Animals have moral weight.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
If there are any parameters on the debate you'd like to change before accepting this debate (character count, number of rounds, etc.) just tell me.
- Award no points for arguments
- Award conduct points to Con on account of Pro creating a truism debate, perhaps in an attempt to win farm.
- Award points for arguments to those who made legitimate arguments toward the topic at hand.
- Award conduct points to Pro on account of Con accepting the debate in bad faith, perhaps in an attempt to win farm.
perhaps in an attempt to win farm.
Pro argues that it is not relevant that he instigated a truism debate. This is not correct. Pro's conduct in instigating a truism debate is relevant to a vote on conduct points.
Pro alleges that I accepted this debate "to try to gain votes on the basis of having 'no grounds on which to make a case.' " This is misleading. My entry in to this debate largely represents an attempt to discourage instigating truism debates, and I was also somewhat curious as to how the community would respond. The need for votes was incidental. What Pro did does not appear to violate site policy and other users had already informed Pro of the problem. So, moderation will do nothing; Talking to Pro about it will do nothing. Consequently the only available means to the end was accepting the debate and using it as venue for a "prosecution". Whether or not the ends justify the means, well I suppose I can talk about that next round. I believe that they do.
Arguments: Pro's argument literally made Con concede. Pro's the only one having a relevant reason all in all. Points to Pro.
Sources: No sources, no points.
S&G: Both sides presentable. Tie.
Conduct: Con conceded and forfeited. Points to Pro.
Concession + 50% forfeit
Concession and Forfeit
Argument: Pro demonstrated viable argument from both human and animal moral value. Con, in disagreement, did not argue against moral weight to animals, which Con acknowledged, but by disagreement with the proposal of the argument, that it represented a "truism," something Con argued did not deserve debate because Con believes everyone believes the truism [making it a truism]. Though I disagree with the truism, and would have taken the debate just argue a point with which I disagree, which is both possible and doable, Con could have taken the same approach. Challenging; yes. A debatable point? Absolutely, with a little creative thought. Instead, Con accepted the debate, then complained for two rounds, and forfeited two rounds. Point to pro.
Sources: neither pro, nor Con offered sources. Tie points. [There sould be an option to award no point since neither side complied with the debate necessity of providing sources.]
S&G: Points to Pro for having the greater risk of failure to not have better S&G.
Conduct: Con forfeited half of rounds. Points to Pro
Pro conceded and forfeited. By accepting the debate he agreed to the topic, whether it's a truism or not.
Concession. And forfeiture.
Additionally, "Animals have had moral value in almost every culture and religion throughout human history" the almost is a big clue that there is another side. Some football fans think dog fighting isn't a crime for example, so there's even subcultures today which deny the truth of the resolution.
Less than two days remain to vote.
Bumping if anyone's interested.
oops, I messed that up.
I'm assuming you meant to say Con.
Voting is open.
Death23's entire 'gig' on this website is cheap wins where he/she/they pressures the opponent to appear as the villain and preys on their agitation making them appear like the less morally correct site within the debate construct.
I did not allow Death23 to do this in this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/517/sea-lions-are-seals
Nonetheless I lost due to voters failing to grasp that science trumps semantics in the hierarchy of which should be amended if out of tune with the other.
I am doing this publicly to avoid any claims of corruption or shadiness.
Let me know when this debate is over, I will vote. Something I despise more than unwinnable position debates where the instigator has the autowin position, are debates where the other side farms a win out of bullshit hypocrisy while claiming the other side is doing that.
I do not care if I am accused of something here, this is utter bullshit and it is important that I reassure you of that before something like this corrupts you as a debater or makes you afraid to participate in this website. I have been wrongly voted against for CORRECTLY capitalising on instigator errors in the past by Ramshutu and Ragnar especially, whereas here you are being incorrectly and hypocritically preyed upon and I will not stand by and watch without at least getting my vote in and stating this publicly here in the comments.
I forgot my source, but here it is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel
If you view morality through Jesus does then yes, for God destroys those who destroy the earth. And the scriptures say we are worth many sparrows (thats to get the point across to not worry about food, etc because God feeds even the sparrows)
This seems too uncontroversial to be debated properly. The question "do animals have moral weight?" is one of (almost) complete agreement. If you were to refine the question to say: "can X amount of animals outweigh 1 human life?" then maybe you'd get some takers.
I'm only saying that animals should have a level of moral consideration just like humans do (though not the same level).
I am unclear as to what you are asserting here, are you asserting that it is morally wrong to Kill animals? if so, to what degree? is this a debate about veganism/vegetarianism/ eating meat? i'd accept but i'm not sure where you're taking this.
How was your vacation?
Even if Con properly does semantic kritiks on you, you can invert the kritiks by saying that they have a moral weight of 0 (arbitrary unit).
Therefore, you automatically win this debate if both sides play correctly.
Clarification for mods: I said this before the debate had a contender, not after.
I haven't thought about this so fully that you can't poke all sorts of holes in it. For now, I err on the side of giving them the same moral considerations as anyone else. I'm not convinced that I'm right, but the easiest way to find the truth is to challenge someone else to convince you that you're wrong.
If the baby was growing to be someone who was very stupid, like an IQ of 55, would they be justifiable to eat? About 2 million such people exist worldwide according to my calculations.
I agree. I do believe, however, in taking a more timeless perspective. That baby may not be very smart now (Though a two-year-old passes many of the same intelligence tests as chimpanzees.) but a newborn grows up into an intelligent person eventually. I value that future intelligence as well.
If intelligence is your justification, newborns are pretty dumb. Is it okay to eat newborns? I'd say no.
No, actually. While I place moral weight on the life of animals, I also place moral weight on convenience for humans. Maybe that's an rationalization, though. I would be a lot less comfortable if I ate more intelligent animals like dolphins, apes, or crows. I avoid pork because pigs are fairly intelligent.
Out of curiosity, are you vegan/vegetarian?
Moral weight is kinda hard to define.
Ok, so a human has moral weight. We consider it wrong to kill humans without very good reasons, like saving other lives. My stance is that the same kind of value should be placed on animal lives (though not necessarily to the same degree).
What does this mean?