Instigator / Con
8
1604
rating
19
debates
71.05%
won
Topic

On balance, do LGBTQ people in the United States who make an income of over 80,000 USD DESERVE to eat meat?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Pro
14
1791
rating
395
debates
67.22%
won
Description
~ 502 / 5,000

Deserve: do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment).

Meat:
1. Red Meat: All livestock is considered red meat. This includes beef, pork, goat, and lamb.
2. Poultry: Commonly referred to as white meat, poultry includes chicken and turkey.
3. Seafood: That includes fish, as well as crustaceans, like crab and lobster, and molluscs, like clams, oysters, scallops, and mussels.

Eat: put (food) into the mouth and chew and swallow it.

USD: United States Dollars

BOP: Shared

Round 1
Con
Resolved: On balance, do LGBTQ people in the United States who make an income of over 80,000 USD DESERVE to eat meat?

FRAMEWORK
  • Written in the description of the debate

OVERVIEW
  • Deserve means to have done something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment LGBTQ). 
  • LGBTQ people have done nothing to deserve to eat the flesh of killed animals because there is nothing they can do that will make them entitled to the consumption of tortured and slaughtered animals. 

TORTURE OF ANIMALS
  • Eating meat directly stimulates a market that produces food with the torture, rape, and killing of animals [3]. The question here is done LGBTQ people deserve to benefit from torture, rape, and killing. I don't believe they do. 

ANIMALS vs HUMANS
  • There are reasons people argue we deserve to kill and eat animals.
  • The most common factor is believed to be intelligence. However, "there are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability, for example" [6]. If no one deserves to kill and eat the remains of those humans, we should only conclude no one deserves to kill and eat the remains of meat animals.

SLAVERY
  • Forcefully rearing meat animals for food, torturing and killing them, etc. is slavery. Seeing as this is held as a commonplace wrong I assume eating the remains of slaves is wrong as well. Therefore, as no one deserves to eat the remains of dead slaves, LGBTQ people don't deserve to do so either. 

INCOME
  • According to the U.S census as of 2020, the median salary for a four-person household is $68,400 per year. Remember this resolution is discussing LGBTQ people. That means for our debate, each one of these people makes 12,000 more than the average income for a four-person family.
  • There may be an argument that some people can't afford other products therefore they have no choice but to eat meat. However, when you make an 80,000 dollar individual income which places you in the top 26.57% [2] of income earners, this objection becomes inapplicable. 

DIET
  • Studies have shown that "Numerous studies have shown that a vegetarian diet is one of the most effective for maintaining health. Plant-based diets are healthier than diets where meat is consumed, whether measured by the occurrence of heart disease, cancer, or death" [4].
  • This means that vegan diets are superior to those that include meat in nearly every way. If someone makes 80,000 thousand a year they don't need to eat meat because there are so many alternatives that don't stimulate the slavery of animals. 
  • "By going vegan for a month, you would not only save 30 animal lives but also 620 pounds of harmful carbon dioxide emissions" [5]. Just one month of veganism would save 30 animals and reduce harmful pollution. 

CONCLUSION
  • LGBTQ people don't deserve to eat meat. There is ultimately nothing they can do that will justify not taking an action that can save the lives of at least 30 enslaved animals. 

SOURCES
  1. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/is-80k-a-good-salary
  2. https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/the-one-percent/
  3. https://www.lcanimal.org/index.php/campaigns/other-issues/factory-farming
  4. https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/02/07/a-skeptical-look-at-popular-diets-vegetarian-is-healthy-if-you-tread-carefully/
  5. https://www.veestro.com/blogs/food-for-thought/what-difference-can-one-person-make-by-going-vegan
  6. https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/animals-are-not-as-intelligent-or-advanced-as-humans/

Pro
Pro is doing a lot of conflation between what would be the desired outcome from an action and the actual (let alone alternatively desirable) outcome. One example of this is presuming that if wealthy LGBTQ people were to boycott meat, that the meat industry and the farmers would respond by just straight up going out of business... Not quite. That's not an economically savvy response to the pressure from the wealthy, instead luxury meats would go out of business or at least have less demand and the industry would shift even more towards catering towards the lower and middle class, with more vicious low-price-level competition in all kinds of meat (the description says 'red meat', 'poultry' and 'seafood' where it defines seafood as including all fish. There is no way at all that the adaptation taken will not be simply to kill less shellfish, oysters etc and to aim at cheaper meat like chicken to be produced at even higher rates by cheaper methods.

Factory Farming Systems Monopolize the Supply Chain 
Factory farms generally operate within what’s known as a vertically integrated system, where large companies control the entire supply chain—from the animals on the farm all the way to the processing and distribution plants. This means that factory farms pay significantly less to get their products to market than higher-welfare farms do, allowing them to charge less at the grocery store. 



UK case study: cheap imports
Cheap meat found on UK supermarket shelves comes with hidden costs that are not reflected in the purchase price. The majority of this cheap meat is imported and can only be produced at such low costs by disregarding animal welfare laws, over-using antibiotics and polluting the air and water. 

76% of the UK food market is controlled by just four companies. This monopolised market is both costly and unhealthy; the concentrated nature of the market means that our access to the food supply, and the price that we pay for it, is dependent on the decisions of a few key corporations.

Why do pig factories exist?
The aim of pig factories is to produce as much meat at the lowest possible cost possible to meet the rising global demand for cheap protein while making the largest profit. Livestock production has grown increasingly more industrialised compromising not only animal welfare but also our health, local economies and the environment.
^ all 3
^ further references for claims made in the quotes, inside.

If you are confused what my justification is for the fact that significantly wealthy LGTBTQ people in America boycotting leading to a shift towards cheaper meat instead of animals being spared, you need to perhaps think beyond just supply and demand and imagine how a corporation dedicated to high-end luxury meat would adjust to the reduction in demand for a now oversupplied product in the higher-end priced line of competing.

Who then is saved? It would actually become akin to mass abortion of a being (could be humans according to Pro they are essnetially equal) to stop them living a life out where they get slaugthered later. See, farms are not going to just 'not kill' animals and keep these cute cows as pets. They are going to breed less so less will ever get a chance to live and experience life.

It is extremely likely that the market will shift towards cheaper meats, factory farming will be done more, increasing the percentage of animals being mistreated. A high-end costing cut of beef probably came from a wealthy farmer making organic meat. The rich can afford organic meat and actually almost, with a boycott like this, could lead to a serious dent that drives organic farmers out of business because it is likely that they could peer pressure other wealthy people to cut down on meat consumption after this mass-boycott (at first at least).

Most importantly is the idea of 'deserve'. The fact is even if it's morally reprehensible to Pro, even if it's a double standard humans have toward other species, it is the right of those who own wealth to use that wealth to purchase legally available products in a Capitalist system. What Pro is arguing is not much about deserving and instead is about if they should choose not to purchase meat in spite of having the deserved right to.

Private property rights are central to a capitalist economy, its execution, and its legal defenses. Capitalism is built on the free exchange of goods and services between different parties, and nobody can rightfully trade property they do not own. Conversely, property rights provide a legal framework for prosecuting aggression against non-voluntary means of acquiring resources; there is no need for capitalist trade in a society where people could simply take from others what they want by force or the threat of force.
Round 2
Con
TORTURE OF ANIMALS
  • No response. PRO does not deny that rearing meat animals are essentially the state-sanctioned torture of millions of innocent animals. 

ANIMALS vs HUMANS
  • No response. CON interprets that PRO accepts the frequently touted false distinction between animals and humans.

SLAVERY
  • No response. CON sees it fit to reasonably interpret that PRO does not deny that rearing meat animals is slavery. 

INCOME/DIET
  • By arguing on somewhat of an appeal to legality, CON interprets that PRO implicitly concedes that these people do not need to eat meat primarily because vegan diets are potentially better for the body, and secondly because they make an income of over 80,000 dollars individually, over the average income of a 4 person household. 
  • I agree that the meat industry would not simply go out of business, but it is simply a fact that going vegan would save the lives of animals. 
  • Some of the largest studies and the trusted bodies of research have analyzed data provided by the United Nations itself. These studies have shown that "by eating a plant-based diet, an individual saves the lives of 105 animals, it concluded" [3]. These studies were assisted by the largest facilities of data available and they along with the previous study I cited in round one have come to the same conclusion. Going vegan saves animal lives no matter how you spin it. 

DESERVE?
"Most importantly is the idea of 'deserve'. The fact is even if it's morally reprehensible to Pro, even if it's a double standard humans have toward other species, it is the right of those who own wealth to use that wealth to purchase legally available products in a Capitalist system. What Pro is arguing is not much about deserving and instead is about if they should choose not to purchase meat in spite of having the deserved right to"
  • CON interprets that PRO appears to have implicitly acknowledged that eating meat is morally reprehensible and double standard humans have towards other species. 
  • I am not arguing that these people deserve the right to purchase meat at all. PRO's argument can be parsed into this syllogism. 
P1) People deserve to purchase legally available products
P2) Animal products are legally available products
C) Pople deserve to purchase animal products

  • However, the argument fails in that it assumes that 
  1. The law is infallible
  2. People deserve to do things just because they are legal
  • The law is far from perfect in any sense, and we all know the law has produced some of the most grievous outcomes in human history such as the holocaust or the Salem witch trials. Just because a product is legally available does not mean people deserve to purchase it in a moral sense. 
  • As a more tangible example, 53 countries currently do not consider child pornography a crime [2]. In these countries, it is as my opponent describes, a product available in a market economy. However, we must ask ourselves, what have these people done to deserve to freely use products created with the sexual exploration of children. There are no qualities that make someone worthy of exploitation. 
  • We can thus observe that CON's argument fails in many ways. In addition to child pornography which is legal in many countries, Black people were also once considered legal property. As you can illustrate CON's argument would also assert that:
P1) People deserve to purchase legally available products
P2) Black people are legally available products
C) People deserve to purchase black people

  • George Washington lost his teeth in his early 20's. As a result of this had a set of teeth made for him to function as dentures. They were teeth pulled from the mouths of African American slaves [1]. 
  • Does he deserve these teeth? Of course not. They were forcefully taken from an exploited group that had no say in their enslavement and torture. 

CON's own source says that "there is no need for capitalist trade in a society where people could simply take from others what they want by force or the threat of force."
  • This is what the meat industry does to animals. It takes their lives, children, and resources away from them. CON does not dispute that meat farming is slavery, and his sources would have us believe that it is immoral to take from others with the threat of force, the very same thing we do to animals. 

CONCLUSION
  • Deserve means doing something or having or showing qualities worthy of (reward or punishment), and there is ultimately nothing one can do, or has done that makes them worthy of benefitting from slavery, torture, rape, and exploitation, especially when they are wealthy and have every alternative. 

SOURCES
  1. https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/coard-george-washingtons-teeth-not-from-wood-but-slaves/article
  2. https://www.icmec.org/press/despite-increase-in-global-child-protection-laws-many-countries-still-do-not-consider-child-pornography-a-crime
  3. https://plantbasednews.org/culture/ethics/105-animals-saved-a-year-by-eating-plant-based-study-





Pro
MISTAKE CORRECTION: In round 1 replace all 'Pro' said by me with 'Con' I made a mistake as the second speaker and forgot the instigator was Pro, the rest all is correctly worded.

Actually, I responded to torture, which very cheap farming often can be. It is the wealthiest meats that often are often from the organically reared animas. I didn't deny that animals can feel things physically like humans can but I have not seen evidence that they react to 'slavery' the same at all. Pro has not explained the idea that farm animals crave 'freedom' and rights to move, do a job, smile and party etc like we do. That's specific to human emotions and habits.

Meat industry doesn't just involve strictly farmed animals, fish and shellfish are good examples of animals that are caught just as much (if not more) wild than in any sort of 'farmed' environment.

As for 'deserved', Con hasn't prove that they don't deserve to purchase the meat, all Con has proven is that they should opt out despite deserving the access to purchase it.

Con has made something clear then, in this final Round:

  • The law is far from perfect in any sense, and we all know the law has produced some of the most grievous outcomes in human history such as the holocaust or the Salem witch trials. Just because a product is legally available does not mean people deserve to purchase it in a moral sense. 
This blatantly implies that Con should be arguing to ban all meat purchasing from all income brackets but that was not the framework provided. Con never said non-LGBTQ people or the LGBTQ that earn less than 80k annually don't deserve to purchase meat.

Con also never explained anything against my abortion analogy. The animals aren't being saved from slaughter past the first generation, they just won't exist and fail to be bred.

In fact, if animal farming were to end what would actually happen is a mass-slaughter of animals or perhaps putting them to the wild where they have no clue how to fend for themselves.

This fits the theme of Con throughout the debate; never separating desired and/or one likely outcome from what really is the most probable one. Con's arguments suffer from severe idealistic impracticality. Mine consider the actual ramifications of following the plan laid out in the resolution.