chickens are cannibals because they eat chicken when you feed them chicken
Debate Rounds (3)
I understand that you have experimented with feeding chickens meat, which they ate. You ,however, have not done this to all chickens and so it does not prove your claim.
For all that I know, you might have starved your chickens to the point of death, and then at that point when they were so desperate for food that they cannot resist anything you gave them some meat, which they have no choice but to eat if they wish to survive which is why they did.
The matter is, a cannibal desperately desires to eat meat of its own species and hence would be seen if your chickens went and killed each other to eat their meat. So, since they do not do that for the fun of it but desperate need, they are not cannibals.
Plus, in case you did not know, chickens are omnivores as they eat plants as well as worms. They will also eat meat if provided it, but since they are usually unable to acquire such mean in the wild, it is not part of their particular diet.
What chickens really do is drink wine, and since wine is not made of chickens, they are not cannibals.
s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" />
(I apologize because the picture doesnt seem to load, but please do look at it for proof as to a chicken drinking wine)
Well, firstly your 'experiment' involved only a specific group of chickens, hence you cannot generalize your results to say all chickens are cannibals. Despite that, your experiment has a lot of faulty actions which I will mention here.
You state that they were well fed, but that is from your point of view. You ofcourse are the person giving them food so if they were not well fed it would bring dishonour to you and hence you have a bias of saying they are well fed. Not surprisingly that is exactly what you said. Have you even bothered to ask the chickens whether they were hungry? Did'nt think so, and so not only is what you said dubious but the approach you have taken too. On top of that, you gave the chickens no choice as you only gave them chicken which they would have to eat to survive.
I actually found that your chicken said that you did not ask him, and he said he would never do such a thing if you didnt make him. Shame on you for forcing your chickens to do such a shameful act:
<(He never asked me, and gave us no choice, EVER)
Moving on, an example of what I mean by cannibalism is the exemplified by this event. If you were on an island dying of hunger and had another individual with you, would you not eventually succumb to eating yourselves if the situation made it so? According to philosopher Thomas Hobbes, he said that it is the nature of man to do anything that it would take to survive. Chickens, are no different so when they were starving and the only option was the meat you gave them, they ate it. It was only to survive, not because they like and enjoyed it.
You have also not answered to my objection that the chickens didnt kill and eat each other later, so I will assume that it is true. Since your chickens did not eat each other when given normal grains again, it shows that they are not cannibals but were driven by necessity. I know that a lot of people would eat themselves or others if the situation was that desperate but they wont do it when not in such a situation. These people are not cannibals becasue a cannibal is one who eats of its own species even when other options are available, not when only when there is no other option.
So, your chickens were not cannibals and so the resolution is negated and everyone should vote Con :)
They did not eat each other however, but it is common for chickens to peck at each other when fighting. These chickens were cannibals, and shows that all chickens have a propensity to be cannibals.
A person who eats human flesh is a cannibal no matter what the circumstance is. Just the same as a rapist is a rapist no matter what their excuse is.
I am sorry to not respect your biased information about your experiment as it is not true. The chicken and what it says, as in my previous post, said you never asked it anything or gave it a choice. You did not discredit this source, and implicitly accepted it as you responded to giving them a choice which was instigated by the chicken witness. Keeping this in mind, your chickens given the choice for the first time in their life wanted to try something new. Just like teenagers with sex and drugs or cigarettes or whatever crazy thing that is on their mind. So even though other options were there, they ate the chicken because they did not know what it was.
You stated that they prefered the chicken, but my witness said that they never had any choices so they took whatever choice you gave them as it might be their only. The did not actually enjoy the chicken meat like you presume they did. The proof of this is in your speech itself, because they did not go kill each other to eat their meat which they would if they were cannibal. So, you stated they preferred chicken over all else but you have no way of knowing that by yourself, and my chicken witness has borne witness against it so that claim is negated.
Next, I would like to point out that you have faulty understanding of cannibalism. You are try to manipulate the results to frame your chickens for malicious intent. You said a rapist is a rapist no matter what the excuse, but what you did is restate the previous (ofcourse he is a rapist, you just said he is). What the actual parallel comparison would be is a person who has sex is a rapist, no matter their excuse, and we know that this is not true. People can have sex (action) without being a rapist (noun). Similarly, chickens can eat meat (action) without being cannibals (noun). I will use this comparison as it is more accurate than yours which just restates the same thing.
Working off of this, I will explain how your chickens that ate chicken meat are not cannibals. Firstly, you did not notify them that it was chicken meat and that eating of it would make them cannibals. Secondly, the showed no desires of killing each other to eat their meat afterward. Thirdly, as I mentioned way earlier, your small group of chickens is not an appropriate sample to judge all the chickens in the world.
Not telling them what they have, combined with the first choice you have given them is the manipulation that you have conducted so that you may blame them, and dishonor the entire species. I previously called this a shameful act, but you failed to apologize for it so you are shameless. Secondly, you said that your chicken did not eat each other afterwards so they were not cannibals. Your example of pecking does not involve your experiment so it is irrelevant and does not prove your case. and thirdly as I said in the 1st round, only your chickens eating meat does not make all chickens cannibals, especially when you manipulated them.
So, since your chickens did not know what they ate nor continued to show signs of cannibalism by themselves they are not actually cannibals, but you are just attempting to dishonor them. And more importantly, your little group does not show what all chickens in the world would do, hence you cannot declare them all to 'have a propensity to be cannibals'.
If you are convinced that Pro's methods are dubios and trust the sad chicken who testified against him, vote CON
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.