Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

Humans Should not Boil Lobsters Alive


The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 1
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 
--> @bmdrocks21, @Trent0405
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.
--> @Trent0405
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.
--> @bmdrocks21
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.
--> @bmdrocks21
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.
--> @Trent0405
I guess a better question would be: Why shouldn't this be considered animal cruelty in your eyes?
--> @bmdrocks21
Because I'm not interested in going down that road, arguing if it should be legal or not is very stale to me.
--> @Trent0405
If you think we are making animals suffer, why wouldn't you want it to go into law?
--> @billbatard
--> @Trent0405
is so!
--> @billbatard
This isn't about socialism
what does socialsim have to do with boiling a lobster alive?
--> @bmdrocks21
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.
--> @RationalMadman
But isn't capitalism a right-wing economic structure while socialism is left-wing?
--> @bmdrocks21
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.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.