Instigator / Con
21
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic

Killing and eating animals for the purpose of food

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
9
6
Sources points
6
2
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
3

With 3 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Nature
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Pro
14
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description
~ 178 / 5,000

I will clarify my position in the first round, as I am not 100 % against eating animals for food. Anyways I hope we all learn something new in this debate and hope you all enjoy!

Round 1
Con
Pro can go first, Explain to me why in a modern 1st world country like the US, Canada, Or Europe, That we have to eat meat to survive when we have an established irrigation system. 

Pro
I'm not scared to jump in. 

1) All food is another living organism.  
Organisms have been feeding off other living orgasms since the first cell absorbed a mitochondria.  We as a society tend to take for granted that eating plants is any different than eating animals.  We say things like "The animal suffers"  Whose to say that a plant doesn't suffer when it's killed and eaten?  How does a tree feel when it gets cut down for wood? Plants like apple trees have learned to get around this, but I'd imagine before they evolved the protective coating around their seeds, those poor apple trees were probably crying for they're eaten children.  

I'm being a tad hyperbolic, but only to demonstrate a point.  Our assessment of eating meat as being wrong is an arbitrary decision.  Sure, we shouldn't torture them.  But they can die painlessly and even live long and happy lives first under the right conditions. Science has made this even better by constructing methods of making animals that don't have any brains so they don't have to go through the fear of being slaughtered. In reality, their is no way for any organism to live without slaughtering another one.  If you're gonna argue that eating animals is wrong, then you have to argue that eating is wrong.  Otherwise, you're just subjectively drawing the line in the sand where you want it without justification.

2) Not eating is not an option.
We can try to debate this one if your set on doing so, but most doctors agree that not eating will generally result in a moderate to severe case of death. 

Conclusion.  We must kill organisms in order to live.  There is no specific reason to exclude a certain group of animals without a practical reason.

Afterthought:  Just in case you try to use cannibalism as an argument. That's automatically off the table because that gives you a very specific disease that kills you, so we have a practical reason not to do it in addition to it being gross and counterproductive to one's social/romantic goals. 

Your Floor. 
 
Round 2
Con
"  Whose to say that a plant doesn't suffer when it's killed and eaten? "

- Plants can not suffer for several reasons. According to too
live kindly and
mercyforanimals
, plants can not feel pain due to them not having a nervous system, nor a brain. While plants do know when they're being eaten, this does not translate into them feeling pain. The question you should ask yourself is what is better, to eat an organism that can't feel pain or an organism that can feel pain. The very obvious nonsociopathic and logical option would be to eat the organism that is unable to feel pain over the one that can. 


" But they can die painlessly and even live long and happy lives first under the right conditions"

- This is not very accurate to the unethical meat industry. Many animals are killed when they're young, live in cages and are separated from their family members.

"  Science has made this even better by constructing methods of making animals that don't have any brains so they don't have to go through the fear of being slaughtered"

- Ok so then what would be wrong with conducting non-painful methods to kill humans and then eat them? Specifically name me a trait that justifies killing an animal, but not killing a human. 

" In reality, there is no way for any organism to live without slaughtering another one. " 

- This is an appeal too futility since you're basically saying " since we can't prevent ALL suffering, this makes all suffering justified," by this logic, I could just run around and stab 50 people to death since I can't prevent the suffering and death of them.

- Veganism and vegetarianism reduce the amount of harm and death as much as reasonably possible while also ensuring humans can live also. According to defenders.org, millions of animals are killed each year by pesticides. This is a large number however according to
thoughtco
, billions of animals are killed and eaten for human consumption. While there is no 100 % way to prevent the suffering and death of animals, veganism would prevent the suffering and death of billions of animals. 
 
"Not eating is not an option."

- By eating plants and using some supplements, it is proven that you can live without eating animal products according to too independent.co which cites that if everyone went vegan without the use of supplements, people would be deficient on several nutrients. However combined with the use of various supplements, a human being can live without consuming meat. Also according to this website, our overall food supply would increase by 23 % if everyone adopted a vegan diet, so essentially a vegan diet would increase our food supply. 

SOURCES: 










Pro
You mad me laugh when you said non sociopathic.  I love good humor in a debate :) 

I don't mind you going straight to rebuttal, but do you have an argument of your own or are you just going to critique me?  I believe we're on a shared burden here yes? 

You only say plants don't suffer because you specifically define suffering by nervous systems.  We have no way of knowing how a plants feels things.  They might have a system of consciousness that we can't properly measure.  Fun fact, a plant was once used to help convict somebody of murder because they were able to use chemical cues to show that the plant got scared while in the presence of the murderer, sounds like suffering to me. 

You said:
"- This is not very accurate to the unethical meat industry. Many animals are killed when they're young, live in cages and are separated from their family members."

This is a red herring.  I'm advocating for my own personal position.  I'm not here to support the meat industry and never did I say that they did things correctly.  The fact is that we can in fact kill animals without suffering.  This is a scientific fact.  It is also a fact that organisms must kill other organisms to eat.  It's the circle of life.

You said:
"- Ok so then what would be wrong with conducting non-painful methods to kill humans and then eat them? Specifically name me a trait that justifies killing an animal, but not killing a human. "

I actually addressed this at the end of my last statement.  I guess you didn't read my whole argument *tisk tisk*.  Humans who eat other humans get a specific disease that kills them.  That puts them off the table.  Both figuratively and literally.  Do try to actually read my arguments before you pose rebuttals on things I've already covered. 

In response to what you said about futility.  I never said that we have to make animals suffer.  I said we have to eat them.  Big difference.  You can call it an appeal to futility if you want, but are you saying that we should all go extinct?  Because you can't have it both ways.  You either want humans to live or you don't.  If you do, then we have to kill things to eat.  Unless you have an alternative to that.  I'd be interested to hear it.  Also, it's a strawman to say that I can just go stab 50 people to death.  I am forced to eat animals to live.  I am not forced to go stab people in the streets.  Please present my arguments properly and leave the strawmans out. Thanks in advance. 

You say that veganism prevents more harm.  More harm to whom?  The animals?  What about all of the extra harm it causes to plants?  For an activist you sure are apathetic to the struggles of plants.  Your position only appears noble at first because you're going off the assumption that plants don't deserve the same rights as animals. 

You bring up supplements.  You do realize that supplements still ultimately come from a living organism right? Just because you pack your dead cow flesh into a pill, doesn't change the fact that you're eating another organism.  This is basically the crux of the argument.  Vegetarians see their way as better, because to them, a bleeding animal seems brutal, but you commit murder when you pick a flower, and people think picking flowers is a beautiful act. It's all just subjective about which thing you want to eat. 

 Now that I've handled your critiques, I'd like to FINALLY see what your argument is.  Because so far all you've done is neigh say without providing a good reason for me to treat animals differently than any other living thing. 

Your floor. 






Round 3
Con
"I don't mind you going straight to rebuttal, but do you have an argument of your own or are you just going to critique me?"

- I thought I posted my argument in my rebuttal but I guess I never did, another mandella effect I guess. Well, essentially my position is that in a modern 1st world country with an established irrigation system, eating meat is not something we need to do to survive when we can get all of the nutrients we need from plants minus b12 which could instead be obtained from supplements.  There are a few scenarios where eating meat would be justified for instance if you live in a 3rd world country with little too no plants or irrigation system. However again in first world countries with an established irrigation system and where we have access to all of the major food groups, there is no reason to eat meat. 

" We have no way of knowing how a
plants
feels things."

- There have been hundreds of studies done on why plants can't feel pain or well being. One such article from
mercyforanimals
which I mentioned in my other rebuttal stated that plants while they do react to stimuli, do not feel pain. 


"  I'm not here to support the meat industry and never did I say that they did things correctly."

- I think you were taking me out of context because the context was that you were acting as if animals get too live long and happy lives and are only used for meat once they die of natural causes when in reality this is not the case and is quite the opposite.  

- Also by supporting eating meat, you are essentially supporting the meat industry. This is like an avid gun enthusiast not supporting the
NRA, when the NRA supports the person's beliefs.  

" Humans who eat other humans get a specific disease that kills them."

- Ok so than in a hypothetical scenario if there were an alien species that had sentience, had intelligence, and had the same society like us, you would justify killing and eating them simply because we don't get a specific disease from them? 

"  I never said that we have to make animals suffer.  I said we have to eat them.  Big difference. "

- Suffering and death are synonymous, animals suffer from death and during their whole lives. We don't need to eat animals to live, eating plants and taking some dietary supplements are enough for a human to live. 

" You say that veganism prevents more harm.  More harm to whom?  The animals?  "

- This entire argument has been entirely based around animals, so yes veganism prevents more harm being done
 too animals.


" What about all of the extra harm it causes to plants?  For an activist, you sure are apathetic to the struggles of plants."

- Again plants don't have a nervous system, a brain, and there have been plenty of studies done on this subject and 99 % of them have come to the conclusion that plants can't feel pain.  

" You do realize that supplements still ultimately come from a living organism right?"

- According to the vegan society, B12 supplements come from microorganisms and not from animals. Also even assuming that this wasn't the case, it would be justified to eat meat in that situation since we can't obtain B12 from just plants. But again for just vitamin B12, we don't need
too
kill animals at the rate we are doing for just vitamin B12. 

" but you commit murder when you pick a flower, "

- Again plants don't feel pain so this argument is essentially irrelevant. According to another article from Vice, a biologist stated that Plants don't have pain receptors. Plants have pressure receptors that allow them to know when they're being touched or moved—mechanoreceptors. "  

Sources,







Pro
Okay.  So your position is that when a society achieves a certain (subjectively) prescribed level of advancement proportionate to the needs of the population, that said society should (subjective) abandon meat (An organism) and switch to vegetables (Another organism) and your reason for this is that making animals suffer is wrong.  Now you're going to have to take death off the table because if death counts as a form of suffering and if plants die (which they do)  then that means they suffer and it sinks your entire argument.  So from there we can surmise that if their is a way to kill the cow without suffering, then it will be equal to killing plants, since there would be no difference at that point.  I think we can both agree that a cow could easily be killed within a fraction of a second.  This would be the equivalent of being punched in the face and dying.  Now when you get hit by something that hurts, I know I have, there's always that fraction of a second where you don't feel anything before the pain kicks in.  Depending on the injury it might feel cold or hot or under pressure for a minute.  So in the fraction of a second that a cow lives while being slaughtered, the cow maybe feels a paper cut.  

Oh so now we're killing plants and microorganisms.  Your blood lust is unquenchable isn't it?  Did you know that you commit genocide every time you take a shower.  This morning I killed more bacteria than Hitler killed during his rein.  I wonder how many micro meats have to be harvested to fill one tablet.  Maybe a million?  a billion?  I wonder how many of those pills equals a cow?  Maybe five thousand?  ten thousand?  it's probably more.  But lets go with ten thousand.  tabs and one million microbes just to be safe.  That would be 10 Billion microbes for each cow.  Not to mention the plants you've already slaughtered.  What makes you think a microbe wants to live any less than you or I?  Maybe they like filtering nutrients into their sack faces while they Netflix and chill, or whatever microbes do.  

Well if the aliens have similar intelligence, they would be likely to treat us less like animals.  But I'll stick to your scenario. 

If the aliens needed to eat to survive and human meat was a good source for them that didn't make them sick and they had every practical reason to do it.  Then they would be justified to eat us.  Am I going to let them?  Nope.  So let the best humanoid win.  

Me not eating meat isn't going to improve cow treatment.  The solution to corruption in the meat industry isn't to make people stop eating.  The solution is to force them to act humanely.  You can't simply argue about what people are doing at this moment.  You have to argue the possibilities.  It is possible to kill them without suffering, so we can strive for that instead of making arbitrary judgements about which species deserve to be eaten.  Plant lives Matter.  

This is just my opinions, but I like plants better than animals.  The don't judge me, much like a dog, but they also don't hump my leg or crap on my floor.  There food is stupidly cheap and they come with their own combination food and water dish.  My side just wins on ever level, lol. 

On the plants and nervous systems comment.  Scientists haven't discovered why we perceive consciousness.  If they can't do it for us, that means they can't do it for plants either.  For all we know, plants have their own consciousness and we simply haven't discovered it.  Just because they don't have eyes doesn't mean that don't have senses.  They grow hairs and react to stimuli just like you said.  Sounds like consciousness to me.  Furthermore, their have been studies to suggest that animals without brains still make decisions.  Digest that thought as well.  Also, Micro Lives Matter Too. 

Your floor.  Don't step on my flowers.  You've already killed enough. 
Round 4
Con
 Now you're going to have to take death off the table because if death counts as a form of suffering and if plants die (which they do)  then that means they suffer and it sinks your entire argument. 
I understand your argument, however again it doesn't make sense since plants do not have a nervous system or a brain to accept those feelings. Therefore plants do not have a right to life as they are not sentient nor intelligent. Animals, however, are sentient beings and have a right to life. 

 I think we can both agree that a cow could easily be killed within a fraction of a second.  This would be the equivalent of being punched in the face and dying. 
If you are going to justify killing a cow in this way than you would also be justifying killing humans. If we took humans and took away their sentience than in your own logic it would be justifiable to kill humans. Not only that but we also need to take into account the fact that cows have family members and friends since cows are sentient. Without sentient, you are pretty much unable to have a meaningful relationship. Cows are sentient and have family members and friends who would be very devasted if their mother, father, sibling, or child died regardless of how much it hurt. 

Oh so now we're killing plants and microorganisms.
Again plants and microorganisms aren't sentient nor intelligent, therefore it would be justifiable to kill them. 

Then they would be justified to eat us.  Am I going to let them?  Nope.  So let the best humanoid win.  
So you in this quote are making an appeal to the survival of the fittest. This sort of survival of the fittest attitude could be used to justify the holocaust, slavery, or imperialism. Moreover, in the context of this scenario, you would pretty much be justifying the genocide of humans and the genocide of the alien species. This includes mothers, children, and baby's being genocided all for meat when meat isn't needed for survival. Very plainly this logic is not only unethical and
unmoral
,
but repulsive. 

Me not eating meat isn't going to improve cow treatment.
If humans didn't eat meat, the farms and slaughterhouses wouldn't exist in the first place. Which of course would improve cow treatment. 

  The solution is to force them to act humanely.
Killing animals in slaughterhouses and on farms is not " acting humanely". 

 Scientists haven't discovered why we perceive consciousness.  If they can't do it for us, that means they can't do it for plants either.  For all we know, plants have their own consciousness and we simply haven't discovered it.  
Considering that 99 % of scientists agree that plants are unable to feel pain and the fact that basic biology contradicts this statement. Plants do not have a nervous system nor a brain. Therefore as of 2019, plants do NOT feel pain. 


Pro
Oh no you don't.  You're not moving the goal post on me.  I like it where it is.  You said that death is a form of suffering.  Those were your words.  That means that if plants die, they suffer.  You don't get to give special pleading to cows just because you like them better.  The treatment has to be consistent.  So either death is off the table or cows are on the table.  Both figuratively and literally. 

Humans can't eat other Humans and survive so their is no practical reason to kill humans.  That's just a Straw Ralph. 

Right so you subjectively decide that their life is more valuable.  Even though tens of billions of them have to die just for one cow to live.  I see where your morals lie. Enjoy your shower tonight (Germocide)

I'm not claiming that I wanted any humans to die.  You're the one who brought human eating aliens here, so it's your fault they're dead.  Adding to the body count.  All I said was that if they were in our situation, they'd be justified and I would fight alongside humanity to make sure they starve to death.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  You get to kills tens of billions of organisms and I can't kill a few aliens all of sudden? 

Okay, we have two plans.  My plan is go for humane treatments in slaughterhouses.  Your plan is to convince every meat eater on the planet to become a vegetarian.  Whose plan sounds more viable?  Could you explain how you plan to evangelize all of those meat eaters?  Because you're doing a wonderful job of converting me right? I think I've made my point here. 

Well. We're humans and humans slaughter things.  Seems Humane to me. 

100% of science use to think the world was flat?  We're they right. 
100% of doctors use to think that woman who nagged suffered from "hysteria" and would vaginally stimulate them (Rape) to treat the condition. 

I'm not even convinced that you're right about the amount of scientists that agree with that, but I don't think a plant is going to be any happier about dying just because you said it doesn't feel pain.  I think it would be quite angry at you. 

Your floor. 
Round 5
Con
Oh no you don't.  You're not moving the goal post on me.  I like it where it is.  You said that death is a form of suffering.
I never " moved " the goal post. Death is simply not death without suffering, and suffering is not suffering without the ability to feel pain. Therefore since animals feel pain, they are suffering, and since suffering is death, whether it is quick or not is irrelevant. 

Humans can't eat other Humans and survive so their is no practical reason to kill humans.
Since you don't value sentient nor morality, what about population control? What about criminals? There are many good reasons to kill criminals and people for population control, however, what keeps us from doing so is morality. And since you don't care about sentient nor morality, it would be just too kill them. 

Right so you subjectively decide that their life is more valuable. 
I have already presented my reasons why animals are more valuable than plants and bacteria. You have so far provided ZERO good reasons as to why plants and bacteria should be valued or why animal lives don't matter. Animals have sentience and have a right to life, bacteria and plants don't have a right to life. 

 I don't see anything wrong with that.
You don't see ANYTHING wrong with aliens killing humans, or humans killing aliens. When said aliens can survive without meat, have sentience, have intelligence, and have the same morality as us. This is absolutely ridiculous that you don't see a problem with this. 

My plan is go for humane treatments in slaughterhouses.  Your plan is to convince every meat eater on the planet to become a vegetarian.  Whose plan sounds more viable?  
Slaughterhouses in and of themselves are inhumane. My plan would actually increase our food supply since the plants we use for feeding animals would go to humans, would save trillions of animals lives, and is the healthier option. Which option sounds better to you? 

100% of science use to think the world was flat?  We're they right. 
100% of doctors use to think that woman who nagged suffered from "hysteria" and would vaginally stimulate them (Rape) to treat the condition. 
How does this suddenly prove that plants can feel pain? Science is not 100 %. What about the time's scientists were correct on stuff? Scientists have been correct on a great majority of stuff and cherry picking out one or two scenarios does not translate into all scientists being wrong. 

'm not even convinced that you're right about the amount of scientists that agree with that
Ok in my sources section I will site TONS of articles that believe that plants can not feel pain. 

In conclusion, my opponent is using ignorant survival of the fittest arguments, thinks that plants can feel pain despite the number of scientists and basic biology that says otherwise, and hasn't given me one good reason to eat animals. 

SOURCES AND ARTICLES, 







Pro
I see that you conveniently glazed over plants dying.  so now it's moving the goal post and dodging. tisk tisk. 

I'll make this simple.  

You already said twice that suffering is death.  So you can't deny that.  

Do plants Die?  Answer that question.  

If Yes, then cows get eaten.  

If No, then you're either lying or you have a poor definition of death.  You keep trying to squirm out of this by saying that their death doesn't count because they don't have senses.  But you can't prove they don't have agency and you even said yourself that they have sensory organs for pressure just like humans do.  Pressure receptors also double as pain receptors.  So if you crush a flower in a pressure area, it feels it. Is there an agent receiving the pain?  Maybe.  Probably. 

I never made any argument that implies that I have to kill humans.  My argument for killing cows is that we need them for food.  Nothing in that says I have to kill humans because I can't practically eat a human.  You gave examples of slaughtering for utility.  I wouldn't slaughter animals for utility so this is still consistent for me.  You've proven nothing. 

Yes, you presented your subjective reasons.  I want to know where the objective reasons.  Subjective arguments are inferior to objective ones.  My argument is objective because we do need them to eat.  

You want a good argument for not killing microbes?  That's not my argument.  My argument is that we eat everything.  You're the one coming in here and saying that some organisms are different.  I'm saying they're all up for grabs if we need them.  

See you're changing what I said.  In my scenario, I said if they needed us to live.  If they don't need us to live then it isn't cool anymore. Humans need meat to survive.  We evolved that way for a reason.  Meat keeps us full longer so we can have time to do things like invent and have more sex.  you know all of the good survival stuff.  People who eat plants all and take supplements have to eat all day because they don't take in energy fast enough.  So there is no way that a whole planet will ever survive on slow producing plants that we'll burn through when a cow gets made way faster and more efficiently.  You're being impractical and you're taking a fake moral high ground. 

You can plan your food switch all you want.  But how do you evangelize the meat eaters?  They're not just going to agree to your plan because you're a really good person and you have a subjective fake moral high ground. 

How do you know they were correct?  How do you know it's not flat earth all over again but it just hasn't happened yet? You're just making an assumption. 

Oh sources.  Cool stories.  

So instead of giving me your subjective opinion, you give me the subjective opinion of some other people?  What's the difference.  Why would you not just read the source and present the argument that you drew from it and then link it? 

Am I your secretary? 
Can you not read your own sources?  
You think copy and pasting is a style of argument? 
For future debates, explain the source you posted.  Copy paste sourcing is the laziest form of debate. 

Other than that, you kept things interesting, but you're nothing more than a genocidal plant killer.  You won't stop until you've eaten all the trees and we can't breathe oxygen anymore.  

Good Debate.