This House would allow the consumption of dog meat

For this round in this debate, I like to please point out some faults in my opponents argument by italicizing them for voters to view.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.First off, I like to please point something out. My opponent argues that my sources are biased, but the same can be said to his own. I ask voters, what is the point of a debate? Defined from Webster's Dictionary (1), a debate is: "Argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner". We are arguing a formal subject, and we obviously are arguing both our positions; so of course there will be some bias. Technically, in my opponents argument, there is bias in his own sources stating the nutrition for dog meat, while my own is talking about why it isn't nutritious. We are exchanging both our positions, and hence the reason why there is no true bias. We are having a formal discussion with an exchange of different opinions, with different evidence to support our own claims.C1: Dog Meat is UnhealthySecondly, 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.My opponent argues that other foods can cause disease, and I agree that they do. Like i stated in the previous round (C1; I & II), "Now my opponent can mostly make the argument that other meats from animals can be considered unhealthy, and it is true", but in my opening argument I stated that these other animals have less chance of disease comparatively to dog meat. In fact, Dog Meat has been said to be the lore of causing Ebola (2). Under this graph: There has been an increase in rates of people having Ebola. Dog meat here is clear that it is dangerous, and we should follow through with a plan stated in my opening statement (C3) that we should help these countries, and adapt to using their animal instead of using them as a last resort for food. 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 My opponent admits that there is a small percentage of eating dog meat commonly in South Korea. At first, admitedly, thought it was common; but thanks to my opponent, he is actually helping the Con side of this debate. If only a small portion of dog meat is being ate, why even have it in the first place? If it was common, I could see some understandability; but it isn't truly common, so why even have it? Later on, my opponent argues that that dog meat is used as a delicacy, but the same thing can be said as other animals. Stated from the article "5 Crazy, Weird, Bizarre Korean Food for the Brave" (3), it states the most delicate of foods in Korea. Examples being chicken feet and live squid, so why not have these foods instead of dog meat? There are clearly other "delicate" foods, than solely dog meat.And even if you cook it or boil, there is still a potential that a disease for dog meat can spread. The reason? They have a special formation on their body, which prones them to carry the disease longer (Like rabies), and cannot simply be boiled down (4). So there is still a chance that the disease will still be there. So why not make South Korea a safer place without having to eat off of dogs?C2: Breaks MortalityThirdly, 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 dogs my opponent has brought up that are consumed for dog meat are the: Nureongi, Hawaiian Poi, and Xoloitzcuintle. He argues that these are not pets, but in fact they are. Simple fact, all dogs are pets because they follow the definition of "pet", being "A thing particularly cherished" (5). People cherish these animals most definately, no matter the breed; and hence the reason they are pets. So this statement from my opponent is vague. 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.First off, my opponent clearly didn't read my argument. Under section C3:I, I state that a dog is far greater than a chicken. The reason is because of being able to be used for benefits in society (K9 Unit & Service Dogs), and displays more emotion. A chicken is not that intelligible, but the only purpose they can serve in society is to feed our hunger and grow eggs. Nothing else comparatively to a dog.C3: Other Ways of helping Societies Who are Eating Dog Meat 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.Like I stated earlier within my own argument, if a society isn't eating dog meat that much; why even have it as an option?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. If my opponent states that societies use dogs as companions already, why eat them? No matter the dog breed, if some societies are using certain types for companions and others for edible purposes, why not keep both as companions? There is nothing wrong with having all dog breeds being companions, and not a banquet dish. And in my opponents current, and previous argument; he argues that western countries already eat Dog Meat. This is false because no Western countries eat dog meat, and if they did; its illegal (6). Quoted by my opponent "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". Switzerland isn't even close to a western country, and makes thi claim invalid.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.This statement by my opponent is ridiculous for the fact that there is nothing offensive about this term. This term is about helping a society advance, and there is nothing wrong about a society advancing. A society advances is not forced, but more so a suggestion; hence non-breakage of these rules.Sources are in the comment section!