The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
My argument is simply that any of us who have an easy choice of whether or not to purchase products that are made from animals should choose not to because of the enormous suffering the animals endure and/or because they lose their life. Tell me why you disagree.
- It is the primary reason why I accepted this here
- I forgot this debate existed for 13 days
Replace the word 'animal' with the word 'child' and see how self-evidently horrifying the paragraph becomes.We don't eat children for a reason.To assign a living being's purpose in life as being nothing more than a lamb to be needlessly sent to the slaughter upon reaching maturity is not 'meaningful', it's reprehensible at best.[proof needed]I did mine. Then again, if an animal started to live in the meat industry and isn't painful(no sources by Con), then the way can go. If an animal feels pain in the meat industry(Still no sources), then it would be rational to slaughter it, painlessly hopefully, so to end more pain in the long run, and it is always better to just use the meat that has been killed than to leave it a rotting carcass. If anything, it would be better for an animal to be slaughtered for meat if it is already in because we humans gave them a shelter warm enough against any pain-inducing predators and their death is a relatively less painful one. The slaughterhouse is probably better than outside for the animals and the meat better go to my plate than be stocked molded in a trash pail. In other words, for most animals in the meat industry, killing them and eating them is one of the best alternatives out there practically.We don't do this for humans because the best outcome for most humans is not food. In fact, human flesh can inherently make you sick and that disease, Prion, has currently no stable cure. On the other hand, eating animals is probably the best they can get for some animals. I don't advocate for slaughtering animals for the long term, but for the short term, where those animals would have little or no use otherwise, eating them is the best they can get. Until animals breed to have actual uses outside the meat industry, eating them is justified because it is the best for them animals.My opponent doesn't believe it's wrong to slaughter and eat a human being, they just think it's inefficient.It is wrong because it is inefficient. You would not put any cow on the moon, because cows are not meant for things like this. We would not eat humans because humans are unhealthy and poisonous to eat, humans are not built to be eaten by other humans.I'm saying that they didn't deserve this. They did not deserve to be born only to suffer. They did not ask to exist, and yet, we brought them into existence only to rob them of any joy from that very existence. We brought them into existence only to make it impossible for them to live a full, fulfilling life as they were meant to.'minutely reminder that there had been about ln( 1 ) sources on this subjectno source(or even detailed enough reasonings) for:
- animals feel pain in meat industry
- animals are robbed of happiness when they are killed
- any superior alternative other than those animals to be eaten, any happier alternative for themWithout proof, it is thus that killing animals (humanely) for food is the best for those animals in the short term as there is no proof they get any sadder or more painful from so. Any new proof would be a new argument and shall be ignored. Me stating so that has been the case since the start is not.