Pro did a well presented and well researched case on the likelihood of Lobsters feeling pain, and the basic idea that we ought not engage in sadism. Con offered an off topic Institutional Kritik. Given this, the debate boils (pun intended) down to the resolution, which is a moral urging rather than call for legal action.
Lobsters feel pain was not challenged on any grounds, nor were topical counter points raised.
Pro very effectively used sources to bolster his case, even building and responding to counter cases against likely objections. The level of detail he pulled from Business Insider's article on lobsters was fantastic, as was the example of people doing similar to dogs (side note: animal cruelty activists insist we should cut dogs tails off and mutilate their ears, because they don't feel pain anyway...). Con on the other hand offered no evidence in support of his ideas (the Kritik could have held water with examples of governments abusing perceived moral imperatives).
Con has improved over previous debates, but still a ways to go to not challenge the comprehension and coherence. Constant missing capitalization and punctuation, extra spaces for no reason, etc.
As an example of con's problematic sentences: "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" I should not be pulled out of the debate wondering what "bizness" means, I could guess he means business, but when half the letters are replaced or missing, it pulls me out of reading the debate. Plus why was this single sentence so long? Grammar rules call for the different ideas being broken up; and in debates there should be lines between different ideas being responded to as well, not just walls of text without any periods to close sentences.
Pro on the other hand was fully legible.
Con, for the love of god, use a normal text editor with spell check. If you don't have access to MS Word, Google Docs works almost as well.
Neither degraded themselves.
On the legality angle, it would make a lot of sense to debate the topic on moral reasons a couple times, and then maybe debate on legal grounds with the well defended morals as the assumed basis.
Ok. I knew you weren't going to argue for legality. I just wasn't sure if your stance meant you wouldn't legislate it irl.
It is cruel to assume a lobster can't feel pain, and then boiling it alive when the science is far from being able to determine if they can or can't feel pain, pigs in slaughter houses are killed quickly and humanely, lobsters should be as well. Also, it wouldn't even be an inconvenience to restaurants seeing that you could just use cold water or a knife as a substitute which is free.
I don't think it should be legal.
I do think it's animal cruelty, I'm just not interested in that argument so I opted to exclude it from the debate via the resolution.
BTW I disagree with the Swiss and New Zealand restrictions that force the use of an electric stunning machines(2900 euros) when there are moral free/cheap ways to kill lobsters like stabbing in certain area's, or purchasing cheap fish anesthetics.
I guess a better question would be: Why shouldn't this be considered animal cruelty in your eyes?
Because I'm not interested in going down that road, arguing if it should be legal or not is very stale to me.
If you think we are making animals suffer, why wouldn't you want it to go into law?
This isn't about socialism
what does socialsim have to do with boiling a lobster alive?
Socialism in its pure form is anti economics itself. It doesn't support the concept of anyone having more than anyone else for any reason other than their need for it.
Capitalism in its pure form is about taking away as much as you can from those who either want and/or need something and selling it back to them for as great a drawback of other things they want and/or need as your competition won't sell lower/less/cheaper than in such a convenient manner.
Both backfire and deny a major element of human nature and society. Socialism ignores that we have selfish motives and want independence to get what we want, not just need, based on how hard and smart we work and handle our wealth. Capitalism ignores that society will break apart and be totally enslaved to a monopoly that owns all industries, politics and is a permanent dictatorship because as each industry has the dominator eat away at others, eventually all the leaders will form a cross-industry cartel and that will be the 'Illuminati Elite' that rule over all. The end result of Socialism is an Elite brutally making things unpleasant and unfair on everyone. The end result on Capitalism is exactly the same.
But isn't capitalism a right-wing economic structure while socialism is left-wing?
you can find any excuse you want. The entire Africa is either extreme left wing but still really capitalist (zimbabwe and such) or extreme right-wing. SA is maybe an 'exception' but it's still very, very right-wing.
Based on government size, property rights, regulatory efficiency, open markets, etc India is ranked rather poorly.
They support capitalism in a very unadultered form, are ruled by the rich, for the rich and do not inhibit competition beyond what is necessary to appease the masses from revolting too much. They are minimalist in size and beaureacracy, aim to leave the market as free as possible and only truly care about power and profit, in terms of policy.
How are those countries right-wing?
I see. So you are for the right-wing approach yes? That of India, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia and such. Is this correct or incorrect? Do they not embody right-wing ethos?
Nope, before and after. Hence being against communist and socialist genocides.
Care so much for the life until it's out of the womb, eh? Then it can rot in a slum amirite?
And atheistic ideologies such as communism/socialism are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people. Left-wing people are less often religious and they are fine with millions of unborn babies being aborted. Christians are against both of those. :)
It's like Halal Meat where they refuse to kill the brain of the animal with a stun gun before.
Anyone who refuses to stab the brain of the animal before doing the killing procedure is a sadist who deserves great pain brought upon them,
Whether you use electric collars for your dog's barks or declaw your cat, which leaves it feeling and experiencing what life would be like without your fingers, breasts/cock and eyelashes etc (their entire feeling of sexiness and self esteem comes from how well-kept their claws and fur are, more so their claws)... You deserve great pain brought upon you.
Any religion that says animals have no souls is a vile religion. Notice that Christianity and Islam are both responsible for such great atrocities in treating both humans and animals? They both say animals have no souls.
Idk lol. That is why I was asking. I am not prepared for a culinary debate.
Is there a difference in taste between living boil and getting stabbed through the head just before being dropped? Assuming that kills them.
Seal whacking is where it is at, bro.
I think I could argue that a lobster’s death is less cruel than most chickens or pigs or even crabs. Man, I have whacked a lot of lobsters in my life.
Correct, my main point is it is immoral to boil lobsters alive.
I'm guessing your argument is a moral one and not about how tasty it is if you prepare it differently, right? lol
I've never really thought too much about this argument to be honest. I would have to do a decent amount of research before beginning.
This is actually a topic I care a lot about, I haven't heard a convincing argument on the opposing side so I'm gonna stick my neck out on this site.
This is a really interesting topic! I shall think about joining.