The Instigator
aj34242
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

bullfighting should be banned

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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,910 times Debate No: 55493
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

aj34242

Con

It"s the thrill of the kill, the epic feat between man and beast. And it has been around since 700 A.D. There is happiness in bullfighting, not cruelty. The happiness of the millions that celebrate the popular sport and happiness of the bulls that for the first part of their life live better than most humans. In 2010 Robert elms argued this "to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beef burgers."
It strikes me that people don"t actually have a problem with eating beef burgers but if the animal is killed by a man, that has been trained to turn a usually morbid occasion into an art form, it becomes wrong and cruel. We certainly do not have any right to protest a form of art and against someone"s job that brings millions into the Spanish economy. It is obvious that bullfighting should not be banned.
Wylted

Pro

Bullfighting is cruel and barbaric. Bulls are aubjected to a slow and torturous death. http://www.runningofthenudes.com...

" the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture"

I agree. The bull after being used to a life of comfort is then subjected to the following:

"In a typical bullfight, the bull enters the arena and is approached by picadors " men on blindfolded horses who drive lances into the bull"s back and neck muscles. This impairs the bull"s ability to lift his head. They twist and gouge the lances to ensure a significant amount of blood loss. Then banderilleros enter on foot and proceed to distract the bull and dart around him while plunging banderillas " bright sticks with harpoon points on their ends " into his back. When the bull has become weakened from blood loss, the banderilleros run the bull in more circles until he is dizzy and stops chasing. Finally, the matador appears and, after provoking a few exhausted charges from the dying animal, tries to kill the bull with his sword.7 If he misses, succeeding only in further mutilating the animal, an executioner is called in to stab the exhausted and submissive animal to death. The dagger is supposed to cut the animal"s spinal cord, but even this can be blundered, leaving the bull conscious but paralysed as he is chained by his horns and dragged out of the arena."

http://www.runningofthenudes.com...

Sources used by the quote's author

6Bill Lyon, "A Slaughter That Is Really a Slaughter", The Philadelphia Inquirer 27 Jul 1992: C1.
7Tony Hendra, "Man and Bull", Harper"s Magazine Nov 1996: 69.
8Lyon.

We all know intuitively that animal cruelty is wrong. It's why my opponent is trying to minimize the animal cruelty aspect of this debate. He pretty much admits cruelty is wrong. He just calls bullfighting the lesser of 2 evils.

The lesser of 2 evils is still Evil.
Debate Round No. 1
aj34242

Con

As humans, we are naturally selfish. It is in our nature to think of ourselves first. Bullfighting provides the Spanish with more than 40,000 jobs and not to mention the 2.5 billion euros. When bullfighting was banned in in Catalonia the amount of money lost was as much as 400 million euros, in one city alone. Parliament noted that it was enough to build 6 hospitals, 100 schools or fight against unemployment.

Spain has a poverty rate of about 20%. If you walked past a starving child in the streets, would you deny her food? Money? Although the money bullfighting generates may not solve these problems, can you imagine what would happen without it? Are we really in a position to deny people food and money?

You talk about it as an evil sport, but what is the greater evil? Starving people or giving a bull a victorious death, that has already had a privileged life?
Wylted

Pro

Again my opponent is talking of lesser evils.

"You talk about it as an evil sport, but what is the greater evil? Starving people or giving a bull a victorious death, that has already had a privileged life?"

It's a false dichotomy. Torturing nils isn't necessary to feed the people of Spain.

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. If it was torturing a human in a show would my opponent still, go through hoops to prove it's ethical?

" Bullfighting provides the Spanish with more than 40,000 jobs and not to mention the 2.5 billion euros. "

My opponent provides no source for this claim and my source shows that the industry only provides 400 real jobs is heavily subsidized and isn't worth the price.

http://www.bullfightingfreeeurope.org...

My opponent actually confesses that bullfighting is the lesser of 2 evils. Which still makes it evil. The only justification he gave was incited arguments on economics, while my arguments were cited. Please vote for me :)
Debate Round No. 2
aj34242

Con

aj34242 forfeited this round.
Wylted

Pro

My opponent hasn't supported his stats with sources, I have. My opponent has forfeited a round and my opponent has admitted that bullfighting is bad. Please take all this into account and vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I'm playing devil's advocate and this is an unfamiliar argument. It will take me the full 3 days to post.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I hope you stick around to see this debate through.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
aj34242WyltedTied
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: FF Not to mention the fact that Cons arguments were not really arguments, Wylted was wayy more successful in showing that it is a horrendous act and therefore it should be banned.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
aj34242WyltedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, Lack of backup all to Con's loss, but Pro's quote-explanation-ratio wasn't that great, so a tie in terms of main argumentation.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
aj34242WyltedTied
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: Con cited zero sources, and thus his statistics will be dismissed. Without those statistics, all that Con has is some baseless claims about the potential economic damage that could come from banning bull fighting. Pro effectively rebutted that with his own cited sources, and also built a compelling case from morality regarding animal rights, utilizing Con's concession to strengthen it even more. So Arguments and Sources definitely go to Pro. Conduct to Pro as well for Con's FF.