The Instigator
sahaam
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LevelWithMe
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

We shouldn't eat dogs.

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 1 vote the winner is...
LevelWithMe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,235 times Debate No: 36318
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

sahaam

Pro

Hi my name is Sahaam and I believe that we should NOT eat dogs.

My 1st point is that there are some animals we can eat and some animals that we shouldn't eat, like dogs.Its just cruel, dogs are said to be mans best friends which plenty of people think is true.

My 2nd point is that dogs have always been there for us.There have been plenty of cases, of dogs that have saved humans lives.For example a little girl was drowning and a dog came to the rescue, and dragged her out.
Also dogs help blind people walk to places, making blind people feel more secure.Dogs also fight crime by catching burglars, and they also have a great sense of smell to catch people with drugs.
So dogs have always been there for us, so who are we to kill them and eat them?
Its not that nice.How would you feel if you helped people all your life and in return you get killed and eaten?
LevelWithMe

Con

I will be debating from the position that eating dogs is neither an inherently good or bad thing to do, and that the claim that we should not eat dogs in all cases has not been justified by arguments made within this debate. The burden of proof lies with Sahaam. That being said:

Counter point 1)

No criteria was provided to distinguish between which animals should or should not be eaten and why. Thus far, the criteria seems arbitrary and undefined, and thus invalid.

In addition to this, Sahamm's employs an argumentum ad populum(appeal to popularity) fallacy. He asserts that becuase many people think something is true, we must conclude that it is true. It also contains an unsupported premise(1A below), which he has not provided evidence or reasoning for(making this an opinion, not an argument).

His argument is as follows:
1) There is a saying that dogs is man's best friend.
2) Many people think dogs are man's best friend.
3) Therefore the saying is true.

1A) It is cruel to eat man's best friend.
2A) From 3, we know dogs are man's best friend.
3A) It is cruel to eat man's best friend.

Information on the fallacy is below.

http://www.nizkor.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.logicalfallacies.info...


Counter point 2)

In the second point, Sahaam makes the claim that dogs have been generally useful or helpful to humanity. Therefore, dogs should not be eaten.


There are four fundamental problems with this:

1) This argument does not apply to all dogs, only dogs that provide a utility or have performed a task for humanity. Untrained dogs or dogs not capable of the same feats as other dogs which perform these tasks do not fall within the bounds of this argument. He has not provided a reason why humans should not eat these particular dogs. Further, if we chose to be efficient, we could narrow down the list of dogs that this argument finds to be unacceptable to eat, by only using dogs best capable of performing specific tasks, for those tasks.

2) It's a false dichonomy(also known as a false dilemma). It is implied that we can either eat dogs or have dogs that benefit us with their actions. He has not proven this is the case. There is no implication in the idea that eating dogs is acceptable that means we eat every dog and/or cannot have dogs that fulfill another function.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://mind.ucsd.edu...


3) Finally, he makes an employs the argumentum ad misericordiam(appeal to pity) fallacy. He suggests that we should empathize with the dogs, and that in doing so, should realize that we should not eat them. No argument about the actual permissability of the act or behavior of eating dogs is made.

http://mason.gmu.edu...
http://www.nizkor.org...

4) This argument does not apply to persons, communities, cultures, or societies do not use domesticated dogs. For those who have not yet(or those who chose not to) use domesticated dogs used for tasks or dogs that otherwise assist them, no reason has been provided that these people should not farm and/or import these dogs for consumption if these desire to eat dogs.
Debate Round No. 1
sahaam

Pro

You don't eat dogs even if they don't do anything.But it has been proven that dogs always to something for there owners or for themselves.There are some dogs who don't work for the force and they still always stay in the front yard and protect there owners.

You also haven't answered my question.I said How would you feel if you helped people all your life and then got killed and eaten? you haven't answered that.

Yes some dogs don't do that much but most dogs protect us humans.Why should we eat them? Give me one good reason why we should eat them?

When people want to kill the dog they kill them in a brutal way.This is just animal cruelty.

How would you feel if you had a pet and then one day you realised it was gone and eaten? That would be sad.
LevelWithMe

Con

You don't eat dogs even if they don't do anything.

You haven't given me a reason why.

But it has been proven that dogs always to something for there owners or for themselves.

Why would I care about what a dog does for itself?

There are some dogs who don't work for the force and they still always stay in the front yard and protect there owners.

Again, I have addressed this. This argument does not apply to non-owners or users of dogs, and dogs that are not owned or used. You have provided no reason as to why a person should not eat non-utility or non-owned dogs, or why non-users/owners should not farm or import dogs for eating.


You also haven't answered my question.I said How would you feel if you helped people all your life and then got killed and eaten? you haven't answered that.

I already addressed that this is an appeal to pity, and therefore invalid.


But, I'll answer the question if it satisfies you. I wouldn't feel anything, because I would be dead. While I was being killed(not after/whilst being eating) if I was kill in a manner when I was concious and/or not painless otherwise, I would probably feel surprised and in a panic. That being said, killing whilst the subject of the killing is not able to feel pain is also an option.

Yes some dogs don't do that much but most dogs protect us humans.Why should we eat them? Give me one good reason why we should eat them?

I have not argued that we should eat dogs. I have argued that it is permissable to eat dogs. I have also pointed out in the last round that your argument does not apply to dogs that do not perform a task or utility for humans(protection falls under this category).


When people want to kill the dog they kill them in a brutal way.This is just animal cruelty.

Killing and eating dogs does not imply that people must kill them in a brutal fashion. You have not provided any evidence of this.

How would you feel if you had a pet and then one day you realised it was gone and eaten? That would be sad.

We're not arguing about whether or not it is permissable to eat a person's pet. We're arguing about whether or not it is permissable to eat dogs. Again, as I have pointed out several times at this point, your argument fails to address why someone should not eat a dog that is not owned.

I will answer your question because it seems to fustrate you when they remain unanswered, although I have already pointed out that they are irrelevant:

I would feel angry and sad.

You have, by and large, simply repeated your talking points.
Debate Round No. 2
sahaam

Pro

sahaam forfeited this round.
LevelWithMe

Con

My opponent has forfeited the round.

Sahaam has not demonstrated in this debate that it is inherently wrong to eat dogs. Instead, Sahaam has described certain circumstances in which eating a dog should not be considered morally permissible(though the reasons that these circumstances fall into this category remain unsupported).

I would like to apologize to my opponent for addressing them as a male, as their profile indicates that they are a female, if this offends them. However, I do not think their gender is of any relevance to the debate.

Finally, I would also like to point out(if some have perceived it as such) that I was not using the Fallacy Fallacy(or argument from fallacy). I pointed out the actual flaws in the reasoning of the arguments(ergo, why it is a fallacious train of thought) and provided resources for the details of the fallacy to show it was well established. In addition, my claim was simply that it was not demonstrated in this debate that eating dogs is wrong(the burden of proof lied with Sahaam, thus I only needed to show that her arguments were invalid and/or unsound).

This concludes the debate. I have nothing more to add.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Bullish 4 years ago
Bullish
The funny part:

The voter's profile picture has a dog on his head.
Posted by sahaam 4 years ago
sahaam
i agree
Posted by LevelWithMe 4 years ago
LevelWithMe
Disregard that. It appears that you already made that clear in your opening post. I accept your challenge.
Posted by LevelWithMe 4 years ago
LevelWithMe
I will accept your challenge if you agree that we would be debating that a person should not eat dogs, or that eating dogs is bad. I do not considering eating dogs a good or bad thing, simply a neutral thing. If you can accept these terms, I will debate you in good faith.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
sahaamLevelWithMeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Missed round. ARGUMENT: Pro gave pathos appeals. Con gave reason and caught the fallacies. SOURCES: Con backed up his side with evidence, pro did not.