Round 1. wormwood13 vs Airspoon: Cook Wanted (Must Love Dogs)., page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times
Topic started on 27-10-2010 @ 02:54 AM by The Vagabond
The topic for this debate is "Eating the meat of animal species which are commonly kept as pets is unacceptable.”

wormwood13 will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Airspoon will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.


reply posted on 28-10-2010 @ 10:29 PM by wormwood13
First things first. I would like to thank Vegas Bail Bonds for setting this up, and for giving us a topic that has such wonderful pictures! They will haunt me forever. Semper-Fudge too, you get an 'A' for effort. Of course, all the future judges, may you render as impartially as possible. The fighters, the others, and especially the readers. Your all right in my book. Airspoon your posts have been good things and it is my pleasure to debate you.

"So let's turn on the juice and see what shakes loose!" Beetlejuice

Our topic, "Eating the meat of animals commonly used for pets is unacceptable."
I will handle the pro side.

I will take it that dogs and cats would be the most commonly used for pets, and that that is where this is going so I will focus on them If my esteemed opponent wants to get into gerbils and goldfish then we can do that too.

In this debate I will talk of the history of the domestic dog and cat. How and why they were bred and domesticated and what particular traits were favored in their artificial selection.

I will of course speak of zoonotic diseases and other health concerns associated with the consumption and slaughtering of these carnivores, such as rabies, and toxoplasmosis.

Milling. Yeah, its not pretty, and I will refrain from posting pictures and videos for this reason, however if eating these animals is acceptable then these farms are an inevitability.

The intelligence levels of these companion animals will also be called into question. They don't call dogs man's best friend for no reason. Their ability to feel complex emotions and even to save the very lives of their human counterparts will also impact this discussion. The mutual benefit system that has bound them to us, or vice-versa has nothing to do with eating them.

Good ole tradition might also take the stage so we will touch upon that as well. Now look, while some mornings the neighbors dog barks so loud that I wouldn't mind eating him/her, that act would be unacceptable to most people. If you don't think so try ordering a pizza with dog meat and see what they tell you.

Sure, you can eat anything that has meat, and cats and dogs are a cheap easy source, but the ethical issues involved with devouring a species that we've spent so long making as intelligent as possible. They hunt, they heard they are fiercly loyal, they kill rodents, which helps prevent the spread of disease. It is just plain unacceptable for us to turn around and slaughter them for food..

Is eating it unacceptable? No ma'am/sir!

Remember if they had eaten Lassie then Timmy would have died in that well....

Airspoon its on you.
"Make my millenium!" Beetlejuice.


reply posted on 30-10-2010 @ 02:38 AM by airspoon
First, I would like to thank the moderators and ATS for setting up this debate tournament and giving wormwood13 and I such an interesting topic to chew on. Then, I would like to thank the wonderful member wormwood13 for being my first debate opponent and the judges who will ultimately decide our fate.

The topic, "Eating the meat of animals commonly used for pets is unacceptable", is an interesting one to say the least and I look forward to getting to the bottom of just how right or wrong the subject matter really is.

With our subject, "Eating the meat of animals commonly used for pets is unacceptable", I will be arguing the con side or why it should be acceptable to eat the meat of these animals.

It's important to note that my goal is not to argue the acceptability of eating our beloved "Fido" or "Lilly", but rather the species is general. I will not be arguing the better points of eating your own pets, only the meat of animals that are most commonly kept as pets. There is a huge difference here and I plan on distinguishing that difference.

In this debate, I will talk about different cultures and their customs or taboos of eating certain animals commonly kept as pets and any health benefits derived from that practice. I will also talk about the hunger problem and food shortages that the human population of this planet faces, along with the overpopulation of certain animal species that are commonly kept as pets. I plan on talking about the euthanasia programs of these animals, where the flesh and meat sadly goes to waste.

Regardless of how much we love our pets or benefit from their companionship, they are still animals who lack the ability to think in an abstract manner and we are still carnivores who benefit from eating their flesh. I can't think of one valid reason that the meat of euthanized animals couldn't or shouldn't be used to combat the hunger problem that much of the world faces.

As far as the issue of "mills" or "milling" the animals for food, we already have that problem with these animals for pets, so that would be nothing new. In fact, it could be argued that animals "milled" for food are treated much better than animals "milled" for pets. Not only that, but these animals don't have to necessarily be raised for food, rather the animals that are already being euthanized, due to over-population problems, can be turned into food to turn back the tide of world hunger.

Again, I look forward to chewing on this topic and hopefully putting to bed the social stigma that is causing a lot of good meat to be wasted, meat that could otherwise be combating the severe hunger problem and food shortages in many corners of the world.

Wormwood13, it's a pleasure debating with you and I look forward to mulling over your points of why you think I may be wrong.


--airspoon
Pages:     ^^TOP^^