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.
- Premise one is definitional, with all terms being found in the description of our debate. Premise two, subsequently, is truistic. In animal agriculture, animals are owned as the property of their rearers. Observing domains such as animal husbandry, animals are exploited, and geared toward the production of certain resources. Given that "99 percent of animals in the US are raised on factory farms;" a system of farming in which a lot of animals are kept in a small closed area, in order to produce a large amount of meat, eggs, or milk as cheaply as possible, it goes without question that the majority, if not the entirety of animal agricultural processes categorically conform to the exploitation of animals, using them as resources for profit, taking them as profit, thus culminating in a description of slavery.
- My conclusion follows via the modus ponens rule of inference. Animal agriculture is the enslavement of sentient creatures, turning them into resources for human consumption.
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.
You can accept this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3773-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery
Someone else accepted it.
I don't have permission to accept this debate
I am not here to have a conversation with you, nor am I here to have an extended back and forth with you.
I want you to accept the debate. Are you going to accept the debate which YOU YOURSELF called an "easy win."
In other words, you intend to rely on petty bitching to win your debate.
I want to debate the same topic, with the same rules as I have outlined. I have re-created it. Feel free to accept.
You are using the wrong word. The word you mean to use is BONDAGE. BONDAGE is the "state of being owned by a person, being property" SLAVES are always humans by definition. For the same reason it would be the wrong usage to refer to your pet dog as your slave, it would be the wrong usage to refer to livestock as slaves.
If you'd like to have that debate, I am willing but I don't want to hear any petty bitching about "oh, that's not my topic, I'm talking about factory farming." I have no interest in debating the evils of factory farming with you but if the topic is your wrong vocabulary then I'm fine with that.
If this is so "easy," by all means more power to you. You can accept the debate. If not, I will assume you are once again, afraid of debating your own position.