Instigator
Points: 1

Farmers Must Begin to Practice Human Sacrifice

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Alec
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1501
Contender
Points: 7
Description
If they don't, vegetables will begin to rise out of the ground and float into the sky.
Round 1
Published:
Human sacrifice is a highly divisive topic. I feel I must first justify it adequately from a practical perspective before we talk about the flying vegetables.

Practicality

1a) Human corpses could be used as fertilizer.

Straight-forward
 
1b) We could lower our crime rate by sacrificing criminals.

Not only would we be able to kill trouble makers and put their corpse to good use under my plan, but this would also intimidate other criminals and lower crime rate.

1c) It would ensure fairness, become a competition, and increase our sense of community.

Only people who want to be sacrificed or are criminals would be. It would be a fun competition for nihilists and a fight to live for criminals.

Conclusion

Farmers must begin to practice human sacrifice for our civilization to grow and thrive. 
Published:
==Definition==

Human sacrifice: Killing humans for a deity(https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-sacrifice).

==Arguments==

Farmers practicing human sacrifice is dangerous for society because it gives farmers the power to kill people.  Even if they're criminals who commit a felony, we have executioners to deal with the execution.  A farmer doing this is bad in part because he/she has to focus on getting their crops to grow and less on executing criminals.  People ought to focus on their job.

==Rebuttals==

My opponent nowhere provides a good reason for human sacrifice according to the definition I posted above.

1a) Human corpses could be used as fertilizer.
There are other ways we can get fertilizer for farms other then killing humans for the sole purpose of it.  We can use animal poop for example, to get our farming fertilizer.  This is more renewable then corpses because a live animal continues to produce fertilizer.  A dead human does not produce this continuously.

1b) We could lower our crime rate by sacrificing criminals.
Depends on the crime.  If they commit adultery or steal money, them getting the death penalty and then their corpse would be cruel and unusual punishment.  Even for murderers, as someone who supports the death penalty, I usually don't like to bring semantics into debates, but the title of this debate is, "Farmers Must Begin to Practice Human Sacrifice".  Practicing human sacrifice involves killing others in order for something better.  The only people who should be executing are executioners; people who have been qualified to execute; people who are less likely to get the wrong man; people who serve justice.  If a farmer were to do this, it would be vigilantic and illegal for them to execute.

It would ensure fairness
Executing all criminals, even those who committed misdomieners would not ensure, "fairness".

increase our sense of community
How would it do this?

==Source==


Round 2
Published:
Brief response to my opponents argument and objections

Farmers practicing human sacrifice is dangerous for society because it gives farmers the power to kill people.  Even if they're criminals who commit a felony, we have executioners to deal with the execution.  A farmer doing this is bad in part because he/she has to focus on getting their crops to grow and less on executing criminals.  People ought to focus on their job.
I never said it would be the farmers who decide which people to kill. Now I realize this must be a difficult topic to conceptualize, but consider this: death is okay, and certain people need to die for society to move forward. The farmers need only do the killing and ritual to show commitment and solidarity. The dead bodies could be processed by some sort of factory afterwards. 

There are other ways we can get fertilizer for farms other then killing humans for the sole purpose of it.  
I never said we would replace the current fertilizers. After all, this would create a surplus of demand and result in non-sacrificial murder. Thus, this would be a state-sanctioned religious practice. 

Depends on the crime.  If they commit adultery or steal money, them getting the death penalty and then their corpse would be cruel and unusual punishment.  Even for murderers, as someone who supports the death penalty, I usually don't like to bring semantics into debates, but the title of this debate is, "Farmers Must Begin to Practice Human Sacrifice".  Practicing human sacrifice involves killing others in order for something better.  The only people who should be executing are executioners; people who have been qualified to execute; people who are less likely to get the wrong man; people who serve justice.  If a farmer were to do this, it would be vigilantic and illegal for them to execute.
I'm a good guy and I see your point, but I don't really care about the criminals' rights. It is technically sacrifice to a deity but here's the thing - a deity could be anything, even Henry Ford. 

Executing all criminals, even those who committed misdomieners would not ensure, "fairness".
I disagree, I am now a consequentialist (for the duration of this debate). And as such, the end justifies the means. As long as sacrifice reduces crime-rate I believe it would create a more fair society.

How would it do this?
I'm glad you asked. It would become much like a sport - think baseball, but a game of death. 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

A final point of interest, one which displays the practicality of my proposal. 

Food for African nations

Upon immediate introduction of my sacrifice system it is highly likely there will be a surplus of criminals. I propose we butcher them for meat and ship them to Africa. We would prioritize the fatties under this proposal.


Published:
 The farmers need only do the killing and ritual to show commitment and solidarity. The dead bodies could be processed by some sort of factory afterwards. 
Why do the farmers need to kill criminals who commit misdemeanors?

Thus, this would be a state-sanctioned religious practice. 
We have separation of church and state in our constitution, 1st amendment.  Religious law in this context violates human rights.  Killing people for stealing a few hundred dollars is cruel and unusual punishment, which is also against the US constitution.

I don't really care about the criminals' rights.
Most criminals deserve the right to life.  If you sped and you got caught, your technically a criminal.  Should speeders get the death penalty?  I don't think so.  Most people have sped before and it would not make society safer.  I would say the only ones that don't are murderers.  Even they can't be sacrificed for a deity.  Sacrificing is giving up something good.  A murderer is not good.  Therefore, the only thing that can be sacrificed is something good.  The only people that can be sacrificed are those that are productive to society and making society worse by purging a few good people from it is not beneficial to society and would increase the crime rate since you can only sacrifice law abiding citizens.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be a sacrifice.

Upon immediate introduction of my sacrifice system it is highly likely there will be a surplus of criminals. I propose we butcher them for meat and ship them to Africa.
If you include people who commit misdemeanors (like people who have sped before) then there will be a surplus, but you can easily be in that surplus.  Executing people for speeding is extremely inhumane and violates our constitution.  Also, why would farmers be the ones that do this?  They are likely to speed so they would have to execute other farmers, just for speeding.  The person shipping dead bodies to Africa would also might have sped before.  Since virtually everyone who has driven has sped at least once before, the US population would plummet and so would the economy.  Nuclear facilities for example would be understaffed, leading to their destruction.  This can lead to an apocalypse since there are virtually no one left in the US which then causes eve more crime.  It also encourages cannibalism in Africa, which would cause way more crime there because cannibalism is illegal there.
Round 3
Published:
Note: I never specified which group of criminals would be sacrificed. I am not going to move his imaginary goalpost though, and will play along.

Why do the farmers need to kill criminals who commit misdemeanors?
Well, they don't have to do anything - they could willingly forfeit their position as farmers if they so choose. 

We have separation of church and state in our constitution, 1st amendment.  Religious law in this context violates human rights.  Killing people for stealing a few hundred dollars is cruel and unusual punishment, which is also against the US constitution.
Yes we do, and I believe we should change and revise the document. It is clearly outdated with many inconsistencies. I think stealing money is just as cruel as death, and depending on the wealth of the victim it could be worse. 

Most criminals deserve the right to life.  If you sped and you got caught, your technically a criminal.  Should speeders get the death penalty?  I don't think so.  Most people have sped before and it would not make society safer.  I would say the only ones that don't are murderers.  Even they can't be sacrificed for a deity.  Sacrificing is giving up something good.  A murderer is not good.  Therefore, the only thing that can be sacrificed is something good.  The only people that can be sacrificed are those that are productive to society and making society worse by purging a few good people from it is not beneficial to society and would increase the crime rate since you can only sacrifice law abiding citizens.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be a sacrifice.
Funnily enough, the right to life is never mentioned in the constitution, it is only implied. Speeding does not need to be criminalized, only disincentivized. People who are overly committed to speeding even after this are likely hardcore speeders and thus criminals. We could also institute a margin of error approx ~10 MPH, to only catch the most heinous transgressions.

Ritual sacrifice does not necessitate giving up someone good, after all deities are not monolithic. They vary, with some being good and some being bad. 

If you include people who commit misdemeanors (like people who have sped before) then there will be a surplus, but you can easily be in that surplus.  Executing people for speeding is extremely inhumane and violates our constitution.  Also, why would farmers be the ones that do this?  They are likely to speed so they would have to execute other farmers, just for speeding.  The person shipping dead bodies to Africa would also might have sped before.  Since virtually everyone who has driven has sped at least once before, the US population would plummet and so would the economy.  Nuclear facilities for example would be understaffed, leading to their destruction.  This can lead to an apocalypse since there are virtually no one left in the US which then causes eve more crime.  It also encourages cannibalism in Africa, which would cause way more crime there because cannibalism is illegal there.
It is not inhumane comparative to the relative danger and harm of car crashes - nor to the danger of continuing to allow so many accidents on our roads. A few swift human sacrifices to a God and we no longer have to worry about speeders.

Cannibalism is already quite prevalent in Africa, I believe this proposal would solve both their problem of hunger and our criminal problem. 
Published:
Well, they don't have to do anything - they could willingly forfeit their position as farmers if they so choose. 
Then they are no longer farmers, but executioners and therefore it wouldn't be farmers practicing the human sacrifice, even if it were to be done which it should not be over misdemeanors like speeding.

I think stealing money is just as cruel as death, and depending on the wealth of the victim it could be worse.
Stealing $10 is definitely not the same as murdering someone.

Funnily enough, the right to life is never mentioned in the constitution, it is only implied.
I got the wrong document, sorry about that.  The Decleration of independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."(http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/)

We could also institute a margin of error approx ~10 MPH, to only catch the most heinous transgressions.
It is still cruel and unusual punishment to human sacrifice someone for speeding 10 mph over the speed limit.  Many, maybe even most people, have at least at some point in their lives drove 10 mph above the speed limit.  Sacrificing all of them is cruel and unusual for the crime, plus it would destroy our economy as the GDP of the country would plummet, affecting worldwide markets.

It is not inhumane comparative to the relative danger and harm of car crashes - nor to the danger of continuing to allow so many accidents on our roads.
Only about 1% of the population will die in a car accident and the care death rate is falling(https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/).  Is it worth executing half of the population for speeding just to save 1% of the population from a car accident?  I don't think so.

Cannibalism is already quite prevalent in Africa, I believe this proposal would solve both their problem of hunger and our criminal problem. 
The cannibalism in Africa has to be stopped, not encouraged with human flesh.  If you do this, more Africans would die and assuming cannibalism stays illegal, crime in Africa skyrockets.  I thought of a way to help them out, but it's off topic.  

Performing human sacrifice on those who speed 10 mph above the speed limit is scary.  Getting farmers who don't know how to execute to do this is also not a good idea.  Farmers have no experience with executing people.  If farmers are required to perform human sacrifice and is required to quit their jobs to execute, it would require them to quit their jobs, resulting in less crops, causing the US to be less of a bread basket, increasing hunger nationwide and worldwide, and would result in the painful deaths of many innocent people because they would die of starvation due to the lack of farmers supplying them with food.

Sources:


Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Did I change your mind?  Please state in the comment section.
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Your new vote looks better and is deemed sufficient
#23
Added:
--> @Speedrace
No because "Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points."
#22
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Pro didn't give any sources...lol
Is that vote better?
#21
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Sources
Con cites definitions of human sacrifice, but he also gives car crash statistics that are vital to his argument, as well as citing the Declaration of Independence. He gets sources.
I really need to see how this weighs into the context of the debate and how this weighs more heavily to con's favor. You need to compare these sources to at least one of Pro's sources. The utility here isn't explained.
#20
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Basically, I need you to go more in-depth on the source point.
#19
Added:
--> @Speedrace
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct.
RFD: See below
Reason for mod action: While everything else is fine, sources are not sufficient. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. In this case, I don't see any compare/contrast between pro's and con's sources to justify the point. There also isn't enough discussion on the strengh of those sources.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
#18
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
What did I do? :(
#17
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Arguments
Practicality (1A)
Pro says that human corpses can be used as sacrifices, and Con responds by saying that there are other more efficient ways of doing that. Pro says that we could do both, therefore creating a surplus. Because Con didn’t respond, this point goes to Pro.
(1B)
Pro says that we can sacrifice criminals and lower the crime rate. Con says that this will make farmers vigilantes and turn them into executioners. He also said it would be unfair for those who committed minor crimes. Pro says he doesn’t care about criminal’s rights. Con said that they are entitled to their rights regardless, and also makes the point that it wouldn’t be sacrifice unless you’re giving up something good. Pro says the Constitution never explicitly guarantees a right to life, and Con corrects himself and cites the Declaration of Independence.
Overall, Pro gave no real reason to sacrifice criminals beyond the crime rate. Con showed how criminals still have rights, and also that we shouldn’t sacrifice people who commit minor crimes. This point goes to Con.
(1C)
Pro says that this will allow fairness and increase our sense of community by making kind of a sport. Pro says that executing all criminals isn’t fair. Con uses consequentialism to state that if it lowers the crime rate, the end justifies the means. Con never responded to this, so this point goes to Pro.
(Ship Some Off To Africa)
Pro proposes sending some people to Africa to be food. Con shows how there are WAY to many criminals for this to be practical, as well as it raising African crime because cannibalism is illegal there. Pro just says that this will stop car crashes and help African crime rates (but gives no evidence for that). Con says that encouraging cannibalism doesn’t help. Lowering population rate should trump consequentialism here. This point goes to Con.
#16
Added:
--> @Speedrace
(Farmers Shouldn’t Kill)
Con says that farmers need to focus on their job, not killing. Pro says that they have to still do the killing to show solidarity, but that the bodies can be processed elsewhere. Pro argues that farmers become executioners, not farmers anymore. Pro gave no evidence to show how farmers killing increases solidarity. This point goes to Con.
Pro: 2
Con: 3
Sources
Con cites definitions of human sacrifice, but he also gives car crash statistics that are vital to his argument, as well as citing the Declaration of Independence. He gets sources.
Conduct
Pro forfeited. That’s bad conduct.
*All Other Points Tied*
#15
Added:
Sad
#14
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
Sorry about your injury.
Contender
#13
Added:
--> @Alec
I'm quite sorry I had wrote up a conclusory paragraph, but I broke my foot yesterday when I went out to get pizza and didn't have time to submit it. It shouldn't matter though, all our arguments are up in the debate already.
Instigator
#12
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
My account got hacked when my account picture was AOC. Sorry about that.
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @Alec
AHHHHHHH, its crazy the world is gonna ned in 12 years, we need to stop farting cows AOC. WHYYYYYYY
#10
Added:
--> @Alec
That's true but some of the things it just hurts my head.
#9
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments
Practicality (1A)
Pro says that human corpses can be used as sacrifices, and Con responds by saying that there are other more efficient ways of doing that. Pro says that we could do both, therefore creating a surplus. Because Con didn’t respond, this point goes to Pro.
(1B)
Pro says that we can sacrifice criminals and lower the crime rate. Con says that this will make farmers vigilantes and turn them into executioners. He also said it would be unfair for those who committed minor crimes. Pro says he doesn’t care about criminal’s rights. Con said that they are entitled to their rights regardless, and also makes the point that it wouldn’t be sacrifice unless you’re giving up something good. Pro says the Constitution never explicitly guarantees a right to life, and Con corrects himself and cites the Declaration of Independence.
Overall, Pro gave no real reason to sacrifice criminals beyond the crime rate. Con showed how criminals still have rights, and also that we shouldn’t sacrifice people who commit minor crimes. This point goes to Con.
(1C)
Pro says that this will allow fairness and increase our sense of community by making kind of a sport. Pro says that executing all criminals isn’t fair. Con uses consequentialism to state that if it lowers the crime rate, the end justifies the means. Con never responded to this, so this point goes to Pro.
(Ship Some Off To Africa)
Pro proposes sending some people to Africa to be food. Con shows how there are WAY to many criminals for this to be practical, as well as it raising African crime because cannibalism is illegal there. Pro just says that this will stop car crashes and help African crime rates (but gives no evidence for that). Con says that encouraging cannibalism doesn’t help. Lowering population rate should trump consequentialism here. This point goes to Con.
(Farmers Shouldn’t Kill)
Con says that farmers need to focus on their job, not killing. Pro says that they have to still do the killing to show solidarity, but that the bodies can be processed elsewhere. Pro argues that farmers become executioners, not farmers anymore. Pro gave no evidence to show how farmers killing increases solidarity. This point goes to Con.
Pro: 2
Con: 3
Sources
Con cites definitions of human sacrifice, but he also gives car crash statistics that are vital to his argument, as well as citing the Declaration of Independence. This specifically puts his arguments into the perspective of the entire country, and he actually won two if his points just because of the latter two sources and their corresponding arguments. Without those sources, I wouldn't have been able to evaluate this based on demographic changes or the policies outlined in our sovereign documents. Pro gave no sources. Con gets sources.
Conduct
Pro forfeited. That’s bad conduct.
*All Other Points Tied*