A debate on a provocative topic.

V3=cool Clever response. Unfortunately, I am about to refute it. "I would like to point out that this does not include the term dead or deceased, and neither does the resolution. In fact, none of the definitions on dictionary.com include dead or something of the like." Alright, we'll do this your way. "The unalienable right to life gives each individual their right to not be eaten alive. This is the very first reason that I should win this round." Burial and cremation take away this right as well. The difference is that with cannibalism, we at least feed some hungry people while taking away their right to life. It is still bad, but it is less bad. Secondly, I could only take someone's leg. I don't have to eat the whole body. I would imagine that the head, chest, neck. and pelvic area would not be appetizing. I could theoretically just eat a leg. Burial and Cremation require that the person dies. So it is superior. "This proves that cannibalism isn't a better alternative, it is equal to these alternatives as they all violate the same right." But as I said, cannibalism feeds people, cremation/burial doesn't. And it doesn't necessarily kill, but burial and cremation do. "My third argument is that it is socially unacceptable to cremate or bury someone while they are still alive. In fact, I would posit that there are less than ten cases combined of this actually happening per year. I don't have actual statistics so if you can disprove this, please do. So if something is as rare as this, there need be no alternative, whether better or worse.' It is better that if one kills someone, they get put to at least some use. I don't have statistics either, but I can almost guarantee that live burials are slightly higher than 10 a year. "He then says that there are benefits from eating other people. He uses nutritional value as one. If we are looking for nutritional value, then there are much better alternatives that are much more humane. Yak being one of those alternatives. So there is no reason to eat humans as far as nutritional value goes because there are much better meats for you and your body." Burial and cremation have no nutritional value, although burial provides a good workout. I am not comparing it to yak, I am comparing it to burial/cremation. "Now let's talk about the expense part. You say that it is expensive to bury your dead grandma. My first point here is that it is also a good part of closure. When a love one dies, most of the living relatives need some sort of closure. When one is buried it allows for the family to have an event that talks affectionately about the deceased and allows them to further their grieving process and speeds up their recovery. Not only that, but a burial site allows for loved ones to visit it later on. This too helps with closure. Even if you were to have a ceremony before eating the deceased, it would defeat the purpose. You would finish telling stories of how much grandma meant to you, and then ask for a thigh cooked medium well? Doesn't help the grieving process.' That's a subjective argument. For me, I would find closure in that grandma would always be with me, literally. I have a little something of her in me. My opponent also forgets how well medium rare thigh helps the grieving process, although I wholeheartedly agree that medium well does not. "You also say that burning CO2 is bad for the environment. My first argument is that we have a lot of other worse things to worry about, so why spend our time on the small stuff? My second argument, is that plants turn CO2 into oxygen, and since most crematoriums are located on the cemetary premises which usually contain many plants, this doesn't play much of an impact on our environment at all." The cremation we speak of is illegal, as the subject is living. That means it must be done in secret, probably behind 7-11. 7-11 has little plants, so the CO2 emitted by the body does matter. "This just leaves the "green" effect of cannibalism. My first argument here is that burial and cremation aren't hazardous to the environment in the first place, so there need not be a green alternative. Secondly, most people aren't skilled in the art of butchering, or proper meat cooking techniques. When introducing a new meat to cook, it could bring in more diseases from improperly cooked meat.' It could do that, but that's speculation. Yak is new too.