However, this is not going to be a debate about eating dogs.
I came across this article on CNN a while back that was provocatively titled "What's wrong with eating dog meat?" So of course I clicked on it, because... well, that's what it was there for (so I'm a sucker). The article was written in a slightly negative tone about how animal activists complained enough to make the Korea Dog Farmers' Association cancel their dog meat festival, which was designed to showcase the upside of eating dog.
Dog meat isn't actually consumed very often in Korea, so that's not the point (China is a little bit of a different story). The point is going to be a less animal activist and a lot more English major.
First, the writer calls it ironic that animal activists claim we shouldn't eat dogs because they're companion animals even though Korea didn't have many companion dogs until very recently. That's not ironic.
Second, the writer pulls quotes from other authorities to describe the difference between Korea's pet dog population (in the city) and meat dog population (on shit farms in the country), and how the only difference between these two types of dogs is that one was born in one place and one was born in another. As soon as this quote is finished, the writer launches into a just-because-we-don't-do-it-here-doesn't-mean-it's-bad closing argument. WTF? Where did that come from?
Her last words, calling a practice bad just because it's not a worldwide practice doesn't make a very good argument, follow several (very short) paragraphs about how dog meat isn't even a popular food, how more and more Koreans are taking on pet dogs and how animal activists in Korea have effectively shut down pro-dog meat festival. Ms Emily Lodish, you do not know how to construct an argument either for or against something.
But your editor can write a damn controversial title.