Instigator / Con
8
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3431

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

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

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

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:

Novice R1:
The meat industry self-evidently does not practice rape and slavery. It's so ridiculous to say otherwise that I had to point it out. Pointing out that people making more than $80K USD annually means they can afford to not eat meat and that it's healthier to have a vegan diet are preemptive rebuttals for points RMM could've but did not end up making, but they are effective in that regard. Nonetheless, they are just that: rebuttals. Therefore, they give no reason to believe the resolution, just show why not to believe reasons that the resolution should fail (those being people not being able to afford non-meat or needing it for health reasons).

They point out that some animals are more intelligent than humans. Sure, maybe some animals have complex emotion and consciousness to the point they have a right to life, but what about the animals that don't? This isn't something they explain. This casts doubt on that point because chimps are an incredibly small fraction of the global meat market and much dumber animals (like pigs or cows) make up the lion's share. Since this is an on-balance resolution, it's flimsy at best. They talk about the torture of animals, but what if it's meat from a cow that hasn't been tortured and was slaughtered humanely? In that example, there's not a single case of a person who doesn't deserve to eat that meat. Even if most meat is from tortured and slaughtered animals and therefore nobody deserves to eat it, that just means they don't deserve to eat most meat, not that they don't deserve to eat meat in most cases (which is what the resolution is regarding). Said differently: this debate is about "not deserving to eat meat in most cases". What it isn't about is "not deserving to eat most meat." This point only demonstrates the latter, which isn't what this debate is about.

RMM Round 1:
RMM explains why the resolution would, in fact, lead to a higher percentage of meat being produced inhumanely because less people would be buying humanely produced meat, pushing companies to produce cheaper meat. This argument has enough validity to at least pull the debate in RMM's favour somewhat, meaning he's winning at the end of R1 because Novice presented no reasonable affirmation of the resolution.

Novice Round 2:
The income and diet things are irrelevant. They're preemptive rebuttals to points that RMM didn't make and they don't help Novice's case. RMM talked about how high earners help increase the amount of meat that is humanely produced, not how some people can't afford to not eat meat. RMM didn't even talk about diet. Novice provides no further affirmation of the resolution, only rebuttals.

By the end of Novice's 2nd speech, it doesn't even matter what RMM says. Novice has failed to affirm the resolution in substantial way and RMM wins by default. RMM provided some reasoning to believe the resolution should fall that was not successfully taken down by Novice. In contrast to the irrelevant points Novice made, RMM wins in that regard too.

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:

In short:
Con wishes to protect animals from wealthy gay people, in a proposal that pro is able to show would actually be harmful to said animals.

...

Tortured animals:
Con argues that no one deserves to eat meat because animal cruelty is bad.
Pro argues that wealthy people buying meat causes the meat industry to produce higher quality meat using less torture.
Con argues he did not read pro's replies, and they therefore do not exist.

Cannibalism:
Con argues that eating meat is secretly cannibalism and slavery. This is just too big of a leap in logic to take seriously.
Pro's responses about hunted animals really should have been in R1 instead of R2.

Vegans:
Con argues that vegans are healthier, and it decreases the number of animals raised for slaughter.
Pro counters that less animals would live (intuitively leveraging the better quality of life lived by the organic farm raised cows and such).
Con repeats that less animals would die.

Economics:
Pro leverages massive harm to the economy inherent to the proposal. And further that buying nice organic meat is a deserved reward for capitalistic success within our economy.
Con counters with a Institutional Kritik comparing the meat industry to the African slave trade, but this misses the mark by way too much; failing to really refute pros points (particularly the earlier one about harm to animals).