Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BurnSide

Cockfighting

20 posts in this topic

Debate setup by Lochness Hunter.

Cockfighting, should we allow it? Some people say yes, others say no.

This is a formal, 1vs1 debate between Lochness Hunter, who is debating FOR cockfighting, and Monster Hunter X, who is debating AGAINST cockfighting.

The rules are simple. Each debater will post one introductory post, followed by FOUR body posts where you will be marked on countering the opponents arguments, persuasivness of your arguments, style of your debating and relevance to the topic. And one conclusion post from each debater.

No flaming or insulting or offensive content please, and make sure you post any links to external sources you use for information.

Any questions, feel free to PM me. Good luck to both debaters! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i guess i should get started.

c*** fighting has been around as long as man has domesticated animals. Though the first c*** fighters did not use gaffs (metel cruved spikes) or knives they used something the chicken already had, spurs. This is one of many historical values of c*** fighting, but lets not forget about all of the famous people who fought chickens. George washington, Ab linclon, thomas jefferson, james madison, etc.... The list goes on and on.

Now i have heard it all. how inhuman cockfighting is, but is this really true? Let me compare The chicken for food industry to the chicken fighting industry.

In the poultry business chickens are hatched by a brooder, meaning they never get to roam the open of a feild or forest like most new born chicks in a chicken fighters flock does, and most new borns chicks are left outside a pen until they are 6 months old.

In the poultry business a chicken is kept it a 1'x1' metal wire mesh cage. This restrictes a chickens movement. Also there feed is high in fat, and is constantly feed to make it grow at a very unhealthy rate, but the average fighting chicken pen is 4'x4' metal pen which sits on the ground. And fighting chickens are feed a high protien meal.

In the poultry business a chicken is usually killed for food when it is 2 months old, or a egg laying chicken is used until it stops producing eggs, then is kill for meat.\, but a fighting chicken cannot be fought until it is 8 months old. And the hens of a fighting chicken flock live there entire life with out being fought one time, and a fighting chicken gets one thing that no poultry chicken gets. A chance to live.

And that leads us to the "dead barrels". We have all seen the pictures that show 20 birds is one barrel bleeding all over one another. Yes they do have barrels like this, but there are few and far between. Most fighting chickens who lose don't die. Only about 3 out of 10 chickens die in a chicken fight. Most others are took back home and healed up.

Also the accusations of using streroids and drugs on fighting chickens. NOT true! If a chicken fighter uses such kinds of drugs on there birds even if they do when they are no futher good, because they die right after for drug overdose. Real chicken fighters use great genes, a good work out, and skill to win there chicken fights.

Also i have heard alot of stuff about why don't we eat the birds that lose there life. It is not because we use drugs. It is because A fighting chicken is nothing, but mucsles. It would be like eating shoe leather. Trust me i have tried.

Now the most important thing about chicken fighting. Unlike most people want to belive we do not make our chickens fight each other. It is a chickens nature to fight for territory and mates. A chicken, before it was domesticated, would fight and kill the other roosters for the right to breed with the hens of the flocks. Like a pride of lions do now.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I stand against c*** fighting because it is simply another form of animal cruelty. Allowing animals to fight and injure each other is not fair to the animals. These animals are raised to be aggressive, and they are often abused or mistreated much in the way that dogs are mistreated to casue aggression in the animals.

During a typical c*** fighting tournament, one third to one half of animals are often killed or injured. And the ones that survive often suffer sever injuries such as broken wings, punctured lungs, and punctured eyes. Taken from

http://artofcock.hypermart.net/

c*** fighting is cruel and inhumane because raising living beings to fight until one is killed or injured for the sake of entertainment is unnacceptable. After all, our society finds it unacceptable for dogs or people to fight in the same manner, so why should we view birds differently from any other living being?

c*** fighting is also cruel becasue it denies the animals a chance at a happy existence. The animals are raised to be strong and aggressive, and are usually traumatized to get them to become violent towards other creatures. It may be true that the birds are fed nutritional food to keep them strong and healthy, but it's only so that they stand more of a chance to kill or injure their opponent. They are kept in good physical condition only for the purpose of being able tyo sustain serious bodily damage.

It may also be true that the birds have a natural tendancy to fight, this is only to establish dominance among the group. The animals do not fight to injure or kill their opponents the way to do in cockfights. Often times the birds are given homrones or drugs to make them aggressive and wild. They are often fittd with sharp spurs attached to the ankles so that they can give lethal ckicks to their oppononents. In light of this, the birds feathers are shaved from the neck down to expose the chest and stomach. This is done so that the animals stomach and chest will be exposed so that the opponent can give a lethal cutting kick to these vulnerable spots.

Raising and manipulating any living breature, be it a dog or a rooster, for the sole purpose of having it fight until it is killed or injured is unfair to the animal becasue it denies them a fair chance at a regualr life. In cockfights, the animals are killed and/or injured for the sole purpose of human entertainmetnt. Animals in the wild do not kill each other for any reason other than survival. Because the fighting is done for unnatural reasons, it is wrong and should not be allowed.

Tahnk you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first like to ask Monster_hunterX have you ever seen a chicken fight with your own eyes?

I would have to disagree with my opponent on the statement that are raised in a manner of abuse or mistreated. A fighting chicken is not raised to be aggressive that is what a chicken does naturally.

Yes, 1/3 of the chickens entered in a chicken fighting tournament do die, and alot of chickens do sustain such injuries, but Most chickens who sustain a broken leg, wing, or punctured lung do heal up. Agin They have a chance to live, unlike a poultry chicken.

Also chicken fighting is not for entertainment. It never was. It was always about money. Many people who fight chickens are in poverty and are hoping to win a major event to make it big. Also i would like to put my opponent in this situation.

If you have 5 chickens lined up, and i told you if you killed everyone of these chickens i would give you 50 thousand dollars. Would you or wouldn't you take up that offer? Because that is how it seems to many chicken fighters.

A dog isn't the same as a chicken. In dog fights most the times the dogs are chained and beat to get them to fight. This is not the same with chickens. Chickens will fight without any motivation. Yes, we do let the chickens peck at each other before we put them down, but that is for are own protection. I have seen people die from where i chicken hit the man in the neck with is gaff. so thats why we do that.

And i don't look down on human fighting, but i still know of places where people still fight with knives. Not to the death, but still it is done.

These animals life a much happier existence than a poultry bird. For the first 6 months of there life they are not even in a pen. Free to roam your yard as they please. Also They start to fight when they get around 9 months old. It is because the hormone called testosterone(i probably didn't spell that right), This is what make a fighting chicken hostile to other chickens. Not animals all toghter. I have one chicken which will not peck or attack me in any way, but if i was to put him next to another chicken he would attack it.

Yes we do feed are chickens very nutritional feed, but a chicken does not train all its life to fight. It goes into what is called a "keep". In this "keep" the chicken goes though rough physical training, but that is just to give him a better chance of surviving. A normal "keep" is only last around 2 to 3 weeks. It is right up before the match.

They are not given hormorne or drugs to get them wild up. I know because they don't work. The crazier the chicken is. the less of a chance it has of winning. That is a plain fact of chicken fighting. Yes they are fitted with sharp spurs called gaffs, but you are forgetting one thing. A chicken already has spurs which are some times more lethal then a metal spike.

Also the only people who shave there chickens necks and stomach are complete idiots. They are the people who loss and get mad at us for winning. That is how you got a hold of that infomation. By shaving off they feathers they think it will make there birds lighter so they can kick higher for a head shot.

If these animals did not want to fight then why do they start at such a young age? At the age of 9 months a young stag will go after the full grown cocks and get himself killed. Not because of drugs or nothing like that. It is all because of natural processes, and Agin it is not for entertiament, it is for money. Something that not many of us have alot of. Now i am not saying that all people should be forced to fight chickens. All i am saying is let us fight them in peace. It isn't hurting you in any way.

and i got all of this info from myself and fellow chicken fighters, by witnessing fights for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To open my second statement, I would like to note something my opponenet said.

Loch Ness Hunter said "A fighting chicken is not raised to be aggressive that is what a chicken does naturally. "While this statement is true, it's only party true. As I stated earlier, it is true that chickens fight naturally, but this is only to establish ranking within a group. Chickens fight for dominance, not to harm or kill their opponent.

Another interesting statement came when my opponent said "Most chickens who sustain a broken leg, wing, or punctured lung do heal up. Agin They have a chance to live, unlike a poultry chicken" . While this may be true, the chickens are only healed so that they can go out and fight again.

Loch Ness Hunter also said that "chicken fighting is not for entertainment. It never was." While this is true in some parts of the world, it is not true of every person who has been involved in a cockfight. And in response to my opponent's hypothetical scenario, I can see how the offer might be tempting to someone, especially in a less fortunate country, but the example used is slightly over exxaggerated. Relatively, can you prove that anyone has made a quarter of a million dollors from killing five chickens?

My opponent also stated that A dog isn't the same as a chicken. In dog fights most the times the dogs are chained and beat to get them to fight While the chickens are not chained and beaten, they are harassed ion other ways to mkae them aggressive. And again, my opponent seems to have missed my point about why chickens naturally fight. my opponent stated "Chickens will fight without any motivation." Again, I must raise the point that the reaons chickens fight naturally is simply to establish dominance among a group.

Another reason that cockfighting is inhumane is that it HAS been proven that drugs have been used to make the birds more aggressive. In an excerpt from a report done on a cockfighting ring it reads: :After a similar bust in Ottawa County's Olive Township in 2002, 200-plus birds were killed because drugs had been used to make the roosters more violent. How could it NOT be considered inhumane to have over 200 living creatures die due to drug stimulation?

Taken from http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/1975/MI/US/1

Once again, my opponent has ignored my staement about the natural pecking order by stating "If these animals did not want to fight then why do they start at such a young age?" I do not wish to soud reptitive, so I will leave it at that

Loch Ness Hunter said "and i got all of this info from myself and fellow chicken fighters" Of course if you ask chicken fighters they are going to make it seem like there is nothing wrong with what they do. If you ask a drug dealer about dealing driugs, he will make it seem like there is nothing wrong with it. In order to establish a more fact based opinion on cockfighting, you should ask people who are for and against it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i have to give monster hunterX credit on that chickens do fight for domainace, but he is forgetting on major thing. I the wild a chicken will usually back down after a long fight. This is not the same with a fighting chicken. One will never back down. This means they will keep fighting for domaninace. So if 2 chickens where to be fighting in the wild and neither would back down, which is the case most of the time, one chicken will die. And in chicken fighting that is the same. Each chicken thinks he his going to win no matter how beat up he is.

Yes it is true that the chickens who are healed up do go back out to fight, but a chicken can only be put though its paces at the most 4 times. After that even If it loses every fight you got something special and should be breed up.

Yes sir i can prove that people has won that much and even more.

1988 World Slasher cup in indonisa, A american by the name of Ed "Boogie" Cavazos won 2,300,000 bucks during a 1 week long tournament. This was a 9 c***.

1967 An american at The DU-OK chicken pit in Virginia won 120,000 bucks during a 2 day tournament. This was a 5-c***

2003, Lochness_hunter (me) won 30,000 at the DU-Ok. I only used 3 to win that.

And The most famous of all Jimmy East sir. Won a 2 week tournament in Mexico city for 2,785,000 bucks. This guy is such a legand in Mexico he whenever he visit mexico he gets to stay in the Mexican Presidental Palace. This was a 14 c***.

All of these where tooken from the Game c*** Magizine.

And that is just the tip of the ice burg. All of these are in american dollars.

Agian like i stated earier this chickens do fight for dominace, But they expect the other chicken to stop and run away. But since they don't they keep fighting. So they do try to etablish dominace, but when one doesn't give in it leads to more fighting.

Another reason that cockfighting is inhumane is that it HAS been proven that drugs have been used to make the birds more aggressive. In an excerpt from a report done on a cockfighting ring it reads: :After a similar bust in Ottawa County's Olive Township in 2002, 200-plus birds were killed because drugs had been used to make the roosters more violent. How could it NOT be considered inhumane to have over 200 living creatures die due to drug stimulation?

I know that this happened. I heard about this and your right that is terrible, but do you think that that represents the chickens fighting commuity in a whole? It is a common practice in Peru to break you chicken toes be for they fight. Does this mean that chicken fighter every wheres break there chicken toes before they fight? No it doesn't, This is just a bad example. When i was busted for the first time in South Carolina There was 25 chickens who used drugs out of about 500-540 birds. So some people do use drugs on chickens, but it is not as rampant as you think.

Loch Ness Hunter said "and i got all of this info from myself and fellow chicken fighters" Of course if you ask chicken fighters they are going to make it seem like there is nothing wrong with what they do. If you ask a drug dealer about dealing driugs, he will make it seem like there is nothing wrong with it. In order to establish a more fact based opinion on cockfighting, you should ask people who are for and against it

Yes, but if you ask someone who is against it. They will say that it was the devils work, and let me ask you have you asked anybody any questions who are for chicken fighting? Also i talked to different types of chicken fighters. Some chicken fighters use drugs. Others break there chicken toes before they fight. I do not use eaither or do either, so i see the chicken fighting world from different eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bring up a point first about the antural aggressivness of the animals. If there were two pitbulls that were bred to be aggressive, and they were never abused during the time they were raised from puppies, the animals would still have some level of aggression right? Now, we still would'nt allow them to fight to the death.

Loch Ness Hunter also said

Agian like i stated earier this chickens do fight for dominace, But they expect the other chicken to stop and run away. But since they don't they keep fighting. So they do try to etablish dominace, but when one doesn't give in it leads to more fighting.
While this may be ture, we certainly wouldn't allow humans to do this. If two men were fighting, and refused to stop until the other was dead or injured, we would not allow it. If we would not allow this type of thing to happen to humans, then why would we allow it to happen to these birds?

Another interestinbg statement came when Loch Ness Hunter Stated

I the wild a chicken will usually back down after a long fight. This is not the same with a fighting chicken. One will never back down.
While this is true, these animals are NOT in the wild, and the reason for their fighting serves no purpose other than human benefit. When the animals fight in the wild, it is for the sole purpose of suvrival correct? Now, If the fighting birds did not fight each other, it would have no bearing on their survival as they are captive held animals. The only time when animals fighting is acceptable is when it is done in the wild, as it was meant to be. The purpose of the animals fighting in the wild is for thier survival, but with domestic animals, their survival is up to the owners. Now, if the animals survival is up to us, then it is already an unnatural state for the animals. So, if the animals are already in an unnatural state, then letting them fight is for unnatural reasons.

Loch Ness hunter also stated

Yes sir i can prove that people has won that much and even more.

So it seems that the point of having the animals fight is strictly for human profit, which is an unnatrual circumstance. Since these are domestic animals, their survival depends on their human caretakers, and does NOT depend on which animal is the victor in a fight.

Another statement made by Loch Ness Hunter was

And The most famous of all Jimmy East sir. Won a 2 week tournament in Mexico city for 2,785,000 bucks. This guy is such a legand in Mexico he whenever he visit mexico he gets to stay in the Mexican Presidental Palace. This was a 14 c***.

Can you prove that up to 14 wild cocks have fought for dominance over a 2 week duration?

Cockfighting is cruel because it is unnatural. the reasons that they fight in nature, and the reasons they fight in cockfights are two very different reasons. For domestic animals Such as fighting cocks, their survival depends upon human care. In the wild their survival dpeneds on natural leadership (the head male of the group) Since fighting cocks survival does not depend on which animal is the victor in a fight, it is unecessary and cruel to have them fight fro no reason other than human profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To bring up a point first about the antural aggressivness of the animals. If there were two pitbulls that were bred to be aggressive, and they were never abused during the time they were raised from puppies, the animals would still have some level of aggression right? Now, we still would'nt allow them to fight to the death

While this may be ture, we certainly wouldn't allow humans to do this. If two men were fighting, and refused to stop until the other was dead or injured, we would not allow it. If we would not allow this type of thing to happen to humans, then why would we allow it to happen to these birds?

Well for the dogs fighting i wouldn't do anything. I mean i wouldn't jump in front of two fighting pitbulls for any mans money. That would be sucicdal.

Now for the humans i wouldn't do anything if they were both still on there feet. Now if one of them is on top of the other one pounding his face in i would try to stop them, because in a chicken fight a chicken that is laying on the ground the other chicken will usally not bother it.

While this is true, these animals are NOT in the wild, and the reason for their fighting serves no purpose other than human benefit. When the animals fight in the wild, it is for the sole purpose of suvrival correct? Now, If the fighting birds did not fight each other, it would have no bearing on their survival as they are captive held animals. The only time when animals fighting is acceptable is when it is done in the wild, as it was meant to be. The purpose of the animals fighting in the wild is for thier survival, but with domestic animals, their survival is up to the owners. Now, if the animals survival is up to us, then it is already an unnatural state for the animals. So, if the animals are already in an unnatural state, then letting them fight is for unnatural reasons

A chicken is not only fighting for human benafit alone. He is fighting sort of like he is in the wild. Look at it this way. A chicken fights in the wild for the main reason of mating with the hens of the flock. Well a chicken fighting in a chicken fight is fighting for the same reason. If the chicken shows great skill and heart he will get the right to breed with hens so the onwer can keep his genes going. So a chicken fights for the reason of mating in captivity to. It is just in a different manner.

So it seems that the point of having the animals fight is strictly for human profit, which is an unnatrual circumstance. Since these are domestic animals, their survival depends on their human caretakers, and does NOT depend on which animal is the victor in a fight.

Yes it is for human profit, but the chicken gets things to. It gets food, water, breeding rights, and life. Life is an unusal oe, but if the same chicken was born in a poultry farm. It would have slight chance of living, but a chicken fighting in derbies has a good chance of living. So it is fighting for itself. It benefits humans and chickens alike.

Can you prove that up to 14 wild cocks have fought for dominance over a 2 week duration?

No, He fought one chicken per day. In such a tournament as that was there was almost 400 entries. So there was around 2800 chicken fights for that 2 week period, And with a 10 thousand dollar entry fee. They wanted to make sure they called each match right. Yes there are many rules to chicken fighting. It is just not throw down the chickens and let the go at it. There are counting and disqualifications.

Chicken fighting is not cuerl, becuase the chickens are fighting for the same thing they fight for in the wild. Food, water, mating rights and life. A fighting chicken is the closest thing to its wild cousin than any other type of dometicated chicken. So if fighting chickens is wrong then how a chicken behaves in the wild must be wrong too. The only difference is that there is human invovlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loch Ness Hunter Stated

He is fighting sort of like he is in the wild
Loch Ness Hunter has just proven one of my points. The bird is NOT in the wild, and therefore allowing them to fight for something that we should be providing the domestic animal is wrong. It's as if we were letting the animals fight, and claiming it was for food. If the animal is being kept domestically, then it is the owner's responsibility to provide the animal with what it needs.

Yes it is for human profit, but the chicken gets things to. It gets food, water, breeding rights, and life
Well, as a domestic animal, it's the owner's responsibility to provide the animal with these things. We shouldn't make the animal fight for those things. If the animal is being kept domestically, then it is the owner's responsibilty to provide the animal with these things, so the point of cockfighting is strictly for human profit, becasue providing the animal with food is what the owner SHOULD be doing anyway. There is no way that you can tell me that this isn't true.

fighting in derbies has a good chance of living. So it is fighting for itself.

Again, this is the owner's responsibilty. If the animal is being kept in captivity, then it shouldn't have to fight to defend itself. If we keep animals, and make them fight to defend themselves when their survival is our responsibility, then that constitutes as cruelty.

Chicken fighting is not cuerl, becuase the chickens are fighting for the same thing they fight for in the wild

Again, I must repeat my point that if the animals are our responsibitly, then they should not have to fight for the basic essentials they need to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loch Ness Hunter has just proven one of my points. The bird is NOT in the wild, and therefore allowing them to fight for something that we should be providing the domestic animal is wrong. It's as if we were letting the animals fight, and claiming it was for food. If the animal is being kept domestically, then it is the owner's responsibility to provide the animal with what it needs.

Yes, i did prove your point, but don't every domestice animal does things for these 4 things is right. A dog and cats show companionships. There are your friend they will let you pet them and play with you. A fish dosen't take that much taking care of, and it is also your friend. A domestice bird (not chicken) is also your friend. It will sit on your shoulder and sing and all of that good stuff. All of these animals please you to get food and water. A chicken will not do any of that. A chicken won't come up to you an let you pet him. The will run until the feed is thrown down on the ground. So you tell me what teh difference between a dog playing fetch with your then a chicken fighting for you. In the end they both get teh same thing Food, Water, breeding rights and life.

Cruelty to animals is not feeding them, beating them, and letting them thrist to death. Chicken fighting is not, becuase they are doing exactlly what a dog or cat does for you. It is just in a different way. A chicken fights for its owner the same way a dog plays fetch with it's owner. Now i am not saying that it is the greatest thing since the TV, but in these times of drugs, murders, stealing, and rape. Why is somthing that dosen't even hurt people illeagel? While there are kids starving and genicide going on all around the world. We send our tax dollars to stop something that has been going for at least 2000 years. So lets stop harrassing these hard working people and let them do what they do.

Thank You.

I would also like to thank Monster_hunterX for debating me, and Burnside for hosting this debate. Thank Yall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lets not forget about all of the famous people who fought chickens. George washington,

While cockfighting is a time honored tradtion which had many famous figures take part in it that doesn't make it right. It is also a well known fact that George Washington had slaves. Now, are you telling me that slavery should be considered accpetable becasue famous historical figures did it?

Loch Ness Hunter also stated

All of these animals please you to get food and water. A chicken will not do any of that

Then he countered his OWN statement by saying

they are doing exactlly what a dog or cat does for you. It is just in a different way

If a chicken is not fighting to please you, then how does it manage to do the same thing but in a different way.

Cruelty to animals has many forms. While it is true that beating and starving them is one form of animal cruelty, allowing domestic animals to fight is also another form of animal cruelty. We don't allow other domestic animals such as dogs or cats to fight.

Why is somthing that dosen't even hurt people illeagel?

This is the problem with humans today. Just becasue it doesn't hurt us, we don't mind doing it. It may not hurt us to have the animals fight, but it does hurt them.

There are other ways for humans to make money, and they do not have to allow animals to fight until one is dead or injured. All it takes is some inventive thinking.

While c*** fighting may be a time honored tradition, that doesn't make it acceptable. Slavery also has a prominent history in human society, as does human sacrifice. Yet we look down on both of these institutions.

and yes, there are several problems such as starvation and genocide that are facing the world. People need to stop wasting time fighting animals and looking out for themselves, and concentrate on larger problems at hand.

while cockfighting may provide a constructive outlet for some, there are other ways for humans to invest their money. The main problem with humans is, that we think we are the only living things on this planet, and if it doensn't bother us then there is nothing wrong with it. This is why we litter and cut down forests. It benefits us, but it's devastating for animals.

The bottom line is that staging fights between animals for the purpose of human profit is wrong. I mean, we don't allow other animals like pigs or dogs to fight, so why should fighting cocks be considered different?

I would like to thanks my opponent Loch Ness Hunter for his well-presented argument, and I would like to thank everyone who is interested in this debate for listening to my argument as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great debate so far guys!

Onto your conclusion posts to finish up, and then we'll get it scored. grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, are you telling me that slavery should be considered accpetable becasue famous historical figures did it?

Ab lincoln also fought chickens and he abolished slavery in america, and no slavery should not be accpetable.

If a chicken is not fighting to please you, then how does it manage to do the same thing but in a different way.

A chicken is fighting to please you. It is fighting to win the owner some money. It is one of the greatest feelings in the world when just five of your chickens win you 30 thousand bucks. I know because i have lived it.

We don't allow other domestic animals such as dogs or cats to fight

A dog or a cat dosen't need to fight. It gives the owner affection and loyalty. A chicken dosen't do this. If a chicken would play fetch, play with a little ball of yarn, run around the house in a little ball, sing its heart out, or swim around it there little tank there wouldn't be chicken fighting, but a chicken dosen't do anything of the sort. All it cares about is eating, sleeping, drinking, mating, and being domanate.

This is the problem with humans today. Just becasue it doesn't hurt us, we don't mind doing it. It may not hurt us to have the animals fight, but it does hurt them.

Poultry birds and animals used for furs are electricuted to death in the thousands every day in America. This also dosen't hurt humans, should this be outlawed to? Hunting animals dosen't hurt humans should this be outlawed? Fishing dosen't hurt humans, should this be outlawed? No, all of them things aren't outlawed, because they don't hurt humans. So why should chicken fighting be any different?

There are other ways for humans to make money, and they do not have to allow animals to fight until one is dead or injured. All it takes is some inventive thinking.

Yea, there are other ways to make money, but the normal person who fights chickens work at a 9-5 job getting paid 10 bucks an hour. What other options are there. Getting another job so they can spend less time with there families. Playing the stock market. There is an old saying where i am from and it goes like this.

There are 5 ways to get rich, get it from a love one, inventing a new gizmo, finding gold, drugs and chicken fighting.

And that is how most chicken fighters feel.

While c*** fighting may be a time honored tradition, that doesn't make it acceptable. Slavery also has a prominent history in human society, as does human sacrifice. Yet we look down on both of these institutions

It is true that society looks down on slavery and human sacrifice, but why fighting chickens? It dosen't hurt you, me, or the guy down the street. It hurts other chickens. And billions of chickens die every year by electircution, have there neck broke, or choped off. All for profit or food. So whats the difference by fighting a chicken and killing a chicken for food, or profit?

and yes, there are several problems such as starvation and genocide that are facing the world. People need to stop wasting time fighting animals and looking out for themselves, and concentrate on larger problems at hand

That so called "wasting time" is putting food on the table of someoen right now as we speak. That "wasting time" is buying the gas to get to work for another day of labor. That "wasting time" is helping paying off that home so your will have something to leave for your kids. That "wasting time" as you put it isn't causing starvation or genocide, but it is causing wealth and and pride though out the world.

while cockfighting may provide a constructive outlet for some, there are other ways for humans to invest their money. The main problem with humans is, that we think we are the only living things on this planet, and if it doensn't bother us then there is nothing wrong with it. This is why we litter and cut down forests. It benefits us, but it's devastating for animals.

Littering benafits no one. Yes cutting down forest does hurt the animals. Should this be illeagal to then. Humans don't think that we are the only thing living. How many times have you seen a human buy a dog special treets or a new toy. How many charities send millions of dollars to help out the endagered animals? How many save the rain forest groups are there? The problem is that humans think that chickens are completly like us, but there not. A chicken can't reason, cry, show emotions, or even show mercy. So why should we think that if they where in our shoes they would do us any different?

The fact is billions of chicken are killed each year for food and profit. So why should chicken fighting be illeagel when it isn't even a fration of the deaths of chickens in the world compared to the poultry end of it. It dosen't hurt any person. It brings wealth and pride though out the world. It is a timed honored tradition which shouldn't be swept aside like some dust on the ground.

Chicken fighting shouldn't be illeagal. Period!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A dog or a cat dosen't need to fight. It gives the owner affection and loyalty. A chicken dosen't do this
Loch Ness Hunter said that a chicken does not show affection or loyalty to it's owner. Then my opponent said
A chicken is fighting to please you.

so if a chicken doesn't give it's owner affection, then how can the chicken fight to please you?

Poultry birds and animals used for furs are electricuted to death in the thousands every day in America. This also dosen't hurt humans, should this be outlawed to?
I personally do not support the fur industry, and as for poultry, they are killed to produce food for humans. the same for fishing and hunting in some cases. I do not support commercial gaming becasue killing an animal so that you can hang it's head is wrong.

whats the difference by fighting a chicken and killing a chicken for food, or profit?

the difference is that fighting chickens serves no purpose other than human profit. You made the claim that the animals are fighting for dominance, but the bottom line is that if there were no money to be made, then humans would not fight chickens. The only reason that it is acceptable to kill poultry animals is because it serves the purpose of feeding people. While poultry is an obivous industry which is for human profit, it also serves the purpose of feeding humans.

That "wasting time" as you put it isn't causing starvation or genocide, but it is causing wealth and and pride though out the world.

If this is true, then let's look at the world. America is an incredibly rich nation, but our revenue does not come form cockfighting. Now, there are many countires less forunate than the US. If chicken fighting is such a great source of wealth, then why is it that in a country where it is mostly banned (The US) we have such a high revenue? Chicken fighting has (If any) minimal impact on world revenue, and to say that it is causing wealth all over the world is untrue, and only pertains to certain individuals who have profited from it, it does NOT refer to the wealth of a nation.

A chicken can't reason, cry, show emotions, or even show mercy. So why should we think that if they where in our shoes they would do us any different?
A chicken can still feel pain. A chicken still bleeds. Just becasue it is not as advanced as us, that makes it okay to fight them? Hardly an excuse.

The fact is billions of chicken are killed each year for food and profit.

The only reason the deaths of poultry chickens is acceptabel is because it goes towards feeding people. c*** fighting is only good for humans to make a profit.

If cockfighting isn't cruel, then why don't we allow other animals to fight? Just becasue chickens are not like us, it doesn't mean that they still dont get hurt, or feel pain. Cockfighting should be outlawed because chickens are living beings as well, and we find it unacceptable for other life forms to be fought by humans, so whay should we look at chickens differently?

Thank you again to Loch Ness Hunter for his debate, and to burnside for setting the debate up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are both very welcome gents. A terrific and successful debate, thank you VERY much for both taking part up to the end, and participating in such a difficult one too!

Now it's off to the debate judges for your scores.

Each participant will be judges on their style, the relevance of their posts, their persuasivness and countering of the opponent.

Once three judges have posted their scores out of 40 (each point judged is worth up to 10) i'll tally up the results, post the averages and the winner. original.gif

On to the judges!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally,a debate to score after my abscence! Here are your scores guys..

Debator 1: Lochness Hunter

Relevancy:10

Countering: 6

Style: 7

Persuasiveness: 6

Total: 29

Debator 2: Monster Hunter X

Relavancy: 10

Countering: 9

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 8

Total: 35

Great job to both participants.. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done both of you, fab arguments! thumbsup.gif

Debator 1: Lochness Hunter

Relevancy:9

Countering: 7

Style: 8

Persuasiveness:6

Total: 30

Debator 2: Monster Hunter X

Relavancy: 9

Countering: 8

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 7

Total: 32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debator 1: Lochness Hunter

Relevancy:10

Countering: 8

Style: 6

Persuasiveness:7

Total: 31.

Debator 2: Monster Hunter X

Relavancy: 10

Countering: 9

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 9

Total: 36.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debator 1: Lochness Hunter

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 8

Style: 6

Persuasiveness:7

Total: 30.

Debator 2: Monster Hunter X

Relavancy: 9

Countering: 8

Style: 7

Persuasiveness: 9

Total: 33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judges have judged and the results are in!

Lochness Hunter scores a fantastic average score of 30!

Monster Hunter X wins the debate with a fabulous average of 33!

Thank you to both the debaters for taking part in this great debate! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.