Instigator / Con
15
1458
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2600

Is supporting the meat industry justified?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
18
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

con concedes 3rd world and fails to weigh against benefits. He should've stuck with a Kantian model, otherwise utilitarian wins by default.