It is in the best interest of humanity that we attempt to transition toward veganism
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
I am making a guess that con has standard moral values
I am also making a guess that Con believes that animals beings tortured and murdered are not morally wrong, but why?
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.
I am sure I and Con can both agree that veganism/vegetarianism is healthier for the average person.
I am also making a guess that Con believes that animals beings tortured and murdered are not morally wrong, but why?
To logically justify not murdering someone
- If humans kill each other, there will be no humans left
- If there are no humans left, humans cannot kill each other any longer
- Killing each other is therefore unsustainable and thereby "immoral"
but murdering an animal,
- If humans kill animals but breed them at the same rate, they will not go extinct
- If animals can be slaughtered indefinitely, humans can get an infinite supply animal meat
- Killing animals but breeding them at the same time is sustainable and therefore "morally acceptable"
you would have to give a trait that humans have that animals do not
I will also put things we do to animals and would like Con to say if doing these same things to humans would conflict with their moral system, and therefore be wrong.
You see, the majority of animals in factory farms (Which is where many people get their meat and animal products from) have horrible, dirty, and nasty conditions
The animal industry produces 14.5% of the greenhouse gases, but some studies sometimes even say it is higher.
Not only this, but these antibiotics could instead be used for children, instead of a pig that is going to be painfully gassed to death for up to a minute, and then end up on your grill.
there are bacteria that are evolving to be immune to most, if not all antibiotics.
The animal products industry also contributes to plastic pollution, as fishnets and other fishing gear make up 46% of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.40% of our crops are used to feed farm animals. This not only makes it so that more deforestation happens, but these crops could also be used to feed so many people. The crops in the US ALONE could feed 800 million people. That is absolutely insane. Could you imagine how many people the crops of the WORLD could feed?
good enough for humanity to attempt to make a change.
- If humans kill each other, there will be no humans left
- If there are no humans left, humans cannot kill each other any longer
- Killing each other is therefore unsustainable and thereby "immoral"
- If humans kill animals but breed them at the same rate, they will not go extinct
- If animals can be slaughtered indefinitely, humans can get an infinite supply animal meat
- Killing animals but breeding them at the same time is sustainable and therefore "morally acceptable"
I do not believe in your God, or any other God. God is not logical reasoning for me and other people.
Also, give me a source that says it is not healthier, or at least not as healthy as a meat-based diet.
Okay, I admire that you admit you cannot fight against my points about the environment.
Even in an anarchy based society humans would still not completely die off.
your claim that morality can only apply to humans is absurd and needs backing, which you have none of.
Even in an anarchy based society humans would still not completely die off.
That is also terrible logic. Forcing a sentient being capable of pain on many levels (Such as psychological, mental, physical, etc) to be tortured and live in dirty and disgusting environments IS immoral because society deems a human child living under those same conditions to be immoral.
of course, murdering political opponents is wrong. The only people who think it is right are politicians in corrupt countries, and many times they know it is wrong, but do it anyway.
Again, if we did that, animal products would become much more expensive, and therefore most people would become vegan anyway.
But in the future, transportation will be cleaner, but if we continue to eat meat, we will still produce greenhouse gas.
The solution then is to make the conditions better, not to kill off all the animals, which we made dependent on us for survival.If we do that solution, then1) They never will
Veganism isn't drastic. Tell me, what IS the solution humanity needs?But just because the change won't be easy, doesn't mean we can't TRY to make it.Becoming vegan won’t solve all the problems in the world
You can't use those as sources, because those aren't sources.
Con gave a harder fight than I thought he would, so I thank him for that
It is in the best interest of humanity that we attempt to transition toward veganism
I never said we should force people to be vegan
If we do that solution, then1) They never will2) Even if they do, meat and other animal products will become so expensive, the majority of people will not be able to buy them, and therefore most people will go vegan anyway
- They never will
- When people start becoming vegans, fish and meat will become cheaper (economic theory [1]) - which will mean that people will eat more meat and fish.
"It would be beneficial for humanity if many people chose to become vegans, or at least eat much less meat"
you never actually disproved my point, instead saying it would be harder to ship food.
What Pro fails to understand is that by setting such a goal: veganism, one must override many other goals like capitalism, democracy, liberalism and freedom. If by "slow transition" he means no government interference he is not arguing for anything, rather he is just trying to predict the future
Just like with global warming, it wasn't several governments that brought this to the attention of the people, the people brought this to the attention of the government, and now governments all over the world are taking action
"The production of non-vegan food is such a big problem that a global transition towards veganism is worth all the problems it would create"
I never said we should force people to be vegan
Also, so what if people like meat? The south liked slavery, as it gave it a lot of economic growth (especially with cotton). That does not make it right.
we would also have to get the government involved with any of your solutions.
the government start controlling the economy.
What Pro fails to understand is that by setting such a goal: veganism, one must override many other goals like capitalism, democracy, liberalism and freedom.
Also, you claim that using crops entirely would destroy the balance between oxygen and carbon dioxide, which is completely incorrect.
Also, by that logic, I suppose we should also allow people to continue to contribute to climate change and plastic pollution. I suppose we should do nothing about it, since its a very drastic approach.
So, what you mean is, we shouldn't fix ANY problems?
I mean, you technically COULD use those as sources, but that doesn't sit well with anyone.
Also, on your link on the definition of torture, Oxford provides another definition"Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety."
Even if you do not care about the blatant disregard for morals that the meat industry shows because they are showing that lack of humanity for animals
Factory farms can poison local waters, which harm humans and animals alike
Of course, we wouldn't massacre 246 million people to get rid of the problems they cause.
the solution you just proposed, that would still bring about the change that I am arguing for.
That is like saying that we should not have campaigned against climate change and plastic pollution because if they are actually problems, people will notice them anyway.
the risk of zoonotic viruses, increased plastic pollution, contributing to global warming, risk of superbugs, desertification, deforestation everywhere, mass deforestation in the Amazon, many children missing out on antibiotics because they are given to animals, and more should be reasoning enough for humanity to transition toward veganism.
What do you mean by artificial veganism? I can't find anything about "Artificial veganism" on the internet
In conclusion, that statement is completely incorrect.
All veganism needs is a campaign
I mean, poor conditions, especially when you do not have to live under them is terrible, but not torture.
It is true we would have to breed these farm animals out of existence, as the majority of them would never be able to survive in the wild.
Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.[4]
- God, gods or religion in general
- Norms and laws in society
- Philosophy and logic - like Kant
- Personal preferences - which is the equivalent of having no morality
So you are essentially saying "Kant is a great philosopher. Who are you to question him"?
That is terrible logic.
Morality is subjective.
The morality I have is from the west, which was influenced by Judeo-Christian values.
Yes, that is true. Like literally every other diet, the vegan diet needs you to balance it.
I am sure I and Con can both agree that veganism/vegetarianism is healthier for the average person.
Animals use up 70% of antibiotics in the US, and that number is only INCREASING.
These antibiotics could instead be used for humans instead.
Because animals encounter much more disease and bacteria than the average human does, and because animals use up the majority of our antibiotics, this means that animals have contributed a LOT to the growth of superbugs.
using more antibiotics on kids would only increase this problem, since we would be using more antibiotics directly on human sicknesses, instead of animal-human sicknesses.
Work by Leendertz, including interviews with locals and environmental sampling, suggests that the outbreak started in bats that lived in a hollow tree where the children used to play. The tree was burned down days before his arrival and no Ebola virus was detected in nearby bats, which he says highlights the difficulties of pinning down an outbreak’s beginnings.
A zoonotic disease that is deadlier than the coronavirus could very well spring about
Not only this, but these antibiotics could instead be used for children, instead of a pig that is going to be painfully gassed to death for up to a minute, and then end up on your grill.
Because of this, then yes, we would have to breed these domesticated animals out of existence for our OWN survival.Also, zoonotic diseases do not only apply to humans. They could very well endanger wildlife.
Livestock uses almost 1/3 of the land on the planet, which is a big concernLivestock also contributes to desertification, which hurt locals in the area.26% of the worlds land is used for livestock grazing. That is almost a third of the land on this planet.The crops in the US ALONE could feed 800 million people. That is absolutely insane. Could you imagine how many people the crops of the WORLD could feed?
Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development [6]
Livestock also contributes to desertification, which hurt locals in the area.
Plus, you are talking about genetically modifying animals, which we are only beginning to scratch the surface of genetic engineering. It may seem like we know a lot, but we really don't.
- Veganism would increase the usage of dry land due to the removal of the fishing industry - this argument is supported by the weight of the UN
- Many countries can only produce meat and fish sustainably - importing crops would not be sustainable
- Organic agriculture requires organic fertilizers, which require animal (or human) poop
- Hunting and fishing can gather food without destroying big areas of nature like farms do
- The problems Pro pointed out are relevant and real
- Pros arguments are emotionally charged instead of being logically constructed - I tore them down
- Veganism would create more problems than solutions
- All of the problems will be solved using science in the near future
- Veganism contradicts a lot of humanity's already accepted goals
- Ultimately, it is not in the best interest of humanity that we transition towards veganism
Con’s advocacy is one where humanity eats less meat. However, to show veganism isn’t in humanity’s best interest, Con has to show that world is the likely alternative, something Con fails to show. All Con says is that animal products become more expensive thanks to more sustainable production, but they don’t prove that sustainable production will happen.
Con has two main contentions. One is to argue that meat consumption is better for health. Con’s only justification is that meat consumption is natural, failing to explain why that entails it’s better for health. Pro points out that things like B12 supplementation and similar attempts at artificial supplementation can mitigate this problem. Con notes that they were just replying to Pro’s argument on health, not trying to make a substantive contribution. Con’s lack of description of how veganism would hurt health or evidence for this claim weakens it. Con later expands this point to be about dietary choice. I’m not sure why expanded options necessarily means better health (after all, people can make bad decisions) – that claim is underexplained. The other contribution is to argue that, given the oceans’ size, fish consumption is a good idea to maintain or improve food security. Pro’s rebuttal to this is that overfishing can eventually cause scarcity in fishing supplies, but that response is underexplained because it’s not clear why that much overfishing is likely. I buy this point to some degree, but Con never tries to explain the scale of the impact. Con has some other attempts at arguments (e.g. the claim that veganism is too “extreme”), but they aren’t actual arguments against the topic. There’s a brief argument in there about how being bad doesn’t mean you eliminate it (Con says, for example, that you shouldn’t eliminate “snacks” or “the Middle East”), but I’m not sure why (those things don’t seem immediately bad to me, compared to Pro’s claims on veganism), nor how those examples are comparable.
Pro’s weakest argument is the argument on morality. It’s weird to me that the debate mostly centered around it. The argument pretty much fails to fulfill Pro’s burden of proof, because Pro doesn’t tie it to a tangible impact on humans (which the topic requires Pro to). Pro says humans have some conceptions of morality that conflict with meat eating. Con points out that different people have different ethical conceptions, and meat only conflicts with some of them – it doesn’t, for instance, violate Christian ethics. Pro tries to argue from that that meat consumption is immoral, but that’s besides the point. Pro’s argument needed to show that people would perceive it as immoral and that would hurt them, which Pro never does.
Pro wins on their other arguments. Con pretty much concedes the argument on the environment (besides saying they support more sustainable meat production, which they can’t just have “fiat” over and had to show was likely) and simply says it’s not an overriding concern. Pro seems to convince me that a less sustainable form of food production that contributes to pollution and food security is a bad one. That itself is enough to outweigh the intangible impact of food security through the oceans, because Con never explains why fish are necessary for food security, while Pro explains the scale of how much meat takes away from it. Pro’s argument on health is also stronger than Con’s corresponding argument on health – because while Con’s claims on health, e.g. lack of B12, are manageable through supplementation and careful diets, Con doesn’t have a path out of antibiotic resistance increasing the risk of disease (though sanitary conditions do mitigate the risk of simply ordinary disease spread). The argument on health from Pro also outweighs Con’s argument on fish supplies, because Con doesn’t explain why the latter are necessary for access to food, while Pro explains why their benefits tie specifically to transitioning to veganism.
Sources to Pro because, while Pro misrepresents their sources at times, I found their basic argument backed up by sources. For instance, the claims on agricultural land being overused by meat and on water pollution being caused by fishing, as well as the claims on antibiotic resistance, are backed by evidence. In contrast, while Con has some sources, they don’t back up the parts of Con’s case that carry most weight, on food security related to fish consumption and on health, leaving them with somewhat intangible impacts. Hence, Pro’s sources contribute to their case in a way that Con’s sources did not.
Argument: Pro’s trifold argument was ethics, health, and environment.
The ethical argument was defeated because Pro’s R1 claim was that killing animals is murder. That is wrong. It is killing, but not murder. Further, Con’s argument that breeding overcomes killing to maintain a population of animals used for food, which included food for animals. Con wins the ethics construct. Further, pro argued that “morality is subjective,” but did not support the claim. Since Pro contends that this “transition” to a vegan diet is a global necessity, that involves everybody, For everybody to embrace the ethic of a vegan meal, Con rebutted that it becomes objective. Pro further charged that Con has “standard moral values.” Con rebuts that his moral values are sourced in “God, society, or other greater force.” Pro singled out the God-aspect, making light of that source of morality. Bad argument since Con’s thrust was a trio of morality sources.
Health: Pro makes a presumption that Con would agree a vegan diet is healthier than an omnivore diet, however, Con rebutted that the only source of vitamin B12 is by supplement, to which Pro agreed. Pro’s own source indicated that supplements do not absorb as readily as do natural foods, which is a sourcing, and an argument failure.
Environment: pro alleges that almost one-third of available landmass is used for livestock grazing, but pro’s source says 26%. That’s barely over 25%, or one-quarter. Pro’s sources maintain that grasslands are being decimated “in part” by animal grazing. What are the other parts? Pro does not bother to substantiate a majority loss due to grazing. Pro argues that the environment is directly linked to meat production and consumption, but Con successfully rebuts that eliminating of the meat-producing industry would remove only 14% of our GHG emissions - Pro’s own number. Con wins on all three points.
Sourcing: Pro argued that gassing animals is immoral, but Pro’s source fails to sustain that argument by not even mentioning gassing. Further, that source indicated there were more humane options and that the food industry is starting to engage these options, rebutting pro’s argument. Con makes this rebuttal successfully. Con recognized his fewer sources, but voting is not a matter of counting sources and awarding on that basis, alone. Sources are to sustain debate arguments. I have noted just two of pro’s sources that fail to fully sustain Pro’s arguments. Pro further charges that common sense, common knowledge, and personal knowledge are not valid sources, and “You can’t use those as sources.” If such can be demonstrated in argument, the DART sourcing policy does not discount it.
Con wins the sourcing points.
S& G: tie
Conduct: Pro lost this point by accusation of Con’s personal morality.
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.
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?
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.
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.
At least we know we agree.
Our timing... lol
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.
**************************************************
jinx.
**************************************************
>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.
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?
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
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?
**************************************************
>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.
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
Thank you for this debate - it was a nice experience.
" I should probably put down a definition of veganism so my opponent will be confused. "
Why do you want to confuse me XD
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.
Yeah I figured, but I mean swallowing a spider in my sleep has to happen at least once in my life
So the cows are into vore?
It's along the lines of "we only use 10% of our brains" - a line that sounds somewhat plausible, but doesn't match reality.
If it makes you feel any better, i believe the "swallowing spiders in your sleep" thing is an old wives tale.
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.
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?
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?
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.
would you count eating lab grown meat as violating veganism?
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.
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
"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.
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?