The majority of animal agriculture in the United States is slavery [for @Oromagi]

• 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 greater than 50%. 
  

• 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. 
  

• 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: 
  

• 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
  
• Farm animals are conscious, (awake and aware of [their] surroundings) and it would be untenable to say we can consume anyone who is unconscious. 
  
• e. Sentience
  
• Farm animals are sentient (able to perceive or feel things). 
  

• 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.
  

• PRO has provided a customized definition without any dictionary source:
  
• SLAVERY is "the state of being owned by another person"
  
• ANOTHER is "one more in addition"
  
• PERSON is " a "human being"
  
• That is, PRO defined SLAVERY as an exclusively human state because ANOTHER is a determiner specifying the interaction of at least two people, the owned person and another person who is the owner.
  
• That slaves are human would have been evident to PRO had he relied on a dictionary definition of the term.  For example,
  
• SLAVE is " someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay"
  
• PRO's definition is also insufficient.  PRO wants to argue that "SLAVERY is the state of being owned by a person" but that describes all property and while SLAVES are generally property not all property is a SLAVE
  
• A car is not a PERSON and so cannot be said to be owned by ANOTHER PERSON.  By definition, cars cannot be slaves
  
• A chicken is not a PERSON and so cannot be said to owned by ANOTHER PERSON.  By definition, chickens cannot be slaves
  
• PRO should have also checked his definition constitutionally:
  
• The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution states:
  
•  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
  
•  94% of Americans eat meat but no law enforcement officials consider that fact a constitutional crisis because animal agriculture is not SLAVERY 
  

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. 

• ANALYSIS:
  
• PRO is employing loaded language to sensationalize the issue of animal agriculture
  
• LINK:
  
• SLAVERY is one of the most fraught and divisive issues in US History.  The bloodiest war in American History was the American Civil War fought to resolve the issue of SLAVERY and abolish that undemocratic practice in America forevermore.  PRO is evoking that outrage of the past to describe an ordinary human practice that is foundational to  human nutrition, evolution, religion, and civilization, namely eating meat
  
• IMPLICATIONS:
  
• Loaded words like SLAVERY are employed to produce an emotional response that terminates more reasoned approaches. Americans need to be able to discuss the environmental, economic, nutritional, and yes, even ethical consequences and advantages of phasing out factory farming without likening the status quo to the great evils of SLAVERY or suggesting the violence that might be justified to force that phase out in the way that violence was justified to end SLAVERY
  
• PRO forgets that one of the false justifications of SLAVERY was that African-Americans were less than human, less evolved, closer to animals then mankind.  SLAVERY was unacceptable because Americans came to understand that African-Americans were human, fully distinct from animals and, unlike animals, deserving of equal rights and liberties.  PRO's reasoning downplays the fact that the most inhumane aspect of SLAVERY was the act of one human declaring ownership over another, and in this sense, PRO extends the comparison of  Black Americans to animals
  
• ALTERNATIVE: 
  
• These harms are easily avoided by using less hyperbolic language to describe ordinary human practice of animal agriculture.  CON recommends the more precise and less loaded term ANIMAL HUSBANDRY for use in discussing the practice and ethics of animal agriculture. 
  
• VOTERS can discourage the abuse of loaded language in debates by awarding points with deliberate reference to that abuse
  

• ANALYSIS:
  
• PRO is deliberately abusing the debate description to disguise a tautological trap
  
• A TAUTOLOGY, in logic,  is "a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency"
  
• PRO's trap failed to spring because PRO defined SLAVERY as ownership by ANOTHER PERSON, rather than just "a person," but the attempt should be noted and the harms of such conduct confronted
• LINK:
  
• PRO attempted to trap CON by making the argument true by definition without any resort to logic.
  
• That is, by trying to define SLAVERY as simply any ownership when everybody knows that animals raised for food are owned by definition, PRO tried to make his case a foregone conclusion without any resort to logic.  That's why PRO keeps re-emphasizing his definition:
  

• Since animal ownership is never referred to as SLAVERY in dictionaries, encyclopedias, common discourse, or the law, PRO invented his own overly broad definition that applies not just to food animals but to  all human property.  Using PRO's entirely inadequate definition the way PRO hoped to use it, just about everything is SLAVERY:
  
• bottled water is SLAVERY
  
• sailboats are SLAVERY
  
• Cheetos are SLAVERY
  
• television shows are SLAVERY
  
• PRO screwed up his definition but even if his definition were interpreted as intended, we can see that PRO deliberately defined his terms with irrational overbroadness in order to reach out for some validation of his obviously false conclusion
• IMPLICATIONS:
  
• Let's agree that such semantic traps are bad for the quality of debates on debate.com.  Tautologies test no rhetorical skill and teach no truths.
  
• As DebateArt.com's VOTING POLICY states:
  
• "The setup for a debate need not be wholly fair, but there should be grounds for either side to argue. A debate such as “the sun is hot”' are so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, that the other side is best off kritiking the setup and asking for voters to disregard the proofs. This makes it a time of voter discretion if the setup was cheating or not"
  
• VOTERS will note that CON is following the advice and forms of kritik to combat PRO's harms to the quality of debate on this site
• ALTERNATIVE:
  
• VOTERS should note the VOTING POLICY regarding instigator's rules in the description:
  
• Whereas some clarifications in the description are conducive to the spirit of debate, others are clearly set to swindle someone out of having an actual debate
  
• A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested
  
• VOTERS can discourage the abuse of customized definitions in debates by awarding points with deliberate reference to that abuse
  

• Let's make some brief notes. First, to concede means to "admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it." As long as our voters have functional eyesight and can observe this has not occurred, you can ignore anywhere con suggests his fantasy. 
  
• Second, con's analysis of the intricate semantics of my definition seems to be a waste of his entire round one. His kritks not only bear no relation to any argument or position of mine, his conspiratorial notions of a secret plot of mine also bring his conduct into question. 
  

• Contrary to con's notions, a "person" refers to the doctrine of personhood which evaluates whether or, not an entity has imperative moral rights or moral consideration. This is understood as commonplace in the foundations of ethical philosophy. A person is "any entity that has the moral right of self-determination, or "the kind of entity that has the moral right to make its own life-choices, to live its life without (unprovoked) interference from others."
  
• Personhood as a concept has shaped the evolution of society and our perceptions of entities. It has been the determinant of rights for marginalized groups and continues to configure our discourse around ethical issues of today such as abortion, and likewise, animal rights. My moral equalization argument (II) already demonstrates that there are no ethically relevant differences between animals and humans. I have thus argued and delineated that Farm animals are persons, entities that have a moral right to self-determination. Extending this as case, all categorizations of human slavery must apply to farm animals. 
  
• In the same way that various groups, Black people, Jewish people, etc. are and were persons despite historically not being recognized as such, animals are persons despite not being recognized as such because they have a moral right to determine themselves. 
  

• Extending from personhood, this renders con's objection to irrelevance. Various groups of humans in the United States and around the world were not considered persons; they were not recognized as entities with rights or moral value, yet we would still ascribe their treatment as  genocide or murder. Despite not being considered persons, they were persons, being individuals which exhibit no ethical difference between the then irrational conceptions of such. Being individuals that had a moral right to their self-determination, Farm animals, despite not being considered persons, are persons, by virtue of having the same ethical right to self-determination as shown through inconsequential differences (II).  
  
• The prevalence of animals in the factory farming system unquestionably vanquishes my burden for this debate. It indicates that the near entirety of animal farming places animals in a state of enslavement. Consequently, the only particular of our debate in dispute, is whether or not these entities are persons. Any aspect of con's round one speech that diverts from this question can effectively be ignored. If this is in dispute we can simply answer this question with moral equalization. 
  

• My argument is of moral trait equalization. In this, we examine the traits that we implicate with value and see whether or not they distinguish how we treat humans and farm animals. Extend all premises henceforth. 
  
• If humans are persons, farm animals are persons. If humans have personhood then animals have personhood based on the same parameters of analysis. If one denies this they exhibit special pleading, the prelim of logical contradiction. Con's ignorance of the deductive implications of my argument should be ignored. Not only does it attack the ethical permissibility of our social practices, it equalizes our treatment of humans and animals. They are not mutually exclusive as he dogmatically suggests. 
  
• If there is no ethically relevant difference between humans and animals, and if the same actions we perform on animals would be considered slavery on humans, they are logically slavery when performed on farm animals. Even further, my argument equalizes our conceptions of personhood as well. Animals are persons—entities with a moral right of self-determination—if humans are, because no ethically relevant distinction exists between them. 
  
• Con attempts to propose a set of differences he believes are relevant, however, they are all untenable and lead him to absurd conclusions that alone are enough to make the decision self-evidently in favor of the instigator: 
  

• "Human rights..."
  
• Pro's claims are baseless. Many humans, such as disabled people, are not capable of doing anything substantial to speak less of conceptualizing rights, yet this does not entail we can farm them and consume them for resources. The acquisition of rights based on species is also logically incoherent (b. round 1).  
  
• "Omnivores/Essential..."
  
• Pro uses the is-ought gap fallacy, assuming that just because evolution exists, it is ethical to torture, farm, and kill animals. Discard the fallacious argument. David Hume has already proven that "you cannot deduce moral conclusions, featuring moral words such as ‘ought’, from non-moral premises, that is premises from which the moral words are absent." Further, animal farming is not essential. Not only is it continuously found that "plant-based diets are healthier than diets where meat is consumed," they are significantly more affordable. This is an unnecessary consumption and an unnecessary practice, just like enslaving humans would be, yet con does not argue that enslaving humans is ethically permissible. 
  
• "Domestication..."
  
• Many humans would not survive long outside of human care, such as the elderly, the sick, and infants. This does not entail you can farm and kill these humans. 
  

• Pro's fallacious conjectures and weak ad hoc justifications further solidify that we can't even create a logical division between humans and animals. Animal farming is slavery. These animals have the same rights to self-determination as we do. They are persons.
  
• We can even further examine con's questionable and fallacious line of argument. 
  

• This is an appeal to popularity fallacy (using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness). Spousal sexual abuse was not recognized as rape, yet this does not change the fact that it was, as there is no logical difference between being sexually assaulted by a stranger, and by your husband. Likewise, farm animals may not be recognized as persons, but this does not change what they are because there is no logical difference between the justification of what we do to animals and what we do to humans. Farm animals are entities that hold a moral right of self-determination. 
  

• Con's points here are all immaterial if not irrelevant to my case, allowing them to be cleanly discarded. Firstly, I am describing animal agriculture as it is: the enslavement of persons. This is not loaded language but a proposition that I have argued for soundly. 
  
• Secondly, Con weirdly claims that my definition has a secret intended use (there is a mystery plot behind the scenes) seemingly contradicting everything he pointlessly argued for: a sole application to persons. Thus con's examples of objects that he believes are slaves do not influence my case, nor are they relevant to anything I have discussed. 
  

• In round one, I showcased two compelling arguments that prove that animal farming is slavery. My moral equalization argument equalizes the conclusions from premises society has instantiated, including personhood. 
  
• In round two, I extend this argument, the only opposition I face being the use of the word person as a synonym for a human being. This is incongruent with the commonplace of axiology/ethical philosophy and the development of our ethical understanding. It should be ignored. Animals are persons because they are entities that have a moral right to their own self-determination. As it stands, pro has made a sound argument that animal farming is the enslavement of persons, beings that have an ethical actualize themselves. The decision hence is simple. There is only one debater who has made sound arguments: the one who has upheld our resolution beyond doubt. 
  

P1A:  SLAVERY is the state of being owned by another person
P1B: No persons in the US are farmed for food
C1: Therefore, no animal agriculture in the US is SLAVERY

• PRO offered no counter to CON's affirmative case.  We can see here clearly why PRO's argument depends on a radical interpretation of farm animals as people: because if farm animals are not people, PRO's case must fail

• Unfortunately for PRO's case,  animals are not people
  
• Therefore, even PRO's overbroad definition still makes SLAVERY an exclusively human institution
  
• CON looks forward to PRO's R3
  

• For some notes, a dropped argument is one "not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it." I have responded to con's arguments in entirety, so voters can ignore his delusion along with other claims that I have not responded to x. 
  
• I extend my responses to con's kritiks: neither impact my case. First, the resolution is a proposition I have made sound arguments for, precluding loaded language. Second, con continues to contradict his own arguments, wanting to have it both ways. He argues that slavery only applies to persons (something weirdly no one has denied) and also argues that slavery also applies to objects. Which one is it? If con believes books are slaves that is his position, not mine. I remind the voters that (per rules) we have agreed to all terms of the debate. 
  
• I have consistently shown from round one with contention II, that equalizing the justifications of our actions towards farm animals reveal no ethically relevant distinctions, entailing that all our societal practices and conceptions apply to farm animals—they are persons. Slavery as a category applies to them just as personhood does. Having been shown from round one, con's complaints of anything coming too late, at best show an inability to read. Animals are persons by virtue of having a moral right to self-determination. 
  

• What is personhood, and why is it imperative? Personhood is a doctrine of ethics. It is a moral category used to denote entities that have certain moral/ethical rights. A person is any entity that has the moral right of self-determination. There are undoubtedly both non-human persons and human non-persons. For instance, abortion issues deliberate over the personhood of the unborn child. If being a biological human alone was sufficient for personhood, this would not be the case. Con's use of terms like "common sense," amounts to an argument from incredulity, and should be discarded. When discussing ethical issues regarding how we ought to treat entities, we discuss whether or not these entities are persons: whether or not they have a moral right to their self-determination. 
  
• Voters can ignore con's conspiracy that I created the definition of a person or personhood as a concept. The doctrine is one of the most fundamental aspects of ethical philosophy. Things con does not like do in fact exist, and establish the basis for our approach towards moral issues such as abortion or animal rights. 
  
• Voters can also ignore con's statement that my sources somehow work against me. Both of my sources define a person (from personhood) in ethical philosophy. What con refers to is their documentation of individual theories of personhood from different philosophers: these have no impact on what a "person" means as a category—con commits a category error. I don't have to agree with the entirety of what any source I use includes, so cherry-picking various quotes yields no impact on my case; I simply argue against them. My moral equalization argument (II) shows that it is logically impossible to argue humans are persons without arguing that farm animals are persons by the same token. If humans are persons, animals are persons. If humans have a moral right to self-determination, animals have a moral right to self-determination. 
  

• Extend. I have argued soundly, imperatively (II) that animals are persons, entities that have the moral right of self-determination. This makes my opening syllogism sound. Con exhibits no remaining defense against my argument. 
  

• I will re-iterate my argument once more. This contention equalizes our treatment of farm animals and humans. Through this, I demonstrate four propositions that affirm the resolution beyond doubt: (1) There are no ethically relevant distinctions between our treatment of humans and animals. (2) Animals, like humans, have a moral right to self-determination (3) From this, animals are persons, and (4) any action performed on animals that would be categorized as slavery if performed on humans, is categorized as slavery. From these simple propositions, the resolution is affirmed. Con has provided no ethically relevant distinction that would reject any of them. 
  
• Not only does moral equalization equalize our treatment of animals, but it also equalizes our notions of personhood. If humans are persons, animals are persons because there is no ethically relevant distinction between them. This necessitates the conclusion that animal farming is the ownership of persons, and that animal farming is slavery because animals have the same fundamental moral right to self-determination. 
  
• Cumulatively: by establishing that personhood must necessarily apply to farm animals, moral equalization shows that our treatment of animals—which would be considered slavery on humans—must be considered slavery for animals. Con's newly proposed distinctions are even worse than those from round two, and they are new because he drops his previous ones upon their refutation.  
  

• "Moral Agents..."
  
• By the same token, many disabled people are not cognitively developed enough to engage in moral reasoning or to know the difference between right and wrong. They are not moral agents, and neither are most children who are too young to understand these concepts. Does con argue that we can dissect and kill these people for resources? 
  
• "Controls the destiny of the Earth..."
  
• This statement is vague—almost meaningless. All living things control the destiny of the earth through ecological processes, including farm animals. Thus pro's implication that humans "control the destiny of other species," is an informal fallacy: proof by assertion, not an argument. Just because humans have accumulated the most power does not mean they are justified in their actions. Besides exhibiting the is-ought gap fallacy, it amounts to an argument that might makes right. Con would also conclude that had Hitler won world war two, he would have been right in torturing Jewish people, or that if an aliens species: one more advanced than humans came to earth, they would actually be right in enslaving and torturing humans for resources. 
  
•  "Farm animals are...a human creation" 
  
• Children are a human creation, in fact, any human that exists was created by another human, yet this does not mean we can farm and torture all humans, or any human, for resources. 
  
• "Pig mothers...devour their offspring"
  
• Humans have oppressed entire racial groups, engineered the holocaust, and commit acts of genocide, rape, murder, infanticide, torture, and terrorism on a daily basis. Yes, people can do bad things, but I fail to see how this is a point in con's favor given that humans seem to perform the most morally depraved actions. 
  

• The perpetual weaknesses in con's case remain evident. 
  

• Con's response is a red-herring. If slavery is the state of being owned by another person (description), farm animals are persons (I, II) and there are no ethically relevant distinctions between our treatment of humans and farm animals (II), animal agriculture must be slavery regardless of the population's perceptions after having equalized these imperatives between animals and humans. To deny this would be to state that "slavery is and is not slavery," a logical contradiction, or to exhibit special pleading, another logical contradiction. The development of language is immaterial to this. 
  

• Con continues to argue fallaciously: in fact, we can discard many of his points in the notion that just because something is the case, does not mean it ought to be so. "You cannot deduce moral conclusions, featuring moral words such as ‘ought’, from non-moral premises, that is premises from which the moral words are absent," and con continues to do so, hoping that dogmatically repeating himself will make the fallacies go away. 
  

• The goal of this contention is simple. I have made a sound argument that there are no ethically relevant differences between humans and animals. If humans are persons by having a moral right to self-determination, animals are persons by having those same moral rights. Thus, I have showcased that animals have personhood, possessing this same moral right. It is not only illogical but irrational and contradictory to suggest they do not while retaining that humans do. 
  

• Let's examine both of our cases in this debate. It is easy to see that pro has won every contention. 
  
• We established that personhood in ethical philosophy denotes any entity that has a moral right to self-determination. Personhood remains a central doctrine evaluated in moral issues, most especially animal rights. Thus we adhere to the doctrine of personhood to evaluate whether or not animals are persons. The central question of this debate became whether or not farm animals are persons. Thus, if I prove animals to be persons, I have won the debate. 
  
• My moral equalization argument shows just that: farm animals are beings that have a moral right to their own self-determination, by the same token that humans are. No matter what con posits, no matter what justification he hopes will stick, I have shown they all lead to absurd conclusions that eradicate their ethical tenability. Thus, any action performed on animals, if it would be considered slavery when placed upon humans, is slavery because animals are persons. 
  
• Con has failed to refute this argument. Each ad hoc justification he provided yielded more and more insane conclusions that undercut his own arguments, placing him in more and more awkward positions. 
  
• The decision for this debate is not difficult. One debater has made consistent valid and sound arguments. The resolution is confirmed. 
  

• CON must show that the majority of animal agriculture in the US is not slavery
  

• VOTERS can discourage the abuse of loaded language in debates by awarding points with deliberate reference to that abuse