This House would allow the consumption of dog meat

Also, I apologize for incorrect grammar, as English is not my native language. The consumption of dog meat has long been contested within the larger argument of East versus West. Whereas some Eastern countries consider the consumption of dog meat to be a delicacy, most Western countries view the practice as a part of unnecessary suffering. Thus, the proposition proudly proposes the motion "This House would allow the consumption of dog meat. Before moving on to the arguments, some definitions have to be made Allow: To legalize within a country under strict government control Dog meat: Meat that comes from dogs, however separate from the breeds that we use as pets With these definitions, we proudly propose this policy: 1) A culture cannot be suppressed under any circumstances 2) It is alright if a culture disapproves of another culture's beliefs, however it cannot force another culture to change their beliefs With these definitions and this policy, the proposition would like to propose these arguments: 1) A culture has the unalienable right to carry out their beliefs A) Why a culture has the unalienable right to carry out their beliefs Humans are naturally identified through their culture. Whether it be from the West or the East, every culture has the unalienable right to carry out their beliefs. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance". Culture falls under this category as it is a set of beliefs that cause people to form a culture in the first place. If a culture is suppressed, then that culture's beliefs are lost forever, losing the amount of creativity that we have left in the world. We cannot have a few cultures dominate over one another, thus one sure way to protect your own culture is to carry out your own beliefs, as long as it does not violate any other article within the declaration. B) How eating dog meat falls under this category Now that we have established that a culture has the unalienable right to carry out beliefs, it is clear that eating dog meat falls under this category. Occurring ever since the Neolithic age, eating dog meat has popped up in several regions throughout history. For example, dog bones were excavated in a Neolithic settlement in Changnyeong, South Korea. The reason why so many cultures have allowed to consumption is due to their belief that it may ward off heat during the summer and that it will bring good luck. As this is a belief, the cultures that believe in this must be allowed to carry out their beliefs, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2) The consumption of dog meat is similar to other forms of meat eating in other countries A) Same treatment as other animals in other countries Many anti-dog eating activists claim that due to the harsh treatment that dogs are kept in, this is a form of animal abuse, and therefore it must be banned. There are several flaws within this statement. First, there is a fundamental form of hypocrisy, as plenty of chickens, cows, pigs and other sources of meats are kept within the same or worse conditions. John Oliver, the host of Last Week Tonight, exposed the conditions in which chickens are forced to live in. They are unable to go out of the coop, thus prohibiting sunlight, and are force-fed feed in order to fatten them up as much as possible. Furthermore, there have been numerous outbreaks of mad-cow disease due to the fact that cows are literally given cows to eat. If the opposition believes that dog-eating should be banned due to animal cruelty, then we should also ban other forms of meat. Unless Western countries can prove that they put animals in better conditions than dogs, then they cannot force another culture to change their beliefs. Furthermore, what most people associate dogs with are pets. However, there are specific breeds of dogs that are raised purely for consumption, like cattle. Some examples include Nureongi, Hawaiian Poi and Xoloitzcuintle. B) Similar nutritional value as other animals in other countries Dr. George Nasinyama, a veterinary doctor and a meat specialist at Makerere University, states that dog meat has the same nutritional value as goat or cow meat, where the only difference is in the smell. We eat meat in order to gain a source of nutrition and protein, yet it is clear that dogs give the same amount of calories that other animals do. Thus, dogs in other cultures are similar to cattle in other countries, although they are different species. 3) Western bias has formed eating dog-meat as taboo A) Animal cruelty has been overblown in the media There have been many instances in which animal rights activists have been caught falsifying data in order to promote their own beliefs. Forms of editing or changes in lighting can significantly change the mood of a scene, and these corporations utilize this fact in order to try and promote their beliefs. According to the Times, the number of animal-abuse cases are significantly higher than the actual amount going on in the world. Thus, we cannot trust these animal rights activists to give data, but rather a third - impartial party, to which I challenge the opposition to give such a source. B) Some Western countries also eat dog meat Although seeming strange, many western countries also consume dog meat. For example in Switzerland, while the commercial slaughter and sale of dog meat is illegal, cultural attitudes towards slaughtering animals for meat is traditionally liberal. Furthermore in Australia and Canada, it is actually legal to eat dogs in most states and territories, although it is illegal to sell dog. meat. Lastly, numerous countries within Africa support the consumption of dog meat as well, thus eating-dog meat is a much larger practice than one might realize. It is clear that the proposition has won today's debate as the proposition stands for the protection of cultures. We believe that any culture should have the right to carry out their beliefs. Thus, with our policy and arguments, it is clear that the proposition has taken this debate home. Sources: . http://www.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.newvision.co.ug... . http://www.dbpia.co.kr... . http://www.un.org...