Instigator / Pro
42
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Topic
#1811

Animals have moral weight.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
0
Better sources
12
10
Better legibility
6
4
Better conduct
6
0

After 6 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...

K_Michael
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
14
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

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.

Less than two days remain to vote.
Bumping if anyone's interested.

-->
@K_Michael

oops, I messed that up.

-->
@Trent0405

I'm assuming you meant to say Con.

-->
@RationalMadman

Voting is open.

-->
@Barney
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Barney
@K_Michael

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)

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Bohemian_Fallacy

I'm only saying that animals should have a level of moral consideration just like humans do (though not the same level).

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

How was your vacation?

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@K_Michael

If intelligence is your justification, newborns are pretty dumb. Is it okay to eat newborns? I'd say no.

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@K_Michael

Out of curiosity, are you vegan/vegetarian?

-->
@Alec

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).

-->
@K_Michael

What does this mean?