The Instigator
Masterful
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LD_and_Congress_Debater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 3/1/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 100435
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Masterful

Pro

Surplus protein and world hunger:

So many women these days are aborting their fetuses and then dumping the corpse, where it lay to rot. With so much protein being discarded, why not use that protein and feed a growing hunger epidemic.

Fetus meat is tender and sweet. A mix between chicken and fish, it’s rich in protein and the underdeveloped cartilage and bones have a nice chewy crunch to them. It’s one of the few meats that can be eaten raw, but boiled fetus is quite tasty too.


In fact, there are many ways you can cook your fetus.

Recipe 1) Bake your baby in an oven until bloated and fat. You will need to bake your baby in oven for about 20 mins, when the baby begins to rise, pull it out of the oven and pop it with a kitchen knife. The rich, watery juices that seep from the babies popped boils will be perfect to add to a meaty gravy.

Recipe 2) Fry your fetus in a pan. After the fetus baby thing, is fried up and crispy, it should be very dry and somewhat resemble a burn victim. The best way to serve up the meaty carcass would be with salt and vinegar.

These are just two methods I use to cook up dead babies and fetuses. I would love to hear your recipes in the comments section. You will be arguing why feeding dead babies to homeless men and women, is not a good idea.




Please no racism or Jew hate,

Thanks.




-No blacks are aloud to accept this debate. If you are black and accept this debate, you will instantly be disqualified-

LD_and_Congress_Debater

Con

I negate the following: We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless.

C1- Cannibalism.
Feeding aborted fetuses to the homeless is considered cannibalism. Cannibalism is defined as, "the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species." As well as, in order to commit cannibalism, it would require the desecration of corpses, which is illegal. [1]

C2- it would not be effective
The average age of aborted babies is 12 weeks [2] , and at 12 weeks, the babies are only 2.13 inches [3], meaning that shipping these corpses to the homeless would not be an effective. It would cost more to get the babies to the homeless than it would to just go and buy fast food. Also, there were only 664,435 abortions in 2013 [4], and a little over 500,000 [5] homeless, meaning that only a few people would get 2 babies per year, which is not effective.

I will now turn to attacking my opponent's case.

My opponent's only contention is: Surplus protein and world hunger. Again I state this will not end world hunger because it would only be 2:1 ratio of babies to homeless per year.

My opponent provided recipes, in which I do not have to debate against since I already listed my reasons to not eat babies. However, my opponent providing recipes goes against the resolution since homeless do not have a kitchen in which they can cook the babies.

Thank you.

Sources:
1- http://law.justia.com... http://law.justia.com...
http://law.justia.com...
(The list goes on)
2- http://abortion-not.org...
3- http://www.babycenter.com...
4- https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
5- http://abortion-not.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Masterful

Pro

I get it, I really do. You don't want to feed our homeless. They might be miserable, ugly, urine soaked men that want to rape your mother, but they're people, they're our people. We need to start taking responsibility for our own, even if that means resorting to cannibalism.

Look, I know this idea is hard to swallow, the whole premise of eating fetus is just difficult to digest, but this is 2017 people.

-If we can give women the right to vote, then we can eat dead babies.
-If we can give gays the right to marry, then we can eat dead babies.
-If we can end the slavery of an entire race of people, then by God! We can eat dead babies.

You make a claim that there are not enough aborted fetuses for the homeless to eat. I agree, so let's begin aborting more, thus the homeless may quell their hunger.

I don’t claim to be a martyr, nor a saint, nor a visionary. What I do claim to be, is a guy trying to do the right thing. If we must reuse our dead, to sustain the living, then I say that’s a bloody good idea and we need to start thinking about those in dire need.

A vote for con is a vote for homeless victimisation.



To refute cons sources-

-Cons sources are regarding the legality of canibalism. Matters of legality do not suppourt any claim of what we should be doing. The whole purpose of debates are to question normality and in this case legality.

The remaining sources contain information about the morality of abortion and at what age the fetus become "human."
Don't assume cons sources are valid, it's irrelavent to this debate, as the fetus is already dead-

Chinese people eat fetus soup all the time. It's only taboo in our culture.
http://theseoultimes.com...;

LD_and_Congress_Debater

Con

First of all, I'd just like to bring up a point that my opponent brought up in their last speech,
"If we can give women the right to vote, then we can eat dead babies."
However, eating dead fetuses and giving women the right to vote are two totally separate things. One is cannibalism and the other is trying to promote equality for both genders.

Moving on, I will now respond to the attacks made against my own case.

My opponent attacked my first contention of cannibalism by stating, that we are not debating the legality of it. However, almost every state is against cannibalism, as I sourced at least 3 in my last speech, but the list goes on. Meaning that feeding aborted fetuses to the homeless won't get much support.

Moving on, my opponent did not directly attack my second contention of, "It would not be effective" therefore it still stands. However, my opponent attacked the sources I used stating that it talked of anti-abortion, however I was not using the sources in an anti-abortion matter; I was trying to prove my point that fetuses are usually aborted at around, 12 weeks, and at 12 weeks the babies are only 2.13 inches. I did not use the sources I listed previously in an anti-abortion matter, I used the sources to further prove my point that feeding the homeless aborted fetuses would not be effective.

In conclusion, the only reasonable stance to vote in negation of the resolution: We should feed aborted fetuses to the homeless, for the following 2 reasons,
1- The consumption of aborted fetuses is not only cannibalism but it is not supported.
2- It would not be an effective way of feeding the homeless, and it would be much easier to just buy them real food, (as I stated earlier)

Thank you.

(Weirdest debate I've ever done)
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KnightOfDarkness// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: First: pro dropped con's point about how feeding fetuses to the homeless would not be effective. They did nothing to counter it and it was a good point: why should we feed them to the homeless when it costs less to feed them something else? Second: Con's point about how it's cannibalism is convincing. Society sees it as immoral, which is why, as con pointed out, that every state has it as illegal.

[*Reason for removal*] As explained by the reporter, the previous reason for non-removal is incorrect. The voter does not assess arguments made by both sides. The voter solely assesses arguments made by Con, and fails to assess any points made by Pro.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: paintballvet18// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to analyze arguments from both sides. That requires more than just a statement that a dropped argument is offense and wins Con the debate " it must be clear what that offense is and why it"s being considered. Merely stating why Pro"s argument wasn"t winning him the debate is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KnightOfDarkness// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: First: pro dropped con's point about how feeding fetuses to the homeless would not be effective. They did nothing to counter it and it was a good point: why should we feed them to the homeless when it costs less to feed them something else? Second: Con's point about how it's cannibalism is convincing. Society sees it as immoral, which is why, as con pointed out, that every state has it as illegal.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is solely required to analyze arguments from both sides. He does so, therefore the vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by paintballvet18 10 months ago
paintballvet18
RFD-

I agree with Masterful's analysis of the sources. Since the baby is already aborted (i.e. we are debating post-abortion circumstances), then the Con's sources are irrelevant. Therefore, no source points for anyone.

Arguments:

Pro says that aborted fetuses will quell hunger. This is countered by the Con showing statistics of size of fetuses and how there are unlikely to solve hunger. As a judge, I can't possibly see how Pro still has offense coming out of this, therefore Con leads.

This is followed by the fact that the second Con contention is dropped in Round 2 by the Pro, so we can extend that across the flow and therefore award Con 3 argument points for the above reasons.

Thank you for debating.
Posted by Masterful 10 months ago
Masterful
Good recipe, I like it
Posted by What50 10 months ago
What50
Here's my personal recipe.

Recipe 1) Get a knife and cut up the fetus stomach. Than proceed to add in different kinds of vegetables. Than cook the fetus in the pan until the vegetables and baby is cooked enough. As you cook the fetus be sure to flip it around so one side won't be as burnt. Once the fetus fully cook open up the fetus stomach and you get cooked vegetables and meat. Perfect food for the homeless.
No votes have been placed for this debate.