Instigator / Pro

Humans Should not Boil Lobsters Alive


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

You must argue it is better to boil lobsters alive, not necessarily that it is moral to boil them alive.

BOP shared.

Also, no religious arguments.
Example---The Flying spaghetti Monster said it was okay to boil lobsters alive.

Round 1
Do Lobsters Feel Pain

The answer to this question is far from resolved,“Business Insider” states “There is no conclusive evidence about whether lobsters can feel pain.” This may seem problematic for my case but it actually is the most significant moral reason why we should abstain from boiling lobsters alive as seen below.

The Precautionary Principle

This effectively states that when tackling a problem with highly disputed or controversial evidence, we should err on the side of caution, as my source states. Mind you, this is being stated by Anil Seth, he has a PhD from the “University of Sussex” and he works in neuroscience and consciousness, he is a well informed, reliable source. Many countries have outlawed boiling lobsters alive like New Zealand and Switzerland, this is an example of siding with caution rather than assuming lobsters don’t feel pain and potentially torturing thousands of lobsters.

Anil Stated--”With lobsters, we just don't know if they can feel pain. There's a thing in ethics that we call the Precautionary Principle, when not knowing we should err on the side of caution. If there is the potential for something to have the ability to suffer, we should treat that possibility very seriously. So boiling lobsters, not a very good idea.

Bacteria (Presumptive Argument)

I’d presume you would attack my moral argument by pointing to the dangers of bacteria that can jump onto lobsters after they’ve died, and there is some truth to this, after a lobster dies bacteria that cause cramping and other illnesses arive. But, this contention is faulty, it takes several hours for dangerous bacteria to arrive. So if somebody orders lobster you take it out of the tank, stab it along the midline on the underside(free), chill it in cold water before killing/stabbing and then boil the dead lobster(free), or purchase fish anesthetics that can cost $10-$37, it's fair to presume restaurants will purchase the cheapest product available. If the restaurant is doing well it can make a one time purchase of 2,900 euros for an electric stunning machine. The only way a cooked lobster could be dangerous is if it died in the tank and was cooked, a chef won’t stab a lobster and leave it there for several hours, he will immediately place it in the pot obviously.

But it Tastes Better (Presumptive Argument) 

Taste(which is subjective) doesn’t justify the inhumane killing of lobsters. In China, torturing dogs is a way they attempt to make dogs taste better, these dogs are beaten which is comparable to being boiled alive, but you can’t justify torturing these animals for the sake of taste.

So taste doesn't justify the inhumane killing of dogs, just like how taste doesn't justify the inhuman killing of lobsters.

To Clarify

My case is not that this should be passed into law, but that humans ought not to boil lobsters alive.

whether people boil lobsters alive is inhumane is not the point it may well be, we must avoid the government again sticking its nose in, whether you decide to boil them alive or not they are just animals animals suffer grow up face the real world, the government should avoid entangling itself in sentimentality
Round 2
I'd implore my opponent to read my "To Clarify" statement, it states how I don't want this to be placed into law, the resolution also doesn't state how I want this passed into law, his point is irrelevant as I do not have argue that it should be passed into law. If my opponent disagrees with anything I've stated in R2 he is free to object, although I'd implore him not to.
i did and this i state you imply strongly between the lines that the law should get involved this implication is not explicit but is implied therefore i insist on addressing it, if there is no legal imperative then this is strictly a matter for the individuals conscience and if that is the case there is no further need for anyone to discuss this. Unless you plan on forcing people to avoid the boil, aint nobodies bizness if we do
Round 3
A lot of people don't think much about boiling lobsters alive, I'm saying that they should treat that lobster like a feeling being, but I will not arrest people who do boil them alive. Also, I didn't imply it should be passed into law in the resolution or the description, and in the argument I say the polar opposite.

I guess we will see what the voters think.

if you wont do anything about it then fine we have nothing to discuss do we, you go your way and i  go mine