A debate on a provocative topic.

To my esteemed opponent. I love this debate and give you many thanks for making this both extremely fun, and quite witty. I wish you luck...but not too much. Now let us begin. Burial and cremation do NOT take away the right to life as their very definitions include the idea of death. Once again according to dictionary.com: Cremation: to reduce a dead body to ashes...or...to incinerate a corpse...or...the incineration of a dead body. Burial: the ritual placing of a corpse in the ground...or...an instance of burying a dead body in a grave. So by very definition, cremation and burial do not violate the right to life as they are inacted when a person no longer has life. So it isn't even equally bad as I originally thought. It is worse. You are eating someone who is alive compared to burying or burning someone who is already dead. But you say that you wouldn't eat the whole person. So now you are causing this person emotional trauma as I imagine it can't be too fun having your leg chopped off, but also physical trauma. You are also impairing them physically as I imagine isn't fun as well. I broke my leg and it sucked enough, but losing a leg can't be fun. I again bring up the point that burial and cremation don't kill people, because they are already dead, so your next point is moot. You also say that it is better that someone get put to some use. But I already proved that there is no reason to be eating people, when it is much better to eat yak. Human serves no purpose. Yak is more nutritious. My entire point with the yak, is that we don't need to eat people for nutrition. Now you wouldn't have a little bit of granny in you always, as we are bound to digest granny and need to expose of her in some way. And if you thought grandma's perfume was bad, I can't imagine what a grandma turd would smell like, but it can't be any better. Tousche on the medium well/medum rare. If we were to eat people, medium rare probably would be better tasting. But the point is that it wouldn't help the grieving process to most people. You say that it is illegal to burn people alive, and this is true. But cremation deals with dead people. Not live. And where I'm from, there are no seven elevens...(they are all kum and go's. I know, there are many sexual jokes at their expense.) So let's look at why my opponent, while extremely witty, still isn't debating well enough to win this round. 1. He (my apologies if you are female) must prove that eating live people is better than both cremation of dead people and the burial of dead people. Mind you, if I prove that it isn't better than one of these, then I win the round. I have clearly done this as I have shown you the rights eating live people violates, compared to the benefits of cremation and burial. 2. All of my opponent's arguments and claims have been disproved and countered by myself. His main reason for wanting to eat these people is nutritional value, but I have shown how yak is much more nutritious, and therefore eliminates the need to eat people. 3. The grieving process cannot be completed if they are carved up and served for thanksgiving dinner. Plus, if you eat grandma, I can't imagine that she is too tender. I mean, eating old chickens is pretty rough, and they only live for a couple of years. But eating something that was living for eighty or ninety years has got to be rough. So for those three reasons, you should vote for me.