Is supporting the meat industry justified?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
In this debate, I, being con, will argue that we are not justified in supporting the meat industry. I understand if someone is in a third world country and can’t stop eating meat. I am talking about people in 1st world countries who are eating meat because of the pleasure meat gives, and not out of necessity.
I understand if someone is in a third world country and can’t stop eating meat.
1a: FOODespecially : solid food as distinguished from drinkb: the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell)2: animal tissue considered especially as food:a: FLESH sense 2balso : flesh of a mammal as opposed to fowl or fishb: FLESH sense 1aspecifically : flesh of domesticated animals4a: the core of something : HEARTb: PITH sense 2ba novel with meat5: favorite pursuit or interest
- Concession within the resolution
- Definition variations
Yes, you can have a vegetarian and/or vegan diet. Vegetarian and/or vegan diets have been shown to be just as healthy, if not healthier than meat diets, one of the biggest problems being planning your diet. But if you are able to plan smartly, which most people can, then you can have a much healthier diet. Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, two companies that make great veggie burgers that taste, I would say, like 95% like real meat, are two great alternatives for meat. If you are worried that they are too expensive, never fear, as Impossible for instance is planning on mass-producing their products by 2022, which will decrease the price as low, if not lower than actual meat.
- If it is, then lab-grown meat is considered a part of meat industry, and since it imposes little pain(only taking little tissue and then the process is in the lab), then lab-grown meat is considered non-unethical in the meat industry.
- If it is not, then it is justified that the standards of food according to the masses comes from its apperance from the senses, meaning that plant-based alternative meat is also to be considered meat.
- Either way, there are ethical treatments of meat within the meat industry.
Also, you still have not answered my question, what trait do humans have that animals do not have that gives us the right to eat and torture them just because it gives us momentary satisfaction?
People who live in 3rd world countries do not buy from the meat industries themselves, but either raise their animals or buy them from their own village or wherever they may live. The meat industry panders to people in 1st world countries, not 3rd world countries. Please vote con.
Also, your assumption that just because people know that plant-based meat tastes like meat then it is meat is insane. That isn't how it works. Regardless of whether people recognize that plant-based meat, which is supposed to taste like meat, is actually meat does not matter. The difference between plant-based meat and real meat is that plant-based meat is much more environmentally friendly, and still much more ethical.
The way I see it, every life is a pile of good things and bad things. The good things don’t always soften the bad things, but vice versa, the bad things don’t always spoil the good things and make them unimportant.
Arguments:
This was a tough one for sure: Essentially: I think both debaters could have done a better job:
Dropped/Conceded Arguments:
Definitions - Con majorly handicapped themself whenever they only responded to the Kritik in the third round - of the definition of meat. Pro easily wins the definition argument there, because not only did Con never provide their own definitions, but also simply dismisses Pro's argument, not actually refuting it. Pro point
3rd World Countries - I do believe this could have easily been Pro's point; however, neither debater actually provides sources to provide a real impact of their argument, essentially devolving into a: he said, she said, of whether 3rd world countries relied on the meat industry. However, Pro does make a point, that it is more than likely they do based on rhetoric, so I will award the point to Pro for this one.
Next, we go on to Valid Replacement: The next argument to explore is brought up by Pro, essentially, "IF we were to remove meat, what would replace it the essentials it provides?" Which is a valid point. Con brings up the fact of veggie/fake meat. Unfortunately for Con, it does fall under their definition of meat that Pro provided, therefore the arguments made by Con for it's favor only bring more impact to Pro argument. Point to Pro.
Harm to Animals: While Pro did briefly attempt to make a refutation against this, Con easily wins out by their sourcing proving that we should value the state of animals more than we should value that of plants. This is essentially dropped by Pro, and one of Con's most convincing points, as it holds some of the most impact, and is not an argument based on the definition or otherwise. Point to Con.
Greenhouse gasses: Then Con continues on and makes an argument regarding greenhouse gases caused by the meat industry, which is a solid impact, and one that Pro does not refute, essentially handing the point to Con. Con point.
Replacement Part2: Because Pro wins the argument of what Meat is, Con has only barely demonstrated that people would be able to get enough nutrients to survive (due to sourcing prior) however, due to the state of third world countries, Con has not proved they would not starve without the meat industry.
Therefore the impacts we are weighing: Con's; massive harm to animals and greenhouse gases: vs Pro's; starvation of third world countries and essential concession of Con in resolution.
Therefore I mark this argument to Pro - while greenhouse gases is an important impact, not enough work on Con's part would concretely establish it as outweighing the immediate starvation of 3rd world countries, not to mention, Con has not established why other animal suffering is more important than human suffering, which Pro has established.
Sources: Both debaters have sources that demonstrate their claims and impacts (or a lack thereof) therefore this will be a tie.
BS&G: This is tied.
Conduct: This is tied.
I do not understand Con's third world argument, the description says " I am talking about people in 1st world countries who are eating meat because of the pleasure meat gives, and not out of necessity."
So I interpret the resolution to be,
---"people residing in the first world that eat meat for pleasure, not survival, ought not support the meat industry."---
What is Meat.
I think this point was well aimed, but it fails to convince me. I think there was an implication of what the meat industry is. I do not believe the intended spirit of this debate was to talk about how ethical lab grown meat is.
Name that Trait.
Pro openly concedes name that he can't answer name that trait.
"We don't, but we have meat that doesn't unethically torture them."
Emissions/Environment.
Basically Con said...
-More emissions than the whole transportation industry.
-A lot of land and crop use.
-Could feed extra people.
-Uses antibiotics children need.
Pro does not truly challenge this, merely stating that his critique of the resolution is enough.
Plant VS. Animal.
Plants are indeed killed in Con's system. But, they don't have a nervous system or the capacity to form connections. I thought that this would be a great point to go back and forth on, but it seems like it stops at that. Seeing how Pro never revisits this and leaves Con's contention to stand.
In short, Con won more contentions, though I felt like he blundered a few points like the plats VS animals point, where he could've made a more persuasive argument.
Nevertheless, this was a fun debate, and I hope my vote is satisfactory.
Can you remove my vote to correct my grammatical errors?
I almost did the exact same thing, I was halfway through voting when I remembered that Inteli was Pro, and Imminent was Con, xD
Can Trent recite so it is more clear?
No I didn't correct my misuse of Pro and Con
No matter how good I am I can’t deny things that exist. It would require me to play rhetorics in order to win.
I suppose I'll weigh in
Did you revote
I messed up Pro and Con a few times in my vote.
would you like to debate con's intended topic? "It is justified to support the current state of meat industry in 1st world countries". I'll take either side.
I think Con wanted to debate, "It is justified to support the current state of meat industry in 1st world countries". Being more specific helps.
Intelligence can definitely be beaten, even in this debate, I just think Imminent could have started off with a better case, forcing the BoP on Con, and having an easy time rebutting Intelligence.
Well, I suppose we will see if my strategy works then
That won’t work with intelligence. If you read Oromagi debates, he always starts off very strong and he has never been beaten
I suppose yeah... but it wouldn't it better to do that while having a stronger case?
My second argument is a lot stronger. I tend to start off weak because usually people will start off strong and pour out a lot of their points at once, and then I can attack all their points they just made, while now revealing all my points, which makes people struggle immensely in an argument
Wow... I am.... very underwhelmed..... Um.... maybe it's a bait? That's all I can see. A bait and switch is the best this argument could be.
Really, is that all you have for 30000?
that wasn't as nearly as strong as I expected for your username, lol.
let's just hope Imminent Downfall isn't as strong as Undefeatable, lol. I think he was daunted by his own research. If Bsh1 was con I would not want to be pro.
I had debates where I opened up 30,000 characters but ended up using only 5000 of them.
yeah sure why not
eh... yeah. But look at the character count. This guy's gonna destroy any egoist argument possible. If it was 15k it would be a bit harder, but 30k means he gets infinite time to weigh the environmental effects to ultimately harm yourself (you eat meat, and your lungs get polluted). Egoism doesn't work here. Kant's Universalism might work if we can convincingly show reformation can assist the animals well enough.
An ethical egoist could justify it from a moral perspective.
Nice topic. I'll be skipping out of this one because I know Con has two strong angles of attack (moral + environment), which is pitted against potential solutions (no obligation, financial gain, reformations, cultural necessity). But Pro side is very difficult to support, and I'm not confident that I can keep my namesake. XD