CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should cannibalism be a right?
You don't have to eat the flesh of others if you don't want to. You can still show down on a chuck of cow at McDonalds or a tofu/tempe burger from some hippie if you want. But, should you have the right to eat your fellow man? Think how much you'd save on funeral arrangements!
Should only be allowed under extreme circumstances. If society collapsed tomorrow and we all were stumbling outside grabbing any provision (none left in stores) we could find and there was a fat man walking down the street was the only guy around. Iunno about you but, I'd eat him...
I'm sure you're going to spring a point on us that seems similar, but actually isn't similar, to this analogy you've now established.
So I will not be addressing that.
What I will be addressing is that cannibalism isn't a right, and it shouldn't be a right. Nevermind the moral applications, humans don't actually have any rights at all, including the right to live. So why should they have the right to cannibalism?
Another point is that our own bodies disagree with cannibalism, in that bad things happen to us. Especially in regards to the brain.
If you need me to expand on the already quite obvious statement that 'humans don't actually have rights', then arguing with you is probably going to be pointless.
Any 'rights' human beings have are preconceived notions, nothing more. There is no magical force dictating that we should live because it's a 'right'. We are allowed to live and attempt to survive. When put into a life-and-death situation with, say, a beast of some kind, that beast will not bow down to our 'right' to live.
Human beings have no right to anything, including life. We just do what comes naturally, that's all.
Well, sorry for obviously not being down to your intellectual level. If you think humans don't have any inherent rights, that's an incredibly absurd claim that most reasonable people would be inclined to ask for some evidence for. But, it sounds like you're not interested in supporting your absurd claims, so I wont even both asking you to support your position.
You mean 'up' to my intellectual level, and jokes aside, you're not viewing it objectively.
I don't need to provide evidence for humans not actually having rights, since I've already stated they are merely the ideas and inventions of human beings themselves. Now, if you can provide physical, concrete evidence that we do have rights, whether it be through divinity, nature, etc., then we'll talk.
Until then, don't assume I'm being ignorant and just stating random things. I've actually given this a great deal of thought.
I don't need to provide evidence for humans not actually having rights, since I've already stated they are merely the ideas and inventions of human beings themselves. Now, if you can provide physical, concrete evidence that we do have rights, whether it be through divinity, nature, etc., then we'll talk.
Actually, as the one making the claim that humans have no inherent rights, the burden is on you to establish this as fact. Simply stating "they are merely the ideas and inventions of human beings themselves" does not constitute an establishment of facts.
Sorry but it's not. I'm not the one who made the claim that humans have rights. You did via the topic.
The questioning of if someone has a right does not equate with the assumption that someone has a right. What a rather absurd assumption.
Nor do I care enough to.
Ah, some intellectual honesty. If you can't be bothered to formulate a reasoned argument, you should have just said so right from the beginning and not wasted peoples time with all this beating around the bush nonsense.
Or you could just stop deflecting the issue at hand. My statement that people have no actual rights is fairly accurate. It's because you're so into the illusion of said rights that you're avidly defending the concept, idea, what have you.
It has no substance, it is not a thing, just a concept. One can argue ideas are things sure, but it's still just that. An idea.
So the reason I don't have to prove anything is because there's nothing to prove. It's all there, black and white.
No... There is no reason why one would want to eat another man. There are many other options out there. Besides human flesh tastes nasty as f%^&. I haven't tried it though... lol
