Instigator / Pro
8
1458
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2736

It is in the best interest of humanity that we attempt to transition toward veganism

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
9
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

The title says it. I believe it is in the best interest of humanity to make a transition to veganism. I understand we wouldn't just be able to instantly all turn vegan and live happily ever after. That obviously isn't how it works, but I AM talking about a slow and steady transition toward veganism.

-->
@Bringerofrain

Pro had a couple weeks to contest the vote review. While more detail would have been preferable, the paraphrase to which there was no question raised of the accuracy was a valid reason for a conduct penalty.

-->
@Barney

The vote by fauxlaw, particularly the conduct point falls under the fluff vote rule in the voting policy guidelines and should be removed. Is this possible after the debate has ended?

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

I also had this debate as my second or third. At the time the vote was cast I did not know that I should have reported it. But now I have returned and found it to be invalid.

-->
@Barney

Sorry for the late report.

I just have a habit of checking my debates that are about to run out to check for vote problems like "no votes". And this particular vote was particularly unfair.

-->
@Barney

At least we know we agree.

-->
@MisterChris

Our timing... lol

-->
@ImminentDownfall
@Undefeatable
@Benjamin

I really would have preferred this to have been reported much earlier...

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The sources award lacks the depth of comparison.

Additionally, this vote runs the risk of being based on outside content. I am not seeing where in the debate where pro proves that Kant protects animals, rather I just see con using Kantian ethics, and pro calling it "terrible logic." The vote doesn't indicate /how/ pro defeated it.
**************************************************

-->
@Barney

jinx.

-->
@Undefeatable

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0 (5 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"Con tried many ways to refute pro, but I can’t buy any of his rebuttals because they’re immensely flawed. Pro successfully shows that the suffering of any being should be prevented — Kant does not successfully allow animals’ tortured. I recommend using a different philosophy. Pro used a great environmental argument, even if it wasn’t mentioned many times con did not bat if away successfully. Sources to pro because con mostly only used common sense. In the end, pro has a net benefit analysis that is largely in his favor, while con only had a kritique that not everyone will convert to veganism. Next time, I recommend that con try to resolve the problems with meat industry, because there’s too many problems that he can’t defeat. In addition pro’s suffering argument is near impossible to defeat. Don’t try to refute it using Kant."

>Reason for Mod Action:

So this vote makes it clear that the voter read the debate, but what this vote doesn't do so well is actually weigh arguments against eachother. The voter sort of tallied the points they liked from the PRO side and dismissed CON's side without any word as to what exactly was flawed about their arguments. I will warn the voter as well that, should they revote, their justifications as to why PRO won certain points should not be based on their own opinions about CON's points but rather the refutations PRO gave.

In short:
"To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision."

Undefeatable
Added: 29 days ago
#1

Reason:
Con tried many ways to refute pro, but I can’t buy any of his rebuttals because they’re immensely flawed. Pro successfully shows that the suffering of any being should be prevented — Kant does not successfully allow animals’ tortured. I recommend using a different philosophy. Pro used a great environmental argument, even if it wasn’t mentioned many times con did not bat if away successfully. Sources to pro because con mostly only used common sense. In the end, pro has a net benefit analysis that is largely in his favor, while con only had a kritique that not everyone will convert to veganism. Next time, I recommend that con try to resolve the problems with meat industry, because there’s too many problems that he can’t defeat. In addition pro’s suffering argument is near impossible to defeat. Don’t try to refute it using Kant.

-->
@blamonkey

The vote from Undefeatable does not contain any analysis of the arguments. It is an unfair vote, especially when you compare it to the two lengthy and detailed votes that have been cast. I think that there is NO way one can fairly let me loose because of a vote without proper justification. Could you please remove his vote?

-->
@Barney
@Benjamin

I will review it if I have the time. Ragnar, if you can get to it before me, that'd be great as I'm pretty busy atm

-->
@MisterChris

The vote from undefeatable also is not at all on par with the other ones.

I disagree with the vote from Undefeatable.

His vote ignores nearly all of our arguments and does not explain why PRO wins the arguments.

Sources to PRO because I used common sense? What is that nonsense of a reason to give PRO the sources point?

-->
@fauxlaw

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. I would've liked to see a lot more specification on conduct, but ad hominems are of course valid reasons to assign the point.

-->
@Benjamin

My bad. I meant "so my opponent will **not** be confused"

Thank you too. Even though my mind remains unchanged, you put up a good and fun challenge

-->
@ImminentDownfall

Thank you for this debate - it was a nice experience.

-->
@ImminentDownfall

" I should probably put down a definition of veganism so my opponent will be confused. "

Why do you want to confuse me XD

-->
@ImminentDownfall

I had to look up what vore is, but yes, and gross... Granted, the main character had a similar response to a car trying to talk him into eating it, as he's good with eating meat, just not when it's enjoying the idea of it so much.

Just looked it up, yeah, we don't swallow spiders. Worse, it originates from a 1993 article about how people will believe anything they read online, only for the example of the type of BS people might believe to be spread as fact.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Yeah I figured, but I mean swallowing a spider in my sleep has to happen at least once in my life

-->
@Barney

So the cows are into vore?

-->
@Sum1hugme

It's along the lines of "we only use 10% of our brains" - a line that sounds somewhat plausible, but doesn't match reality.

-->
@Barney
@ImminentDownfall

If it makes you feel any better, i believe the "swallowing spiders in your sleep" thing is an old wives tale.

-->
@ImminentDownfall

It's the sequel to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In it, at one point there's a race of sentient talking cows bred to enjoy being turned into steaks.

-->
@Barney

Well, it seems like it was the spiders fault more than mine lol. I would rather not each that spider.

I have not read it, but it sounds interesting. What is it about?

-->
@ImminentDownfall

Don't get me wrong, I've argued against things when the instigator suggested an infinite amount of time (which is meaningless), or likewise insisted on way too little (harms practicality). But the open ended transition time frame as you've described it should be safe.

Of course, people will never be 100% vegan, as we accidently swallow spiders, plus sex stuff.

BTW, have you ever read The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

-->
@gugigor

I don't know too much about lab-grown meat, but if we are being technical here, then yes, it technically would. Although lab-grown meat might actually contribute to climate change if it is popularized, so I wouldn't be that much in favour of it

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/19/lab-grown-meat-could-exacerbate-climate-change-scientists-say.html#:~:text=The%20research%20points%20out%20that,atmosphere%20in%20about%2012%20years.

-->
@ImminentDownfall

would you count eating lab grown meat as violating veganism?

-->
@Barney

Yeah thanks, I should probably put down a definition of veganism so my opponent will be confused.

And yeah I hate that too. People say it takes too long, but any change takes a certain amount of time, so I don't see their point

I would not buy a Kritik on better interests, as they are not mutually exclusive.

However, I do suggest adding a definition of vegan into the description (some people insist they are vegetarian even while eating chicken... idjits). I also second the suggestion of removing "attempt to," and possibly replacing toward with just to (as in veganism is ultimately benifican, as opposed to some minor decrease in meat consumption being the goal).

I am of course pretty much guaranteed to vote against anyone who complains that it would take too long to become vegan.

-->
@gugigor

I personally don't see how "In the best interest of humanity" at all implies that it is more important than another issue. Plastic pollution and global warming are both things that it would be in the best interest of humanity to fix, but that doesn't mean I am implying that one problem is more important than another

-->
@ImminentDownfall
@gugigor

"Best interest" doesn't tend to imply that this is the most pressing or important issue, just that it's better than mutually exclusive alternatives (e.g. continuing to eat meat, transitioning to vegetarianism, etc.), so I probably wouldn't buy a Kritik on that. That being said, I'd say take the "attempt to" out of the resolution. It is in the best interest to transition, not to attempt to transition. That's not to say that you can't switch to a net benefits resolution, but doing so does make it more about general utility than any other view of morality.

-->
@ImminentDownfall

in the best interest of humanity? you're inviting kritiks where the best interest of humanity would be solving global warming or abortion first. Maybe just say it'll produce a net benefit for humanity if we transition to veganism?