Instigator / Pro
0
1757
rating
31
debates
93.55%
won
Topic

The majority of animal agriculture in the United States is slavery.

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 463 / 5,000

Is Animal Farming Slavery?

Full resolution: The majority of animal agriculture in the United States is slavery.
Animal agriculture is the rearing of animals for food consumption.

The burden of proof is shared:
Pro: The majority of Animal Farming in the US is slavery.
Con: The majority of Animal Farming in the US is not slavery.

Slavery: the state of being owned by another person.

All rules and specifications of the debate are agreed upon by acceptance.

Round 1
Pro
Framework
  • Our framework is set by the description of the debate where all terms are defined and accepted. 
    • Slavery is the state of being owned by another person.
    • Animal agriculture is the rearing of animals for resources/food consumption.
    • The majority is truistically greater than 50%. 

I. Definitional 
P1) Slavery is the state of being owned by another person.
P2) The majority of animal agriculture places animals in the state of being owned by another person. 
C) The majority of animal agriculture is slavery. 

II. Moral Equalization
P1) If x societal practice features the disparate treatment of different sentient individuals, there must be an ethically relevant distinction between the instigators and the recipients of x practice, such that x practice is justified as ethically permissible. 
P2) Our current societal practices feature the disparate treatment of different sentient individuals (animals and humans).
C) Therefore, there must be an ethically relevant distinction between the instigators and the recipients of x practice, such that x practice is justified as ethically permissible. 
  • This syllogism effectively proposes that there must be an ethically relevant distinction between farm animals and humans that delineates the respective justifications for our societal actions towards them. It rests on two propositions: 
Proposition a: If we can clearly recognize the slavery of humans, we can recognize that treating humans the way we treat farm animals would be slavery. 
Proposition b: If there is no ethically relevant distinction between humans and animals, the way we treat farm animals is slavery. 
  • There are commonly many proposed distinctions, however, none of them are ethically relevant, and thus none of them showcase a justification for P2.  
  • a. Intelligence
    • It would be untenable to suggest that a human of low intelligence, such as children, and those disabled (ex. severe down syndrome and other deformities) can be farmed, enslaved, and eaten by other human beings. 
  • a.b. Rationality
    • The same case follows for rationality. It would be absurd to suggest that it would be ethically permissible for disabled humans, or young children, who are not rational, to be raised in factory farms to be enslaved and consumed. 
  • b. Species
    • If there were a species that was sentiently identical to humans, it would be absurd to suggest they can be farmed, enslaved, and ultimately consumed by virtue of being non-human just as it would be to suggest the same if a population of humans over time evolved into a different species, but maintained the overwhelming majority of the same attributes. 
  • c. Citizenship
    • It would be untenable to suggest we can farm, enslave, and consume non-citizens such as various immigrants. 
  • d. Consciousness
  • e. Sentience
Verdict: none of these positions exhibit an ethical justification for the treatment of animals. As a consequence, animal farming is unquestionably slavery. 

Conclusion 
  • My round-one arguments establish certain propositions. For one, animal agriculture is slavery, irrefutably, within the parameters of our deliberation. Animals are in a state of being owned by another person and thus enslaved. 
  • Secondly, I demonstrate that there is nothing true of animals, that if true of humans would categorically preclude slavery. Thus, animal farming must logically be slavery if doing the same to humans is slavery, so long as there is no ethically relevant distinction between the two. 
  • Conclusively, my first argument demonstrates the resolution to be a certainty. My second argument demonstrates the resolution to be a certainty.

Con
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
  • Extend...

Con
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
Extend. 
Con
Forfeited