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.

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

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.

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

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.