The Instigator
william11373
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EmyG
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Why Cant I Eat DOG Meat ?!?!?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 21,432 times Debate No: 7159
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

william11373

Pro

i live in usa and here its illegal to eat dog meat.....but why ??

an animal is an animal......if u can eat a cow than u should be able to eat a dog. And dont say because dogs are domesticated.....they are not...in the wild if u see a dog they will maul you to death if they are hungry. I can train a pig to be domesticated too but we still eat them.

please give me a reasonable reason why we shouldnt eat dog meat.
and dont say "OMG thats so gross........or " ewww your disgusting..."

to me an animal is an animal.......rabbits are pets too but americans still eat them.
some say its because dogs are loyal companions......but so can any other animal if you train it !!!!.
EmyG

Con

To start, I would like to thank william11373 for starting the debate.

Since the topic is in the form of a question, I'd like to fix that because the topic should always be a statement. I'd like to change to topic to read: Eating Dog Meat Should Be Legal In The US.

To begin, I'd like to briefly discuss, translate if necessary, and negate what my opponent is saying.

"an animal is an animal......"
---An animal is an animal, yes. This is true. Humans are humans, and some people consider humans as animals.

"if u can eat a cow than u should be able to eat a dog."
---The first thing wrong with this statement is, cows and dogs are very different, which I will discuss when I start to build my case. The second is, in my opinion, it is saying that all animals should be able to be eaten. If this is true, does that mean we should eat humans?

"And dont say because dogs are domesticated.....they are not...in the wild if u see a dog they will maul you to death if they are hungry. I can train a pig to be domesticated too but we still eat them."
---Dogs are quite domesticated, I'd say. I suppose you could train a pig to be domesticated, but those are not the ones we eat. The pigs that we eat are raised on farms. Those pigs are raised for their meat. Wild dogs will maul you, I agree. However, that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether or not it should be legal for the US to eat dog meat. There is a difference in wild dogs and domesticated dogs, also.

"please give me a reasonable reason why we shouldnt eat dog meat.
and dont say 'OMG thats so gross........' or 'ewww your disgusting...'"
---I will not base my argument on my opinion of eating dogs. Although, I do find it quite disturbing and disgusting. However, I have no problem with those who would like to eat dog meat.

"to me an animal is an animal.......rabbits are pets too but americans still eat them."
---The keywords here are: to me. That means this is opinion. I respect your opinion, although ours are different. As stated earlier, an animal is an animal. Scroll up if you would like to reread. Also, the animals we eat are not "pets". The animals we eat are raised solely for food purposes. Therefore, you cannot say that all animals can be pets because, first of all, not all animals can be pets, and second, we don't eat pets.

"some say its because dogs are loyal companions......but so can any other animal if you train it !!!!"
---True, dogs are loyal, and are often known as companions. Not all animals can be like that. Therefore, this statement should be reworded or dropped from the debate.

**Now to my argument.
I'd like to state four main points and elaborate on them.

1. The process of getting dog meat is unethical. The main complaint is the cruel methods: beating, strangling, boiling--by which most dogs in Korea are killed. At a minimum, people say it should be replaced by electrocution because they feel it is much more humane. There's actually not that much to elaborate on, it's pretty much self-explanatory. I mean, if you feel like it's okay to beat, strangle, and boil innocent animals, then that's your deal. However, I find it completely wrong. Even cows have it easier. If you are going to kill an animal, don't give it a slow and painful death. That's just torture. I think animals have feelings, too. If you don't, that's fine. It's just my belief. If you want to read a little more on Korea and their dog situation, there's an article.
http://www.slate.com...

2. Cows and Dogs are very different. As my opponent stated, "if u can eat a cow than u should be able to eat a dog." That shouldn't be said, simply because those two animals are very different. First, dogs were and are bred to be friends for humans, while cows were and are bred for their milk and meat. Second, dogs vary in size, while cows are quite large. Cows are too large to be kept in a house, and are often kept in barns or pastures. Although dogs usually prefer the outdoors, most dogs live inside. Third, cows consume much more food than dogs. Those are just three examples of how they are different.
http://www.literacymatters.org...

3. Making dog meat legal could lead to cannibalism. Some people consider humans as animals. I'd say most people consider humans as animals. With the legalization of dog meat, people will say, just as my opponent, "animals are animals". This time they will be saying, "If you can eat a dog, then you should be able to eat a human." We are moving up the line, which will eventually lead to cannibalism.

4. There is a difference in a wild animal, a pet, and an animal raised for meat. A pet is made to be a companion to humans. Wild animals are dangerous. Animals raised for meat are... Well, that's self-explanatory. Would we be eating wild animals, pets, or animals raised for meat? The problem with eating wild animals is that the animal could have a disease that is unknown, causing harm to humans. The problem with eating pets is that you are defeating their purpose. I mean, honestly... A dog is born to be your companion, then you'll eat it? There's something wrong with that. I would like my opponent to specify what kind of dog we would be eating. Without the specifications, I can't really say how it would be wrong.

Thank you, and I wish my opponent luck in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
william11373

Pro

wrong ! you cant compare a dog, rabbit or elephant to a human being, yes scientifically some say humans are animal too, but we are more than just animals. We are way superior than any other species by far.

The only reason a dog is domesticates is because we domesticated it. if a dog has 2 puppies, and you put one in the wild and another in a home, one would be domesticated and one will not.

1. Getting dog meat may be unethical in other countries, yes thats true, but all countries have their own form of animal abuse.....dog fighting/cock fighting/ slaughter houses in USA/mistreating animals in China and seal beating in Canada.
Cows/chicken/pigs are also mistreated in slaughter houses just as badly as in asian countries but by the mass. Iv worked in a slaughter house as a summer job before and trust me cows are not killed ethically nor are they handled properly, the most common way for butchering cows is by hanging it upside down and pulling out its throat with this tool we have for it to bleed to death. The only reason why cows and chickens are allowed to be treated the way are treated is because to be honest....No one cares.... If 10 cows are beaten and tortured, no one would bother to care, but if 1 dog is tortured....it would be all over the news.....therefore the process of obtaining dog meat is not unethical, dogs would be treated like regular livestock.

2. The amount of food....or the size of an animal should not pre determine if they should be food or not.......when it comes down to it, it is still an animal that should be legally edible.

3. there is absolutely no way eating dog meat can lead to cannibalism.......many countries in Europe and Asia that eat dog such as in UK or switzerland for centuries..........and obviously it has no led to cannibalism...."eating dog meat will lead to cannibalism" that claim is outrageously ridiculous and false.

4. Any dog could be eaten.....such as any type of cow can and has been eaten

"There is a difference in a wild animal, a pet, and an animal raised for meat.....The problem with eating wild animals is that the animal could have a disease that is unknown, causing harm to humans."

Based on what you said, whats wrong with raising dogs for meat just as we raise cows/chickens for meat. There wont be any "unknown diseases." and it wont "defeat the purpose" since the dog will be raised for meat and has no other purpose other than to be consumed.
EmyG

Con

First, I'd like to discuss what my opponent has said, then touch on my case a bit.

-----My opponent's arguments-----

"wrong ! you cant compare a dog, rabbit or elephant to a human being, yes scientifically some say humans are animal too, but we are more than just animals. We are way superior than any other species by far."
---If this is true, then how can we compare any animal to each other? How can my opponent say it is wrong to compare a dog to a human being, but compare a cow to a dog? Humans are superior, yes. We are most intelligent, and more developed. Humans are superior to dogs, and dogs are superior to cows. Therefore, if you can't compare a dog to a human simply because they are superior, then you mustn't compare a cow to a dog because of the same reason.

"The only reason a dog is domesticates is because we domesticated it. if a dog has 2 puppies, and you put one in the wild and another in a home, one would be domesticated and one will not."
---Yes, I agree completely. However, this has nothing to do with the debate. The debate is whether or not we should be allowed to eat dog meat, not why dogs are domesticated.

"all countries have their own form of animal abuse....."
---Yes, I agree, and it is a terrible thing. The abuse of animals is an awful thing and I would love to stop it. I accept all of your examples of abuse, but there are many more. I do believe dog fighting is illegal. I cannot say about the others, as I am not completely sure.

"cows are not killed ethically nor are they handled properly"
---Yes, I am aware of this. I don't believe I ever stated that cows are killed ethically or handled properly. However, Korea is doing this to dogs. If we already have problems with the meat we are eating now, why add something else? I would love to find a way to make the killing of animals more ethical, but I simply cannot.

"The only reason why cows and chickens are allowed to be treated the way are treated is because to be honest....No one cares.... If 10 cows are beaten and tortured, no one would bother to care, but if 1 dog is tortured....it would be all over the news.....therefore the process of obtaining dog meat is not unethical, dogs would be treated like regular livestock."
---This is not necessarily true. I care about cows and chickens, as do several others. I don't know why you would assume no one cares. Again, you must specific what kind of cows and dogs you are referring to. Wild? Pets? Raised for meat? The obtaining of dog meat would indeed be unethical. I do believe the obtaining of beef or chicken is also unethical. So by treating dogs like regular livestock, it would be unethical because it already is that way to begin with.
Also, if one dog was tortured, it would not necessarily be all over the news. Several pet owners abuse their dogs, and it is rarely heard of.

"The amount of food....or the size of an animal should not pre determine if they should be food or not.......when it comes down to it, it is still an animal that should be legally edible."
---I did say size was a difference. I did not say that size should determine whether they are eaten or not. Could you please define animal? As I have previously stated, some people consider humans as animals. You have also agreed that some scientists say humans are indeed animals. You are saying all animals are alike, and should be legal to consume, so should humans be legal to consume?

"there is absolutely no way eating dog meat can lead to cannibalism......"
---I do agree that the countries that do eat dog meat have not had problems with cannibalism...That we know of. However, there are always possibilities, and if this is something we want to implement, the legalization of eating dog meat, we should look at the future possibilities, as cannibalism is one.

"Any dog could be eaten.....such as any type of cow can and has been eaten"
---Any dog as in, pets? I don't believe cows as pets are eaten. Any type of cow can be eaten, true. However, there is cattle raised specifically for beef production. Would there be dogs raised specifically for meat? Or are you saying it should be legal to kill your pet chihuahua and eat it? I'm pretty sure you could get away with that if you really wanted to.

-----Now I'd like to touch on my arguments-----

1. The process of getting dog meat is unethical. This still stands strong. My opponent talked about how the process of getting cow meat is also unethical, and I strongly agree. He said that all countries have their form of animal abuse, and I strongly agree. However, he did not tell me how getting dog meat could and would be ethical. He said, "dogs would be treated like regular livestock." As I have stated, as well as my opponent, regular livestock is not handled properly and their meat is not gotten ethically. Therefore, my first point still stands.

2. Cows and Dogs are very different. My opponent stated that humans should not be able to be compared with dogs because humans are superior to dogs. This is also true with dogs being compared to cows. Yet, my opponent continues to compare cows and dogs. Therefore, my second point still stands.

3. Making dog meat legal could lead to cannibalism. Other countries have not resorted to cannibalism, true. However, in order to make dog meat legal, you must look at all the possibilities. Cannibalism is indeed a possibility.

4. There is a difference in a wild animal, a pet, and an animal raised for meat. My opponent says any kind of dog can be eaten, just as any kind of cow can be eaten. However, the cattle that is eaten is raised for beef. They are not pets. If you are going to eat dog meat, the dogs must be specifically raised for their meat. However, it is still wrong to do this because of my first point.

-----Other words-----

All of my points still stand.
Also, if this is something my opponent wants, he should look at all the benefits, problems, and possibilities. Without looking at these, my opponent's case is based on solely his opinion.
I wish my opponent luck on his next argument.
Debate Round No. 2
william11373

Pro

william11373 forfeited this round.
EmyG

Con

Since my opponent has forfeited the last round, all of my arguments are still standing strong.

---Now I will list the reasons why you should vote con.
1. My opponent seems to be very interested in eating dog meat; however, he failed to look at the benefits, problems, and possibilities. Benefits: none. Problems: a couple. Possibilities: several.
2. My opponent also failed to present how dogs could be killed ethically. He only stated that they would be treated like regular livestock, which both me and my opponent agreed is unethical. Therefore, he actually agreed with me on this point.
3. My opponent stated that humans shouldn't be compared to dogs, yet is comparing dogs to cows. Therefore, he has not presented hardly any arguments because they are based mostly upon the comparing of dogs and cows.
4. My opponent did not present any ways this could work.
---So I urge you to vote con.

---Now we will look and the benefits, problems, and possibilites.
~Benefits. There are none. There is nothing good about eating dogs. They will be treated unethically and will just cause more problems. Unless my opponent can offer a benefit, I see none.
~Problems. There are a couple. Dogs will be treated unethically. We will just be creating more animal abuse, but stopping none in the process.
~Possibilities. There are several. It could lead to cannibalism. It could cause diseases. It could give people new ideas for dog abuse. It could make dogs harder to keep as pets. It could ruin lives. It could cause riots or strikes.
---Those are just a few ideas of what eating dog meat could do.

---As you can see, there is nothing good about eating dog meat. My opponent has failed to offer a reason as to why it would be good. He has failed to look at the benefits, problems, and possibilities. His case is based on dogs compared to cows. For all of these reasons, I see no other vote but to the con side.
Debate Round No. 3
william11373

Pro

william11373 forfeited this round.
EmyG

Con

I'm not exactly sure what there is left to say.
My opponent has forfeited his last two rounds.
All of my arguments still stand.
Please vote con :)
Debate Round No. 4
william11373

Pro

william11373 forfeited this round.
EmyG

Con

My opponent has forfeited 3 rounds. He has failed to keep his case standing. He has failed to show how think will be efficient. I have kept my case standing, and have shown how this simply will not work.
Therefore, I see no other vote but for con.

Please vote con :)
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by junioste 1 year ago
junioste
As a person who grew up in Korea I felt offended by how people looking at korean cilture like it's un royal or uncivilaized
It's such a violent way of thinking how asian culture should be modified within western's criteria
There are some countries that worship certain animals as gods, is it right for them to force you guys to stop eating cows and pigs ??
if this debate was about "should we eat animals or should we rather find some different energy source
?" Then I might be intriuged but this is meaningless
Posted by ben960606 2 years ago
ben960606
There are specific species of dog that people eat, they don't just randomly eat people's pet. Some people have dog as pet, some have dog for food. Some keep cow for farming purpose, some eat cow for food. If you do not like eating dog, because you have it as a pet, you are not forced to eat. Why is it only dog being controversial to be eaten as food? Some people say eating dog must be illegal because dogs are friend. However if it is illegal to eat dogs then it must be illegal to eat cows and chicken because some people think of them as friends. Maybe people thinking that eating dogs should be banned because they are loyal and friendly are thinking one-sided. Any animals could be friends with human.
Posted by immortaloblivion 2 years ago
immortaloblivion
GO TEAM PRO! Defend our Asian culture!
Posted by china666 4 years ago
china666
i would like to debate the contender. Please reply here http://www.debate.org...
Posted by barragarra 4 years ago
barragarra
1. The only reason any animal should be barred from eating is if they are extinct or endangered.
2. All animals were wild before they were domesticated, different parts of the world domesticate different animals. Therefore to argue that you cannot eat dogs in the USA because they are traditionally domesticated here would be biased. The question of eating a domesticated animal is a whole other debate.
3. All animals can be raised for different purposes; meat, milk, pets, eggs etc. Dogs are raised for pets in the USA, doesn't mean they can't be raised for meat, www.puppybeef.com does raise dog for consumption as does www.kittybeef.com. This way it depersonalizes the animal so there is no emotional attachment just as cows raised commercially don't have emotional attachments like Bessy on your neighbours barn.
4. Dogs that are eaten are not usually the same breeds that are domesticated, therefore I doubt your Asian neighbour would be having chihuahua stew for lunch.
5. If you go to a restaurant and order food which contains dog meat, you shouldn't get mad for not inquiring. Most places in the USA sell ribs but they dont usually say on the menu that it is pork ribs.
6. I say let dog be free for consumption or domestication.If your neighbour buys his dog meat in the store fine, If he eats your pet Rover, take him to court! Just saying
Posted by Darrellg 5 years ago
Darrellg
I think the bottom line in the debate of whether it should be legal to eat dog is that the law says we cannot eat dogs regardless of how we kill it or its backround. You can kill a cow or pig any way you want and it's justified but even if you use the most humane method you're still not supposed to kill and eat dogs. somebody earlier said if you domesticate a pig you wouldn't eat it which morally she may not but legally she can if she wants.
Posted by seervar 6 years ago
seervar
I have pet dog at my place n i like them a lot... but i also like their meat too... If u r not vegetarian, u should try it too... its damn good.. For all those people who are against eating dog just shut up and eat your salad... :)))))
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
This debate is making me hungry.
Posted by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
That makes perfect sense.
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
I guess its just where your raised. The only reason we don't eat them in America is because they've helped us so much in the past that we feel the need to honor their service to mankind by well... not eating them!

Other countries who haven't really used them or prospered from them just find them good to eat, you get what I'm saying?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
william11373EmyGTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
william11373EmyGTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
william11373EmyGTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
william11373EmyGTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07