This House would allow the consumption of dog meat

Thank you to SnaxAttack for posting his arguments. Concerning my opponents' arguments, I'd like to point out several things: First of all, I would like to point out that every source that my opponent has posted are from anti-dog meat companies. This means that my opponent's arguments are based on biased sources, thus evidence could be misleading in order to promote their own companies' interest. Thus, I'd like to urge that my opponent's sources should not be counted due to the fact they give a very one-side point of view towards the debate while the proposition has used a variety of sources, some impartial, some leaning towards pro-dog meat companies. Thus, the proposition has won in terms of sources. Secondly, I'd like to address my opponent's second argument. The opposition has talked about how dog meat is unhealthy, due to some diseases, rabies, zoonotic parasite and many more. First, many other livestock have diseases that are just as deadly, such as mad-cow disease. Secondly, his information comes from a biased anti-dog meat company, thus the website does not address several facts that the opposition might not be aware of. I have already explained that there are several specific species that are raised purely for consumption, including Nureongi, Hawaiian Poi and Xoloitzcuintle, which are regulated by the government in order to check for sanitation and other health effects. Furthermore, only a very small percentage of the South Korean population, for example, eats it regularly with 5 - 30% eating it once in their life time. This is because dog meat is viewed as a delicacy rather than a regular meal. Thus, it significantly reduces the chances of disease transmission. Also, the fact that dog meat is boiled or cooked before consumption kills a significant amount of bacteria prior to consumption, similar to how many societies cook pork or beef before consumption. Lastly, the opposition has completely glossed over the proposition's point about the fact that George Nasinyama, a veterinary doctor and meat specialist at Makerere University, has proved that there is little difference in the nutritional value and health effects. It is clear that species such as Nureongi, Hawaiian Poi and Xoloitzcuintle have the same benefits as other livestock in other countries, thus the opposition has failed to present how dog meat is so detrimental while the proposition has proved the benefits of dog meat. Thus, my opponent's entire first point fall apart. Thirdly, the opposition has talked about how eating dog meat breaks morality. However this is not the case. First of all, as I have already stated, there are specific species of dog for consumption that have significantly less sensory feelings and morality than the dogs we view as pets. The opposition has talked about how torture should not be implemented at all. However, we have already seen that many countries abuse their livestock for meat. For example, chickens were reportedly hung upside down in shackles with their beaks shaven to prevent stressed chickens from biting one another. Day-old male chicks were discarded and ground up to make nuggets as they couldn't lay eggs. Meanwhile, cows have significantly decreased lifespans due to the stress of everyday life. If the opposition truly stands for the opposition of cruelty, then the opposition should ban all forms of consumption of meat, as the proposition has proved that the dogs used specifically for consumption feel the same way as animals from other countries, which the opposition clearly does not, as he tries to protect the nutritional value of livestock. Thus, the opposition's second point completely breaks down as well. Lastly, the opposition has talked about helping societies who are eating dog meat. First of all, no society is completely dependent on dog meat; it is regarded as a delicacy. Secondly, all societies already treat dogs as a companion; I myself have many South Korean friends who own golden retrievers or Labradors. Many societies that consume dog meat already treat the dog as a companion and even a source of life, as many Chinese people believe dogs hold medicinal purposes. However, dog-eating societies also have specific dog breeds brought up specifically for consumption, similar to many Western countries today. Lastly, the opposition has not addressed why dog-eating societies are greatly, and have to be forced to "progress from their past society and move forward". This is by far the most offensive, as the opposition is suggesting that dog-eating societies are inferior to non-dog-eating societies. The proposition has already addressed Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thus the opposition has no right to force a culture to change. Thus, the last argument of the opposition completely falls apart. Thus, by breaking through the opposition's arguments, it is clear that the proposition has won today's debate as it stands for the preservation of all cultures. Sources: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr... http://koreanfood.about.com... http://www.peta.org... http://www.peta.org...