This House would allow the consumption of dog meat
Debate Rounds (4)
The first round is for acceptance. You just have to say "I accept". Please do not start your arguments until the second round. If you have any questions about the debate, say in the first round. I will answer through either the second round or the comments.
The second round will only be for arguments. No rebuttals will be allowed until the third round.
The third round is for rebuttals, and for extra explanations for your current arguments. No new arguments are allowed
The forth round is for the conclusion. Rebuttals and extra explanations for current arguments are allowed. No new arguments are allowed.
1. No forfeits with no excuses. You should make sure that you have enough time to ensure a fun debate. Since you will have 72 hours from the time I post my arguments, please make sure you can keep that open window.
2. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
3. No trolling
4. No K's of the topic
5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the round set-ups merits a loss and the instigator has the power and authority to coerce the challenger to accepting so.
By accepting the challenge, you have agreed to all of these terms and set-ups
I look forward to an interesting debate!
I accept the debate and rules
The consumption of dog meat has long been contested within the larger argument of East versus West. Whereas some Eastern countries consider the consumption of dog meat to be a delicacy, most Western countries view the practice as a part of unnecessary suffering. Thus, the proposition proudly proposes the motion "This House would allow the consumption of dog meat.
Before moving on to the arguments, some definitions have to be made
Allow: To legalize within a country under strict government control
Dog meat: Meat that comes from dogs, however separate from the breeds that we use as pets
With these definitions, we proudly propose this policy:
1) A culture cannot be suppressed under any circumstances
2) It is alright if a culture disapproves of another culture's beliefs, however it cannot force another culture to change their beliefs
With these definitions and this policy, the proposition would like to propose these arguments:
1) A culture has the unalienable right to carry out their beliefs
A) Why a culture has the unalienable right to carry out their beliefs
Humans are naturally identified through their culture. Whether it be from the West or the East, every culture has the unalienable right to carry out their beliefs. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance". Culture falls under this category as it is a set of beliefs that cause people to form a culture in the first place. If a culture is suppressed, then that culture's beliefs are lost forever, losing the amount of creativity that we have left in the world. We cannot have a few cultures dominate over one another, thus one sure way to protect your own culture is to carry out your own beliefs, as long as it does not violate any other article within the declaration.
B) How eating dog meat falls under this category
Now that we have established that a culture has the unalienable right to carry out beliefs, it is clear that eating dog meat falls under this category. Occurring ever since the Neolithic age, eating dog meat has popped up in several regions throughout history. For example, dog bones were excavated in a Neolithic settlement in Changnyeong, South Korea. The reason why so many cultures have allowed to consumption is due to their belief that it may ward off heat during the summer and that it will bring good luck. As this is a belief, the cultures that believe in this must be allowed to carry out their beliefs, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2) The consumption of dog meat is similar to other forms of meat eating in other countries
A) Same treatment as other animals in other countries
Many anti-dog eating activists claim that due to the harsh treatment that dogs are kept in, this is a form of animal abuse, and therefore it must be banned. There are several flaws within this statement. First, there is a fundamental form of hypocrisy, as plenty of chickens, cows, pigs and other sources of meats are kept within the same or worse conditions. John Oliver, the host of Last Week Tonight, exposed the conditions in which chickens are forced to live in. They are unable to go out of the coop, thus prohibiting sunlight, and are force-fed feed in order to fatten them up as much as possible. Furthermore, there have been numerous outbreaks of mad-cow disease due to the fact that cows are literally given cows to eat. If the opposition believes that dog-eating should be banned due to animal cruelty, then we should also ban other forms of meat. Unless Western countries can prove that they put animals in better conditions than dogs, then they cannot force another culture to change their beliefs. Furthermore, what most people associate dogs with are pets. However, there are specific breeds of dogs that are raised purely for consumption, like cattle. Some examples include Nureongi, Hawaiian Poi and Xoloitzcuintle.
B) Similar nutritional value as other animals in other countries
Dr. George Nasinyama, a veterinary doctor and a meat specialist at Makerere University, states that dog meat has the same nutritional value as goat or cow meat, where the only difference is in the smell. We eat meat in order to gain a source of nutrition and protein, yet it is clear that dogs give the same amount of calories that other animals do. Thus, dogs in other cultures are similar to cattle in other countries, although they are different species.
3) Western bias has formed eating dog-meat as taboo
A) Animal cruelty has been overblown in the media
There have been many instances in which animal rights activists have been caught falsifying data in order to promote their own beliefs. Forms of editing or changes in lighting can significantly change the mood of a scene, and these corporations utilize this fact in order to try and promote their beliefs. According to the Times, the number of animal-abuse cases are significantly higher than the actual amount going on in the world. Thus, we cannot trust these animal rights activists to give data, but rather a third - impartial party, to which I challenge the opposition to give such a source.
B) Some Western countries also eat dog meat
Although seeming strange, many western countries also consume dog meat. For example in Switzerland, while the commercial slaughter and sale of dog meat is illegal, cultural attitudes towards slaughtering animals for meat is traditionally liberal. Furthermore in Australia and Canada, it is actually legal to eat dogs in most states and territories, although it is illegal to sell dog. meat. Lastly, numerous countries within Africa support the consumption of dog meat as well, thus eating-dog meat is a much larger practice than one might realize.
It is clear that the proposition has won today's debate as the proposition stands for the protection of cultures. We believe that any culture should have the right to carry out their beliefs. Thus, with our policy and arguments, it is clear that the proposition has taken this debate home.
Sorry it took me a little to post this, but I am happy to accept this debate.
For the begiining portion of my argument, I like to please address the definition of Dog Meat. The definition is "Dog flesh used as food" (1). With the idea of eating dog, I am highly against it for multiple reasons.
C1: Dog Meat is Unhealthy
I. Dog meat can easily contain diseases
The first argument I like to present are the diseases that can be recieved from the consumption of dog meat. The diseases from dog meat include: Rabies, Zoonotic Parasite, and many more (2). The effects of these diseases resulted in death, where one prime example of death recieved from dog meat is from Nigeria. "Nigeria has recorded its largest death toll in history of dog meat consumption" (3). This meat puts a risk to their health, and shouldn't be stood up for.
II. Comparatively to Other Meats, Dog Meat is Still Worse
Now my opponent can mostly make the argument that other meats from animals can be considered unhealthy. Is this true? It is because according to "Eat More Chicken, Fish, and Beans" (4) it gives all the benfits that can be recieved from consuming their types of foods. And I will agree that any food shall have its own consequences, but if we look at Pork and Beef, they have the least amount of diseases compared to Dog Meat (5). Also of course you can eat vegetables, which is always a good alternative, but I'm putting the focus of this topic upon meats.
C1: Breaks Mortality
I. Cruelty is Unnecessary
It can be argued that its the countries norms in society, but there is one value that no one should do within society; cruelty. The definition of cruelty is: "Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal" (6). If this value is done within society, then society has fallen apart to the point of desperation. Quoted by Seneca Lucius Annaeus "All cruelty springs from weakness". If society falls to the point of having to lead to the cruelty of "Man's Best Friend", then as a society; we have failed to support and help them.
Back on the topic on hand, with the consumption of Dog Meat. When dog meat is made, they obviously need to kill the animals. However, with dogs they fight back and result in them having to torture to poor animals. "Extreme cruelty, however, cannot be dismissed as merely a matter of cultural norms. The sad fact is that in many places where dog meat is consumed, the dogs raised for food commonly endure a lifetime of abuse and often are slaughtered in a manner that is nightmarish in its brutality" (7). It is truly sad, and there is even a video if voters and my opponent are willing to watch. It will be under source (8).
However, my opponent can argue that the United States, or Western Countries, do this to their animals and meats. Well actually no because there is a difference between the killing of a dog and chicken. A dog, statistically, shows more emotion than a chicken (9). A chicken on the other hand is actually really dumb, and barely shows any emotion (10). They are so dumb that they don't fight back, and are more easily killable than a dog. A dog will fight back, and will result in torture to tire it out so it can be killed.
II. Breaks "Man's Best Friend"
As we probably have heard, dogs are "Man's Best Friend". They have helped society is many ways, by either working or standing there as a companion. Examples of things that dogs have done in society is: Help Police Officers with Drug Surveilance, Seeing Eye Dogs, Service Dogs, Therapy Dogs, and many more. How are these types of dogs bad for society, and having to result in killing them? If we allow the consumption of dog meat, this breaks this idea and tradition.
C3: Other Ways of Helping Societies who are Eating Dog Meat
Do I understand that some societies have no choice but to eat dog meat? Yes, I do and there are a total of 11 countries that do this. The top being the Phillipines and South Korea (11). My solution to help them stop from eating dog meat? By providing them with other types of foods, and teaching them the true meaning of a dog; "Man's Best Friend". With this, they can progress from their past society, and move forward and treat dogs as a companion. The best part, many programs are actually doing this by having petitions and donation money to help feed them (12).
With that in mind, the consumption of dog meat is not good, healthy, or beneficial in society.
Concerning my opponents' arguments, I'd like to point out several things:
First of all, I would like to point out that every source that my opponent has posted are from anti-dog meat companies. This means that my opponent's arguments are based on biased sources, thus evidence could be misleading in order to promote their own companies' interest. Thus, I'd like to urge that my opponent's sources should not be counted due to the fact they give a very one-side point of view towards the debate while the proposition has used a variety of sources, some impartial, some leaning towards pro-dog meat companies. Thus, the proposition has won in terms of sources.
Secondly, I'd like to address my opponent's second argument. The opposition has talked about how dog meat is unhealthy, due to some diseases, rabies, zoonotic parasite and many more. First, many other livestock have diseases that are just as deadly, such as mad-cow disease. Secondly, his information comes from a biased anti-dog meat company, thus the website does not address several facts that the opposition might not be aware of. I have already explained that there are several specific species that are raised purely for consumption, including Nureongi, Hawaiian Poi and Xoloitzcuintle, which are regulated by the government in order to check for sanitation and other health effects. Furthermore, only a very small percentage of the South Korean population, for example, eats it regularly with 5 - 30% eating it once in their life time. This is because dog meat is viewed as a delicacy rather than a regular meal. Thus, it significantly reduces the chances of disease transmission. Also, the fact that dog meat is boiled or cooked before consumption kills a significant amount of bacteria prior to consumption, similar to how many societies cook pork or beef before consumption. Lastly, the opposition has completely glossed over the proposition's point about the fact that George Nasinyama, a veterinary doctor and meat specialist at Makerere University, has proved that there is little difference in the nutritional value and health effects. It is clear that species such as Nureongi, Hawaiian Poi and Xoloitzcuintle have the same benefits as other livestock in other countries, thus the opposition has failed to present how dog meat is so detrimental while the proposition has proved the benefits of dog meat. Thus, my opponent's entire first point fall apart.
Thirdly, the opposition has talked about how eating dog meat breaks morality. However this is not the case. First of all, as I have already stated, there are specific species of dog for consumption that have significantly less sensory feelings and morality than the dogs we view as pets. The opposition has talked about how torture should not be implemented at all. However, we have already seen that many countries abuse their livestock for meat. For example, chickens were reportedly hung upside down in shackles with their beaks shaven to prevent stressed chickens from biting one another. Day-old male chicks were discarded and ground up to make nuggets as they couldn't lay eggs. Meanwhile, cows have significantly decreased lifespans due to the stress of everyday life. If the opposition truly stands for the opposition of cruelty, then the opposition should ban all forms of consumption of meat, as the proposition has proved that the dogs used specifically for consumption feel the same way as animals from other countries, which the opposition clearly does not, as he tries to protect the nutritional value of livestock. Thus, the opposition's second point completely breaks down as well.
Lastly, the opposition has talked about helping societies who are eating dog meat. First of all, no society is completely dependent on dog meat; it is regarded as a delicacy. Secondly, all societies already treat dogs as a companion; I myself have many South Korean friends who own golden retrievers or Labradors. Many societies that consume dog meat already treat the dog as a companion and even a source of life, as many Chinese people believe dogs hold medicinal purposes. However, dog-eating societies also have specific dog breeds brought up specifically for consumption, similar to many Western countries today. Lastly, the opposition has not addressed why dog-eating societies are greatly, and have to be forced to "progress from their past society and move forward". This is by far the most offensive, as the opposition is suggesting that dog-eating societies are inferior to non-dog-eating societies. The proposition has already addressed Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thus the opposition has no right to force a culture to change. Thus, the last argument of the opposition completely falls apart.
Thus, by breaking through the opposition's arguments, it is clear that the proposition has won today's debate as it stands for the preservation of all cultures.
For this round in this debate, I like to please point out some faults in my opponents argument by italicizing them for voters to view.
First of all, I would like to point out that every source that my opponent has posted are from anti-dog meat companies. This means that my opponent's arguments are based on biased sources, thus evidence could be misleading in order to promote their own companies' interest.
First off, I like to please point something out. My opponent argues that my sources are biased, but the same can be said to his own. I ask voters, what is the point of a debate? Defined from Webster's Dictionary (1), a debate is: "Argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner". We are arguing a formal subject, and we obviously are arguing both our positions; so of course there will be some bias. Technically, in my opponents argument, there is bias in his own sources stating the nutrition for dog meat, while my own is talking about why it isn't nutritious. We are exchanging both our positions, and hence the reason why there is no true bias. We are having a formal discussion with an exchange of different opinions, with different evidence to support our own claims.
C1: Dog Meat is Unhealthy
Secondly, I'd like to address my opponent's second argument. The opposition has talked about how dog meat is unhealthy, due to some diseases, rabies, zoonotic parasite and many more. First, many other livestock have diseases that are just as deadly, such as mad-cow disease.
My opponent argues that other foods can cause disease, and I agree that they do. Like i stated in the previous round (C1; I & II), "Now my opponent can mostly make the argument that other meats from animals can be considered unhealthy, and it is true", but in my opening argument I stated that these other animals have less chance of disease comparatively to dog meat. In fact, Dog Meat has been said to be the lore of causing Ebola (2). Under this graph:
There has been an increase in rates of people having Ebola. Dog meat here is clear that it is dangerous, and we should follow through with a plan stated in my opening statement (C3) that we should help these countries, and adapt to using their animal instead of using them as a last resort for food.
Furthermore, only a very small percentage of the South Korean population, for example, eats it regularly with 5 - 30% eating it once in their life time. This is because dog meat is viewed as a delicacy rather than a regular meal. Thus, it significantly reduces the chances of disease transmission. Also, the fact that dog meat is boiled or cooked before consumption kills a significant amount of bacteria prior to consumption
My opponent admits that there is a small percentage of eating dog meat commonly in South Korea. At first, admitedly, thought it was common; but thanks to my opponent, he is actually helping the Con side of this debate. If only a small portion of dog meat is being ate, why even have it in the first place? If it was common, I could see some understandability; but it isn't truly common, so why even have it?
Later on, my opponent argues that that dog meat is used as a delicacy, but the same thing can be said as other animals. Stated from the article "5 Crazy, Weird, Bizarre Korean Food for the Brave" (3), it states the most delicate of foods in Korea. Examples being chicken feet and live squid, so why not have these foods instead of dog meat? There are clearly other "delicate" foods, than solely dog meat.
And even if you cook it or boil, there is still a potential that a disease for dog meat can spread. The reason? They have a special formation on their body, which prones them to carry the disease longer (Like rabies), and cannot simply be boiled down (4). So there is still a chance that the disease will still be there. So why not make South Korea a safer place without having to eat off of dogs?
C2: Breaks Mortality
Thirdly, the opposition has talked about how eating dog meat breaks morality. However this is not the case. First of all, as I have already stated, there are specific species of dog for consumption that have significantly less sensory feelings and morality than the dogs we view as pets.
The dogs my opponent has brought up that are consumed for dog meat are the: Nureongi, Hawaiian Poi, and Xoloitzcuintle. He argues that these are not pets, but in fact they are. Simple fact, all dogs are pets because they follow the definition of "pet", being "A
shp1004 forfeited this round.
Its been forever since an argument has been posted because of the forfeit glitch. Because of this, I will try the best in my ability to argue why dog mat shouldn't be consumed. For this round, i will only state my conclusion because of my opponent not providing an argument in the last round.
In conclusion. we must consider the fact that society can move on from eating dog meat. Society has grew, where we can help other societies by providing better meat, than dog. Dog meat is really not that healthy, and has more of a chance on transmitting a disease compared to ther meats. Secondly, the consumption of dog meat breaks the moral of "Man's Best Friend". Why should we let them suffer, instead of actually coming up with a solution?
Overall, i urge voters to vote Con for the protection of dogs and such.
I thank my opponent for this debate, and apologize he didn't get to argue in time.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.