The Instigator
A341
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
paigeb
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

We are hypocrites to criticize the Japanese people for there hunting of dolphins.

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 3 votes the winner is...
paigeb
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,211 times Debate No: 44529
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

A341

Pro

First round is acceptance.
paigeb

Con

I will accept this debate, viewing "we" (which I would like my opponent to clarify: specifically Americans, world, etc.), are not hypocrites to criticize the Japanese people for their hunting of dolphins. I look forward to debating with you.
Debate Round No. 1
A341

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.
Before I start I would like to clarify what I meant by "we", for this debate I will define "we" as "western culture". (If you want another definition we can change it)

1. Around 13,000 dolphins are killed in japan every year (this does come from http://savejapandolphins.org... a website set up by sea shepherd and so it should probably be taken with a pinch of salt). In the US alone 120,000,000 pigs are killed a year, this is alongside 39,000,000 cows (http://awellfedworld.org...). Taking issue with the Japanese hunting of dolphins is essentially giving more moral weight to the lives of 13,000 dolphins than the lives of the almost 160,000,000 farm animals killed for food by the US alone (I can't find statistics for the rest of the world).

2. We wouldn't tolerate people of other cultures telling us that we shouldn't kill the millions of animals we do. Lets say a hindu decided to start a campaign, campaigning for the rights of cows; they would be dismissed as xenophobic and racist. Why are we allowed to attack other cultures when the cannot attack us?
paigeb

Con

Thank you for your timely post of your arguments.

Dolphins are corralled into a small cove and trapped overnight by nets. At sunrise, they are stabbed by harpoons, fish hooks, and knives.[1]

"Taking issue with the Japanese hunting of dolphins is essentially giving more moral weight to the lives of 13,000 dolphins than the lives of the almost 160,000,000 farm animals killed for food by the US alone..."

I do agree with your statistics and the amount of slaughtered in the United States. However, there is a prominent difference between the hunting and killing of dolphins and the slaughtering of cows, pigs, or other farm raised animals. The release of the documentary, The Cove, showed in graphic detail how hundreds of dolphins are herded into a cove near the village of Taiji, and killed with knives and spears. In the film the cove waters turned crimson with blood. "Our analysis shows that this method does not fulfill the internationally recognized requirement for immediacy," says Andrew Butterworth of the University of Bristol Veterinary School. "It would not be tolerated or permitted in any regulated slaughterhouse process in the developed world." [2] The ways of killing of dolphins and raised animals in the United States are not at all comparable, as the killing of dolphins is extremely inhumane, as explained by Butterworth, and is not tolerated by any slaughterhouse in the world. Western culture is not at all hypocritical between the slaughtering of farm raised animals or dolphins, as the method for killing is incomparable.

Secondly, it is important to discuss the differences of the slaughtering of animals compared to dolphins, as there are guidelines to making slaughtering humane and as pain free as possible. For example, sheep and cow are a few animals who are in proper restraints to prevent the animal from turning around or unable to stun. Stunning methods are used to make the animal unconscious before it is slaughtered in order to eliminate pain, discomfort and stress from the procedure. [3] Dolphins slaughtered by Japan, however, have no guidelines or regulations to insure a humane death.

Thirdly, there are certain dolphin species that are endangered, one type has not been seen in years, and probably the first type of dolphin to most likely to be extinct.[4] Dolphins are being inhumanely killed and there has been a decrease in the amount of dolphins. They are deceived because of the way the hunters stress them out with vibrations under the water, making them come to the surface and be stabbed, taking from 5 to 300 seconds to die. It is not humane, as their echolocation is being used against them. Unlike slaughtered animals in the United States, dolphin hunting does not have any regulations to make sure it is humane and pain free as possible. [5]

"We wouldn't tolerate people of other cultures telling us that we shouldn't kill the millions of animals we do. Lets say a hindu decided to start a campaign, campaigning for the rights of cows; they would be dismissed as xenophobic and racist. Why are we allowed to attack other cultures when the cannot attack us?"

We are definitely not attacking other cultures, as it is not apart of the Japanese cultures. Dolphin sold in Japan is usually mislabeled or sold for counterfeit whale meat. Samples of dolphin meat has been tested, and has shown to exceed even Japans heath recommendations. It has over 5000 times more mercury than the advised amount, since the toxic waters the animals are in. [6] It is not only inhumane, but also unsafe. As it is not sold as a regular Japanese food, it is not a part of the culture, nor is it healthy.
In addition, a Hindu could campaign for the rights of cows, and would not be viewed as racist, as it is their culture and beliefs. However, since the separation of church and state is present, the government cannot deny others from eating beef. The hunting of dolphins can be analyzed, however, because of the cruelty of it.

I am looking forward to seeing your arguments.

[1] http://advocacy.britannica.com...
[2] http://www.newscientist.com...
[3] http://www.fao.org...
[4] http://www.underwatertimes.com...
[5] http://www.defenders.org...
Debate Round No. 2
A341

Pro

"However, there is a prominent difference between the hunting and killing of dolphins and the slaughtering of cows, pigs, or other farm raised animals. The release of the documentary, The Cove, showed in graphic detail how hundreds of dolphins are herded into a cove near the village of Taiji, and killed with knives and spears. In the film the cove waters turned crimson with blood. "Our analysis shows that this method does not fulfill the internationally recognized requirement for immediacy," says Andrew Butterworth of the University of Bristol Veterinary School. "It would not be tolerated or permitted in any regulated slaughterhouse process in the developed world." The ways of killing of dolphins and raised animals in the United States are not at all comparable, as the killing of dolphins is extremely inhumane, as explained by Butterworth, and is not tolerated by any slaughterhouse in the world. Western culture is not at all hypocritical between the slaughtering of farm raised animals or dolphins, as the method for killing is incomparable."

"Dolphins are being inhumanely killed and there has been a decrease in the amount of dolphins. They are deceived because of the way the hunters stress them out with vibrations under the water, making them come to the surface and be stabbed, taking from 5 to 300 seconds to die. It is not humane, as their echolocation is being used against them. Unlike slaughtered animals in the United States, dolphin hunting does not have any regulations to make sure it is humane and pain free as possible."

Obviously the killing of these dolphins is horrific but I very much doubt that it exceeds the practices of some slaughterhouses in inhumanity, it is difficult to show the inhumanity of slaughterhouses without picking on individual examples but I will try, these are all common practices in slaughterhouses, suspending cattle by their legs while still living [1], sometimes the hide is removed while alive [2], the throats of cattle are cut [3], there are many other problems relating to battery farming [4]. I would argue that this is almost equally as inhumane as the killing of dolphins, I do see issues with the Japanese hunting of dolphins (I would have to be blind not to) but I don"t see any less problems with slaughterhouses in the western world.

"Secondly, it is important to discuss the differences of the slaughtering of animals compared to dolphins, as there are guidelines to making slaughtering humane and as pain free as possible. For example, sheep and cow are a few animals who are in proper restraints to prevent the animal from turning around or unable to stun. Stunning methods are used to make the animal unconscious before it is slaughtered in order to eliminate pain, discomfort and stress from the procedure. Dolphins slaughtered by Japan, however, have no guidelines or regulations to insure a humane death."

This relies on the idea that it is humane to kill something which is stunned, it may be more humane but any killing (with the possible exception of euthanasia) be it of a human or animal is not humane and there is no real way to get around this.

"Thirdly, there are certain dolphin species that are endangered, one type has not been seen in years, and probably the first type of dolphin to most likely to be extinct."

Correct me if I"m wrong but the dolphins slaughtered are bottlenose dolphins [5] which are not endangered [6]. There are varieties of dolphins which are endangered but they are not slaughtered in these hunts.
"We are definitely not attacking other cultures, as it is not apart of the Japanese cultures. Dolphin sold in Japan is usually mislabeled or sold for counterfeit whale meat. Samples of dolphin meat has been tested, and has shown to exceed even Japans heath recommendations. It has over 5000 times more mercury than the advised amount, since the toxic waters the animals are in. It is not only inhumane, but also unsafe. As it is not sold as a regular Japanese food, it is not a part of the culture, nor is it healthy.
In addition, a Hindu could campaign for the rights of cows, and would not be viewed as racist, as it is their culture and beliefs. However, since the separation of church and state is present, the government cannot deny others from eating beef. The hunting of dolphins can be analyzed, however, because of the cruelty of it."

I would appreciate it if you could back this up (I"m sure it was a mistake and you do have a link and as you have been meticulous in documenting the source"s of your arguments I"m sure the claims you make are genuine, it would just help me).

Much of the dolphin meat is in fact sold as dolphin meat [7] (obviously if it turns out that a large amount of dolphin meat is being sold as whale meat that is wrong on almost every level, however I wonder if this is more of a loophole needing to be closed than an outright deception).

There are health risks involved when anything is eaten, a large percentage of the western world is overweight [8] this is primarily from overconsumption of meat [9]. I would argue that anyone should be able to put anything into their bodies so long as they haven"t been coerced and they know the risks.

Whale and dolphin meat has been eaten by the Japanese people for thousands of years [10], it is as much part of the culture in certain parts of Japan as consumption of cows in the US.

I do not live in a country with separation of church and state and there may be differences but I suspect if a large scale hindu campaign was launched against the inhumane treatment of cows, the hard right wing of any western country would instantly latch onto it however this is simply speculation and not by any means the core of my argument.

[1]http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2]http://www.pbs.org...
[3](NSFL, really I mean it, this is disgusting)
http://www.animal-rights-action.com...
[4] http://www.my-cause.com...
[5]http://www.theecologist.org... "250 Bottlenose dolphins were netted"
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.seashepherd.org...
[8]http://www.cdc.gov...
[9]http://bringthewaves.blogspot.co.uk...
[10]http://www.whaling.jp...
paigeb

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the timely reply.

"Obviously the killing of these dolphins is horrific but I very much doubt that it exceeds the practices of some slaughterhouses in inhumanity..."

First, I would like to address this first point. There is one major difference between the slaughtering of animals, such as cows, or hunting of dolphins. The big difference between killing dolphins and cattle for human consumption is that cattle are raised and "produced," while dolphins are taken from their habitat. [1] My opponent may argue we hunt the majority of fish from their natural habitat or other marine life. However, judging the amount or the ability to breed, have low production rates and maintain the balance of oceans. Dolphins are a necessity.

"This relies on the idea that it is humane to kill something which is stunned, it may be more humane but any killing (with the possible exception of euthanasia) be it of a human or animal is not humane and there is no real way to get around this."

I do not agree with this comment, as humane can be defined as involving minimal pain: done without inflicting any more pain than is necessary.[2] According to this definition, stunning is humane.

"Correct me if I"m wrong but the dolphins slaughtered are bottlenose dolphins..."

According to my source, there are more species than bottlenose dolphins that are captured and killed. This includes striped, spotted, and risso's dolphins along with the the bottlenose dolphins. [3] In addition, I would like to source my argumentation about the mercury levels.[4] The levels are over 5,000 times the advised limit from Japan. Thee public is being wrongfully informed about these risks, which I will cover in the next few paragraphs.

"There are health risks involved when anything is eaten, a large percentage of the western world is overweight [8] this is primarily from overconsumption of meat [9]. I would argue that anyone should be able to put anything into their bodies so long as they haven"t been coerced and they know the risks."

I agree there is a large percentage of overweight western people. However, there are restrictions and certain procedures in making sure the food is safe. I do agree we should be able to eat whatever they wish. However, we can not assume everyone is aware of the risks. The irony is that whale meat is marketed in Japan as a health food, distributed for school lunches and even for medical benefit. [5] It is being sold for health purposes when it is clearly putting people in danger from the high levels of mercury. Japan is not rightfully informing the public. Mercury has no value to the body and is a poison. Mercury exposure can produce serious effects on the nervous system including psychotic reactions, hallucinations, suicidal tendencies and delirium. Continued exposure can produce violent muscular spasms and even death. When it enters the body, it is stored in the kidneys, blood, spleen, brain, liver, bones and fatty tissues. [6] It can enter the body through inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. It is unhealthy especially for pregnant or nursing women. Exposure to mercury has been attributed to an increase in neural tube defects. [7]

Furthermore, I would like to add dolphin behavior, as dolphins can communicate with one another to coordinate their behavior. Other studies reveal that these marine mammals can plan ahead and problem-solve in ways few other animals can.[8] Dolphins have a strong capability other animals do not have.

Dolphin meat is toxic with startling levels of mercury. It is wrongly advertised as a health food, when the sources I have provided information of countless studies that have proved otherwise. Dolphin hunting is different than the killing of animals, like cows, as cows are raised for the consumer while dolphins are killed inhumanely in their natural habitat.

[1] http://www.worldcrunch.com...

[2] http://ilarjournal.oxfordjournals.org...

[3] http://us.whales.org...

[4] http://www.eurocbc.org...
http://www.thecovemovie.com...

[5]http://www.smh.com.au...

[6] http://www.globalhealingcenter.com...

[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[8] http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 3
A341

Pro

"First, I would like to address this first point. There is one major difference between the slaughtering of animals, such as cows, or hunting of dolphins. The big difference between killing dolphins and cattle for human consumption is that cattle are raised and "produced," while dolphins are taken from their habitat. My opponent may argue we hunt the majority of fish from their natural habitat or other marine life. However, judging the amount or the ability to breed, have low production rates and maintain the balance of oceans. Dolphins are a necessity."

First I don't see any difference in moral weight between killing a "wild" animal or one which has been raised in captivity and I feel my point about morality still stands.

I would argue that there are many animals hunted from the wild which reproduce at similar rates to dolphins for instance moose [1] which are also very important for a balanced ecosystem [2]. I don't see why a balance cannot be found between hunting and conservation.

"I do not agree with this comment, as humane can be defined as involving minimal pain: done without inflicting any more pain than is necessary. According to this definition, stunning is humane."

I would argue that there are more humane ways to kill and animal than our current system of factory killing, for a more
in-depth explanation I site the first paragraph of my round 3 argument. But certainly the method of shocking an animal into confusion before killing it is not moral.

"According to my source, there are more species than bottlenose dolphins that are captured and killed. This includes striped, spotted, and risso's dolphins along with the the bottlenose dolphins. In addition, I would like to source my argumentation about the mercury levels.[4] The levels are over 5,000 times the advised limit from Japan. Thee public is being wrongfully informed about these risks, which I will cover in the next few paragraphs."

As far as I can tell none of these dolphins are endangered (though they are all included in Appendix II which protects migratory organisms).

"I agree there is a large percentage of overweight western people. However, there are restrictions and certain procedures in making sure the food is safe. I do agree we should be able to eat whatever they wish. However, we can not assume everyone is aware of the risks. The irony is that whale meat is marketed in Japan as a health food, distributed for school lunches and even for medical benefit. It is being sold for health purposes when it is clearly putting people in danger from the high levels of mercury. Japan is not rightfully informing the public. Mercury has no value to the body and is a poison. Mercury exposure can produce serious effects on the nervous system including psychotic reactions, hallucinations, suicidal tendencies and delirium. Continued exposure can produce violent muscular spasms and even death. When it enters the body, it is stored in the kidneys, blood, spleen, brain, liver, bones and fatty tissues. It can enter the body through inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. It is unhealthy especially for pregnant or nursing women. Exposure to mercury has been attributed to an increase in neural tube defects."

I can find very little on the actual quantities of dolphin meat being marketed as whale meat all I can find is that some unquantified amount of dolphin meat is marketed as whale meat. The Japanese government provides food safety education which should certainly be considered adequate [3] and so I don't see a large problem. As I have previously argued anyone should be able to put whatever they like into their bodies so long as they know the risks and I feel this combined with the Japanese food health education negates you argument about mercury levels.

"Furthermore, I would like to add dolphin behavior, as dolphins can communicate with one another to coordinate their behavior. Other studies reveal that these marine mammals can plan ahead and problem-solve in ways few other animals can. Dolphins have a strong capability other animals do not have."

In this respect there is an animal thought to be more intelligent that dolphins, that animal is the pig [4], take from that what you will.

[1] http://exc-adventures.com...
[2] http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca...
[3] http://hej.sagepub.com...
[4] http://list25.com...
paigeb

Con

First I don't see any difference in moral weight between killing a "wild" animal or one which has been raised in captivity and I feel my point about morality still stands."

That is enitrely a personal opinion. From the judgements of the conditions and the habitat dolphins are in compared to other animals is less moral. Since the definition of morality can differ from person to person, judging solely on the conditions, dolphins are killed in a less moral way than other animals, since it takes a longer time to die, they are being trapped in coved, where humans are using an animals natural reaction to kill.

"I would argue that there are many animals hunted from the wild which reproduce at similar rates to dolphins for instance moose [1] which are also very important for a balanced ecosystem [2]. I don't see why a balance cannot be found between hunting and conservation."


I agree completely how Moose are important to the ecosystem, varying importance depending to the ecosystem. However, Japan's own slaughter guidelines for livestock require that the creature being killed must be made to lose consciousness and be killed by methods "proven to minimize, as much as possible, any agony to the animal." But those guidelines do not apply to whale and dolphin killing, which is governed by Japan's Fisheries Agency..." [1] It is immoral and also not humane. In addtion, dolphin hunting is not being properly regulated.

"I can find very little on the actual quantities of dolphin meat being marketed as whale meat all I can find is that some unquantified amount of dolphin meat is marketed as whale meat. The Japanese government provides food safety education which should certainly be considered adequate [3] and so I don't see a large problem. As I have previously argued anyone should be able to put whatever they like into their bodies so long as they know the risks and I feel this combined with the Japanese food health education negates you argument about mercury levels."

The reason why there is not a specific amount of counterfeit meat is because the people don't know. This is a huge problem. As I said in my previous round, dolphin meat is toxic, and Japan promotes it as a health food. Mercury is dangerous, as proven in my previous round. As of this point, my argumentation still stands. Since the people are not aware of the risk, and the Japanese saying it is a health benefit, when clearly the arguments are toward the danger, dolphin meat should not be consumed. As previously stated, I can name the countless consequences of ingesting mercury, which is not needed in the body and is a poison. This can simply not bre looked over, nor avoided.

Lastly, my opponent said that a pig is more intelligent than a dolphin, which is true. Pigs are smart in their capabilities. However, dolphins recognize themselves, which other animals cannot. [2]

Western culture is not hypocritical. From the way dolphins are hunted and killed, to the consequences of ingesting the meat, it is obvious the danger and the cruelty these animals go through.

2 http://www.npr.org...

1 http://m.huffpost.com...





Debate Round No. 4
A341

Pro

"That is enitrely a personal opinion. From the judgements of the conditions and the habitat dolphins are in compared to other animals is less moral. Since the definition of morality can differ from person to person, judging solely on the conditions, dolphins are killed in a less moral way than other animals, since it takes a longer time to die, they are being trapped in coved, where humans are using an animals natural reaction to kill."

No your opinion that it is more moral to kill an animal raised in captivity. Unless actual argument can be made about the morality of killing animals in captivity we should assume there is no difference. An appeal to moral relativism doesn't work.

"I agree completely how Moose are important to the ecosystem, varying importance depending to the ecosystem. However, Japan's own slaughter guidelines for livestock require that the creature being killed must be made to lose consciousness and be killed by methods "proven to minimize, as much as possible, any agony to the animal." But those guidelines do not apply to whale and dolphin killing, which is governed by Japan's Fisheries Agency..." [1] It is immoral and also not humane. In addtion, dolphin hunting is not being properly regulated."

More or less all of that applies to moose hunting as much or more as it does to dolphin hunting [1] [2].

"The reason why there is not a specific amount of counterfeit meat is because the people don't know. This is a huge problem. As I said in my previous round, dolphin meat is toxic, and Japan promotes it as a health food. Mercury is dangerous, as proven in my previous round. As of this point, my argumentation still stands. Since the people are not aware of the risk, and the Japanese saying it is a health benefit, when clearly the arguments are toward the danger, dolphin meat should not be consumed. As previously stated, I can name the countless consequences of ingesting mercury, which is not needed in the body and is a poison. This can simply not bre looked over, nor avoided."

There are problems in any sector and I feel that this problem has been blown out of all proportion. Using me previous analogy this is like a hindu attacking the slaughter of cows based on the horse meat scandal, it is a straw man argument.

"Lastly, my opponent said that a pig is more intelligent than a dolphin, which is true. Pigs are smart in their capabilities. However, dolphins recognize themselves, which other animals cannot."

This appears to be clutching at straws, in almost every way pigs have been proven to be more intelligent than dolphins [3] and have even been proven to be able to use mirrors to their advantage [4].

A quick summing up of my arguments:

The killing of dolphins is no more inhumane than the killing of animals in slaughterhouses [5] [6] [7].

The dolphins killed are not endangered [8].

Pigs which are killed by westerners in their millions [9] are more intelligence than dolphins [3] negating the argument from intelligence.

I'm sorry but this is the definition of hypocrisy ("the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.").

[1] http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca...

[2] http://wdfw.wa.gov...

[3] http://pigad.blogspot.co.uk...

[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com...

[5] http://www.pbs.org...

[6] http://www.animal-rights-action.com...

[7] http://www.my-cause.com...

[8] https://worldwildlife.org...

[9] http://www.animalliberationfront.com...
paigeb

Con

Dolphins are corralled into a small cove and trapped overnight by nets. At sunrise, they are stabbed by harpoons, fish hooks, and knives From the judgements of the conditions and the habitat dolphins are in compared to other animals is less moral. Since the definition of morality can differ from person to person, judging solely on the conditions, dolphins are killed in a less moral way than other animals, since it takes a longer time to die, they are being trapped in coved, where humans are using an animals natural reaction to kill.However, Japan's own slaughter guidelines for livestock require that the creature being killed must be made to lose consciousness and be killed by methods "proven to minimize, as much as possible, any agony to the animal." But those guidelines do not apply to whale and dolphin killing, which is governed by Japan's Fisheries Agency..." [1] It is immoral and also not humane. In addtion, dolphin hunting is not being properly regulated. As I said in my previous round, dolphin meat is toxic, and Japan promotes it as a health food. Mercury is dangerous, as proven in my previous round. As of this point, my argumentation still stands. Since the people are not aware of the risk, and the Japanese saying it is a health benefit, when clearly the arguments are toward the danger, dolphin meat should not be consumed because it is toxic. Lastly, my opponent said that a pig is more intelligent than a dolphin, which is true. Pigs are smart in their capabilities. However, dolphins recognize themselves, which other animals cannot. [2]

Western culture is not hypoctrical. According to urbandictionary.com, hypocritical is:

(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.

(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.

(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.

Taking these definitions regarding dolphin, dolphin hunting is not regulated. Dolphin meat is counterfeited and in hand, contains mercury, a poison, which Japan is promoting as a health food. Their natural behaviors are used against them, and are subjected to a long and painful death. Western culture is not being hypocritical over the cruel hunting of dolphins.


Vote con.


(Picture below.)
http://newsletter.snopes.com...

2 http://www.npr.org......

1 http://m.huffpost.com......
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
*their
Posted by JonathanDJ 3 years ago
JonathanDJ
The trouble with that accusation is, that whales are endangered and dolphins are often not far behind. Cows on the other hand are doin' good.
Posted by A341 3 years ago
A341
My basic premise is that westerners who eat meat ("we" was way to vague) are hypocrites to criticize the Japanese hunting of dolphins (and I can throw whales in here as well if it makes it easier).
Posted by JonathanDJ 3 years ago
JonathanDJ
It would help if Pro would let us know what the premise of his claim is.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Probably, yeah.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AgnosticRadar 3 years ago
AgnosticRadar
A341paigebTied
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: Both contenders did superbly. But I do have to agree with Con, her conduct and sources were awesome.
Vote Placed by Swagmasterpoopoo 3 years ago
Swagmasterpoopoo
A341paigebTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. The reason I give arguments to Con is that some of pro's refutation really were not that great. For example the morality point. I thought it was pretty obvious that Con pointed out that the manner in which dolphins are slaughtered is much less humane than killing pigs or cows. I don't think giving a one or two sentence response is sufficient, especially near the end of the debate. Conduct also goes to Con. I feel like Pro made some unnecessary attacks on Con. For example, here is something Pro wrote: "No your opinion that it is more moral to kill an animal raised in captivity. Unless actual argument can be made about the morality of killing animals in captivity we should assume there is no difference. An appeal to moral relativism doesn't work." I think this comment is rather offensive, as if suggesting Con was not making arguments. On the contrary, I think Con made pretty decent arguments, which were poorly refuted by Pro. Pro did not fulfill the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
A341paigebTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a really nice debate, haven't read such an interesting one in a while. A lot a really good points were made on both sides, but I have to give it to the pro. I deal-breaker of this debate is the intelligence and emotion of the animal involved. Pro point that pigs were just as intelligent as dolphins went uncontested, and that cinched the debate for me.