quarter million human children starve to death each year. I love animals at much as the average person, and there is no way I can rationalize such a decision. We must put the lives of starving children above those of dogs. To impose such lofty goals on 3rd world and 2nd world countries is immoral. Despite my opponent's good intentions their proposal would cause more harm than good by causing more children to starve to death.

"So what the opposition is basically saying, is that we could also kill the people who lack intelligence, like disabled people! " euni

One more note about my opponent stating that I was suggesting cannibalism. Considering the circumstances, I think cannibalism is the morally superior choice. If a person has to choose between murdering and cannibalizing a disabled person or their children starving to death, what do you think the person would do? Any sane person would make the rational choice and feed their children.

Thank you for the debate.

Sources
6. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
7. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Debate Round No. 2
euni

Pro

I appreciate your arguments.

Now I would like to begin with rebutting to what the previous speaker had told us.
So the opposition has been telling us that when it comes to people starving to death, we cannot avoid eating dog meat. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the proposition believes that even if there are people starving to death, that doesn't mean we should lose our rationality and kill off other animals for our own sake. Moreover, the proposition believes that there are plenty of other choices apart from killing off our companion animals. For example, there are cows, chickens, pigs, and whatnot.

Now I would like to present the last argument of the proposition bench.

3. Significant Change

Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition believes that there will be much burden on the government to deal with illegal sales and killing of the dogs. In the current status quo, there are so many individuals who eat dog meat. Despite so many opposing organizations and individuals saying that we should not eat dog meat, many people do so. We believe that if the government tells the citizens not to eat dog meat, then less people will do so, instead of leaving it up to them. Therefore, I think that it would brush the burden off the government's shoulders of having to deal with such immoral actions.
Stupidape

Con

"I appreciate your arguments.

Now I would like to begin with rebutting to what the previous speaker had told us.
So the opposition has been telling us that when it comes to people starving to death, we cannot avoid eating dog meat. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the proposition believes that even if there are people starving to death, that doesn't mean we should lose our rationality and kill off other animals for our own sake. Moreover, the proposition believes that there are plenty of other choices apart from killing off our companion animals. For example, there are cows, chickens, pigs, and whatnot." euni


Thanks for continuing to debate. If these people are starving to death, what other options do they have? Surely, they would eat all the cows, chickens, pigs, and whatnot first. Nay, the choice clearly would be between eating the companion animal and starving to death. Second, I find it arbitrary for humans to eat cows, pigs, and chickens but not dogs and cats. Pigs and chickens can be companion animals too. [8][9]

Considering the number of dog bite fatalities, I'm not sure dogs are the best companion animals for humans. [10] Impact, dog's companion animal status compared to other animals seems arbitrary at best.

"3. Significant Change

Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition believes that there will be much burden on the government to deal with illegal sales and killing of the dogs. In the current status quo, there are so many individuals who eat dog meat. Despite so many opposing organizations and individuals saying that we should not eat dog meat, many people do so. We believe that if the government tells the citizens not to eat dog meat, then less people will do so, instead of leaving it up to them. Therefore, I think that it would brush the burden off the government's shoulders of having to deal with such immoral actions." euni

My opponent believes the above to be true, but provides no evidence. I don't think we should believe my opponent based upon his/her faith based argument. Many nations are losing the war on drugs. [11] This is because black markets create more profit for criminals. Despite our best efforts to end dog fighting, it is still happening and on the rise. [12]

Yes, you read right, we are not only losing the war on drugs, but on dog fighting. An interesting fact is dog meat is legal in several states in the USA. Yes, that is right dog meat is legal in the USA. [13]

Now, if we ban the sale of dog meat in the USA we will only encourage a black market. Thanks for debating.




Sources
8. https://www.pigs.org...
9. http://www.chickenrescue.org...
10. http://www.dogsbite.org...
11. https://www.theguardian.com...
12. http://www.ocregister.com...
13. http://theanimalrescuesite.greatergood.com...
Debate Round No. 3
euni

Pro

Thank you for your reply.

Now that the proposition has finished with presenting the arguments, I would like to rebut to what the opposition team has been stating throughout this debate.

So ladies and gentlemen, the opposition rebutted to my argument about how we have other options when lacking food. The opposition has stated that chickens and pigs could be a companion animal too. However ladies and gentlemen, we have to take a look at the current status quo where people do everything for their dogs and/or cats. For example, people feed dogs and cats better food than what humans eat, and buy clothes, shoes for them, and even take them to the vet more than they themselves see a doctor. Moreover, since the opposition has not clearly shown us how chickens and pigs could be companion animals, proposition takes this clash home.

Secondly, the opposition has been talking about how the sale of dog meat in the US will only encourage a black market. Not only did the con not provide any supporting ideas, he/she did not prove to us clearly how such situation may happen.

Thank you for the debate.
Stupidape

Con

Apparently in the USA we do everything for our pets be eating them in 44 states. [13]

As for the black market we can see through probition in the USA and the war on drugs that the black market thrives from banning those practices. Here is a lengthy link about why we shouldn't outlaw meat. [14] In short, by making dog meat taboo we only encourage the activity and make it more proftiable for criminals. Thanks for the debate.

Source

14. http://theanimalrescuesite.greatergood.com...;
Debate Round No. 4
euni

Pro

As this debate has reached its end, I would like to summarize today's debate as the proposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, what has the proposition been telling you throughout this debate? First of all, our first argument was about justification, and how it is not justified to kill off another life for our own sake. Moreover, in our second argument, I have told you about the animal rights, and how it is not okay to kill our companion animals, and how cows and pigs are different from dogs and cats. Lastly, the proposition told you that it will bring about a significant change in our society, where less people will be eating dogs, and thereby reducing any immoral actions like this.

The proposition is very proud to propose the three arguments, and I would like to give a huge thanks to Con for continuing the debate with such great arguments.
Stupidape

Con

Thanks for debating. To support equal time I will not make an argument this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by euni 1 year ago
euni
PowerPikachu21

Well, apparently there are countries like China where people eat everything.
They eat lots of different animals like snakes, ants, and whatnot.
I hope that answered your question.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Does any country eat dogs, or any animal that Americans don't eat?
No votes have been placed for this debate.