Instigator / Pro
7
1711
rating
33
debates
84.85%
won
Topic
#1431

Humans Should not Boil Lobsters Alive

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
0
Better conduct
1
1

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

Trent0405
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
4,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Arguments:
Lobsters feel pain was not challenged on any grounds, nor were topical counter points raised.

Sources:
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).

S&G:
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.

Conduct:
Neither degraded themselves.