Instigator / Con
21
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#655

Killing and eating animals for the purpose of food

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
6
2
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description

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!

-->
@Speedrace
@Alanwang123

(4) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate

Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).

-->
@Speedrace
@Alanwang123

(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:


Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points

Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support

Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.

-->
@Speedrace

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct

RFD: I feel like Pro spent a lot of time straw-manning Con's arguments. Con clearly stated his position and evidence and Pro wouldn't back off. I only wish that Con had pointed that out more. In addition, Pro criticizes Con for using scientific sources to support his position, but then turns around and says that since they're not 100% correct, they must support his position (or at least not support either side). However, it is obvious to the voter that since these studies are comprehensive, we can take what they say as the truth, because we can't function if we walk around in life not knowing everything 100%. Pro also insulted Con a few times, which is inappropriate.

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

*******************************************************************

-->
@Alanwang123

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct, 2 points to con for sources and grammar

RFD: I feel like it

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

*******************************************************************

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I just joined yesterday, Hopefully we can be friends ;-;

I totally agreed with you, by the way, I love meat xD

-->
@Speedrace

I didn't know you were on this website. Good to see you!!. Thanks for the vote!!

-->
@Pinkfreud08

The issue with what you said, and why I viewed it as a massive undermining of your point - is that you argued that eating meat is a moral issue, and that the value I need to weight in this argument is that I should vote against animals suffering, because they’re sentient and can feel pain - accepting that it’s okay to eat animals for reasons short of absolute necessity undermines that position - regardless of whether this was or was not outlined in the opening.

The argument that it’s sometimes justified doesn’t fully in and of itself concede the debate (though I feel that if pro had pointed this reasoning out, I would have considered it that), but the value you chose and the justification you gave for the exemption did, in my view, pretty much undermine your debate value.

To sort of elaborate on my issue: you’re basically saying that it’s okay to cause pain and suffering when it harms the convenience or well being of humans (ie: because it’s harder to grow crops - for example), it points out to me that the convenience to humans is important to consider too - not just suffering, and as you didn’t elaborate on what the line is and why, all I was left with was you apparently saying it was sometimes okay to eat animals short of absolute necessity in a debate for which you the resolution is that it’s not okay to eat animals.

Imo your alternatives were:

- Say nothing, and if your opponent points it out deal with it then.
- Take an extreme but defendable position: that it’s only acceptable in cases of necessity - that someone will die if they don’t eat meat: your not arguing that it’s possible for the 3rd world to be vegan - just that they probably should.
- Spend more time defining what the line between acceptable and unacceptable is, and how I can determine it.

Normally, it’s best not to volunteer information not specifically relevant to the resolution unless it’s central to your argument: for this reason.

-->
@Dylan_Kleboid

Thanks and I would be fine if you added me.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Dang your debate topics are pretty interesting! Do you mind if I add you?

-->
@Ramshutu

Sorry I meant my opening argument and not the description

-->
@Ramshutu

" Con concedes. Con argues its sometimes okay to eat meat. This is a massive blow to his position. The only reason that I didn’t award the debate on the spot, is that pro didn’t call him on it."

- Stating that it is sometimes ok to do something is not a concession, this is simply not true. For example, sometimes murder is ok whether it be for self-defense, however in the vast majority of scenarios murder is wrong. Case and point, me stating that it is sometimes ok to eat meat is not a concession nor is it a blow to my position. I never made a statement that stated that eating animals is wrong in ALL scenarios, I made it clear in the description that we are going to be talking about eating meat in first world countries and not in more poorer countries.

However, I don’t feel con did enough here to tip me over the edge to show a clear and unambiguous value. This may have been different had he placed the concession in more context, as I felt this undermines his core contention of suffering too much.

Pro would have won if he had focused more on pain and suffering free existence: it was too scant for me to award it solely on this - even though I liked the athument

Arguments: tied

Sources: this is more clear cut. Pro offered no sources. Con improved his warrant with sources in two ways:

By showing animals don’t suffer and don’t have a nervous system (the vice article
Citing a botanist - and the livekindly article which cited a number of interesting studies).

This served to undermine a key point pro made relating to plants being the same as animals and feeling pain - as pro used sources well to undermine his opponents primary contention, I feel this warrants source points.

Sources to con.

All other points tied: though be warned pro, I considered awarding the conduct point against you due the attitude. Try and keep it a bit more civil and respectful - it may have been a jokey style debate - but this is not always how it will come across.

After this pro goes off the rails a bit, and it is not clear the relevance of his position.

Final round:

Con/pro - there is a lot of crazy moralizing going on here - it is not clear how this fits into the resolution. The remainder of this round is mostly rehashing the points already made in the debate.

Summary:

So: the main issues here are as follows.

Con concedes. Con argues its sometimes okay to eat meat. This is a massive blow to his position. The only reason that I didn’t award the debate on the spot, is that pro didn’t call him on it.

Suffering: pro points out animals can be ethically treated, and do not have to suffer during their lives. Con dances around suffering, death, and what animals feels plants.

While con clearly sets the value for the debate on the principles of suffering, pro eroded successfully eroded this position:

If suffering relates to pain, then I side with pro - as animals can be treated humanely, and con doesn’t explain how an animal can be treated humanely, have a pain free life and death - and still be notionally “suffering”. If suffering isn’t related to pain - then I side with pro that animals count too. Cons argument from sentience was too little, too late - and appeared to muddy the water rather than clarify. Saying this though - pro did not do NEARLY enough to show me that the suffering of animals can be greatly alleviated other than one or two throw away lines.

My main issue with pro here is that he argues both from the lack of suffering angle, then repeatedly tries to hammer home that plants and cows are the same (con refuted), that it’s there is no moral harm in eating sentient animals, and this part is arbitrary (pro did not provide a great framework).

I could go two says in this - one is to award the arguments to pro on the grounds of suffering being alleviated with his plan, but I don’t feel it was sufficiently argued, and feels like a massive cop out technicality to award a win on these grounds.

While I agree with con about the plant/animal distinction, I felt the defence of death vs suffering was very poor here. I would not consider death on its own to be suffering other than what is produced by its cause - as animals will die whether we intervene or not: so I can’t buy this prima facia.

Pro round 3: pro does well to turnaround the death point - as if you make death the sole categorization for suffering as con does - it means that by his own definition plants suffer. (As suffering in this case is not related to pain, or having feelings).

The majority of pros points are mostly either comical (be careful pro - your straying into conduct area!), or reiteration of his original points about the meat industry.

Con r4:

Con here basically changes up, and draws the distinction of intelligence and sentience to delineate what meat is okay to eat. While this is subjective, it feels okay on its face - however it is very late in the game to change positions.

Pro r4: I side with pro about moving goal posts - so I’m not going to weight cons argument here as strongly.

Pro reiterates that con defined death as suffering regardless of pain felt. While I wouldn’t necessarily agree that this is quite on the level of special pleading, I feel pro successfully highlights that con is making arbitrary distinctions.

I am going to ignore pros viability argument - in these debates there is a level of fiat (it is assumed the plan can be enacted so as to discuss the merits rather than practicality).

R1: pro.

Pro offers the defence that eating anything is eating an organism. That due to plants being organisms, not wanting to eat meat makes and arbitrary distinction between animals and plants.

Pro invites con to give justification as to why we shouldn’t eat plants too.

R2: con. Con offers an objective distinction between plants and animals - namely the ability to feel pain. Con contends the major issue between animals and plants is the capacity for the former to experience suffering.

I particularly liked con pointing out that pro is engaging in an appeal to futility.

Con goes on - specifically talking about related harms, pesticides/veganism, however I will not assess these as topical as they appear outside the scope of the resolution.

Pro r2:

So pros position here, is that he isn’t defending the meat industry - I would agree with this, and this somewhat slides the BoP towards con for me. Pro has argued that animals can be eaten without suffering - an issue that is central to cons point.

Pro addressed the canabalism issue - specifically using illness as an example.

I feel pro has done a good job thus far to reframe the debate about eating meat, and undermines pros case relating to suffering.

Con r3. I felt con came off the rails a bit, while his argument thrown back at pro about humans eating sentient humans was a good way of reframing pros canibalism; my main issue is the con concedes it’s sometimes okay to eat meat for the purposes of food. In my view this concedes the whole debate.

Con contends that pro must support the meat industry - I don’t but this, as pro may well agree the status quo is not good - but doesn’t feel that removing meat completely is a solution.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I suggest watching antscanada. they actually have discovered new behavior in ants and you get to see the differing levels of sentience among ants, there is a recognization of hiearchy in ants, which shows that ants understand that roles are needed in establishing a community/nest. There are differing tasks among ants and specialization in some species, warrior ants in certain species show a development and charateristic for defense and building.

-->
@Titanium

From what I've gathered from researching articles from scientists, it is not 100 % confirmed or not whether ants are sentient. However, assuming that ants are sentient than they do have a right to life. Although since the majority of the time ants are killed unintentionally from people stepping on them or them being invading species, it would be fine in those scenarios to kill them. Killing invading species to maintain an ecosystem while is sad, is justified. Killing them for no reason is immoral, however.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Ants are sentient on some level. They have practiced behaviors, avoid pain and cooperate as collective. This does not make it immoral to step on them. It's clearly a level of awareness we are talking about when describing morality, not the flat base existence of it in other creatures.

-->
@Titanium

"Stating that something is immoral does not make it so and it's a topic I'm concerned with understanding. "

I've already stated why it is immoral, essentially eating meat when we don't need to is immoral since the animals are sentient with the ability to feel and perceive pain, and therefore have a right to life the same way humans do.

" Cows, for instance, do not endure this because of their limited awareness. It's that simple. That's why this is not generally considered immoral."

- Cows have sentience, and sentience is essentially consciousness.

Ok, talk to you later.

You've missed my point. Stating that something is immoral does not make it so and it's a topic I'm concerned with understanding. A quick death means nothing if you have to spend your life aware that this is your lot in life and that you're just sitting around waiting for it to feed your captors and knowing that your whole family will suffer watching this and then have to endure the same suffering.

Cows, for instance, do not endure this because of their limited awareness. It's that simple. That's why this is not generally considered immoral.

-->
@Titanium

If you send another response, I won't be able to answer it until after school, so around 2-3 hours. Currently study hall is about to end so again sorry if I don't respond to it until later.

-->
@Titanium

An animals death whether quick or not, is still not moral. What about the animals family members or friends? By this same logic I could just kill a human if the death would be painless and quick.

While we do not need meat the pleasure increased by eating it is so intense that the majority will never stop. What will perhaps prevent this practice is meat grown in labs or delicious meat substitutes like the impossible burger.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Their lack of awareness demise is imminent makes the suffering small. A quick death would make this all completed in a neat package. The suffering we cause animals in factory farming is intense but that's another issue.

-->
@Titanium

So here you are making an appeal to tradition, this same argument can be used to justify slavery, imperialism, and genocide. Also please name me a trait that makes animals not have a right to life. My position is that animals are not equivalent to us since they lack the ability to have basic intelligence that we have, however since animals are sentient, I believe that animals at the very least should have a right to life. Especially when killing and eating them in the first place is not needed for our survival.

Apes have been eating meat for around 6 million years, as long as apes basically. That we know how to grow plants effectively does not change our nature. A small modicum of consciousness does not make other animals equivalent to us or entitle them to the same rights...

sigh, now that I've revealed my bias does not mean I don't still want to read and vote on this. A sad reality we live in.

Yeah i was wondering if it was simply my misunderstanding or if the context was unclear in the debate setup. Again, im not arguing against the arguements, just the vagueness of the debate its self.

-->
@Melcharaz

Report Voted: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Not Removed

Reason for mod decision: This vote is sufficient

-->
@Melcharaz

Thanks for the vote!

-->
@bsh1
@Barney
@whiteflame
@Titanium

I had a message below.

Thanks in advnace

-->
@Swagnarok
@RationalMadman
@David
@blamonkey
@Ramshutu

Can you guys/gals vote on this debate please?

I am not really good at making commitments to voting on debates and doubt I will get any better so I asked you guys/gals to vote.

Thanks in advance

-->
@Melcharaz

That's a nice little factoid. Makes sense. Biblically speaking.

well i would, but the thing is, the first animal death was the moment WHEN adam and eve sinned, so as far as we know, they may have strictly eaten fruit and veggies. But the bible does assert that there is nothing wrong with eating meat and actually described a person who eats only herbs as "Weak in faith" because they don't understand all things are given by God and are clean with thanksgiving.

-->
@Melcharaz

It's certainly a valid argument.

I'm surprised you didn't just go with "Go forth and subdue the Earth"

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.

Unless i am mistaken, shouldn't this debate went toward economic or even nutritional direction? "That we have to eat meat to survive" in regards to nutrition, we don't have to eat meat, in terms of economy and agriculture? it would perhaps lessen the burden on farming.

-->
@RationalMadman

The quote bar seems to work. Thanks for the tip.

-->
@RationalMadman

If I paste a Bold Copied image, then it seems to work.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Can you use them after highlighting? Not before typing, but in retrospect.

-->
@RationalMadman

I'll try it, but I think those features don't work on my browser for some reason because I can't even use Bold or Italics.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
@Pinkfreud08

Do you not realise there's a quotation box button that will really help organise that kind fo rebuking in a more visually pleasing way?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Didn’t you say you were going to specify your position in the first round? Not to give your opponent fodder or anything, but it’s still unclear what your specific position is, since you seem OK with eating animals in some circumstances that you haven’t specified.