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." Luck? I don't need luck. But anyways... "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." Population growth estimates by the UN say conservatively that in 50 years, the world's population will be huge. By next century, it will have almost doubled. This will leave us with a problem, because we need more land to live on, which means there will be less farm land. This will not work, and many will starve. This is bad. Overcrowding may also mean that people must move out from the city into the countryside, and since we need so much farm land, they have to live on top of a cemetery. Have you ever seen the movie Poltergeist. That shows us what happens if we live on cemeteries. For those who haven't seen this movie (don't.) I'll tell you that it is not good. So, if we don't try to control our population, we will have starving people kidnapped by ghosts. We must control our population. Cannibalism not only takes out a few members of our population, it also provides the rest of us with food, making us healthier. Cremation and burials don't have this wonderful benefit. We need to eat each other in order to supply food and control population. If we do that we will all be happy, healthy, and not crowded. So let's see cannibalism: happy, healthy, uncrowded. Burial/cremation: Overcrowded, starving, kidnapped by ghosts. I'll take cannibalism please. "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." We aren't face yak overpopulation are we? In fact yaks are listed as vulnerable to extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If we eat them, we'll run out of yaks, and have a huge, starving population. "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 are wrong in fact. Granny's protein would contribute to muscle, ligament, and tendon growth. You would have her protein in your six pack abs. That would be pretty cool. "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.)" Ahh, yes, in most cases. However in some cultures, if a powerful man dies, he is cremated with one of his slaves. So if you're a modern Viking, 7-11 (or kum and go's) is your place of cremation. "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." I did this. We need to address overpopulation. Cannibalism does this. "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." Yaks are endangered. People are overpopulated. "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.' There's a reason someone invented meat tenderizer. So pretty much you should vote PRO!!! "