Instigator
Points: 21

Killing and eating animals for the purpose of food

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Pinkfreud08
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 14
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!
Round 1
Published:
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. 

Published:
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
Published:
"  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: 










Published:
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
Published:
"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,







Published:
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
Published:
 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. 


Published:
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
Published:
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, 







Published:
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. 
Added:
--> @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).
#41
Added:
--> @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.
#40
Added:
--> @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
*******************************************************************
#39
Added:
--> @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
*******************************************************************
#38
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I just joined yesterday, Hopefully we can be friends ;-;
I totally agreed with you, by the way, I love meat xD
#37
Added:
--> @Speedrace
I didn't know you were on this website. Good to see you!!. Thanks for the vote!!
Contender
#36
Added:
--> @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.
#35
Added:
--> @Dylan_Kleboid
Thanks and I would be fine if you added me.
Instigator
#34
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Dang your debate topics are pretty interesting! Do you mind if I add you?
#33
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Sorry I meant my opening argument and not the description
Instigator
#32
Added:
--> @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.
Instigator
#31
Added:
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.
#30
Added:
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.
#29
Added:
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).
#28
Added:
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.
#27
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/655?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=27
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
You know what's missing from this debate? Context. All the arguments of each side should be placed into some clear context, something that answers the resolution clearly. What does it take to do that? Well, if you're presenting an ethical argument, as is common throughout this debate, you normally want to attach some clear value to that argument. I kind of see a value from Pro, but only if I squint. Con puts a value on suffering, though it's unclear why I should weight suffering heavily in the debate beyond simply stating that the suffering of one can be used to justify the suffering of others, which just compounds the problem. You have to tell me why suffering matters most, not just proclaim again and again that it matters. Pro's value is extremely unclear. He seems to argue in the end that meat affords us energy and vitality (unwarranted and unsourced claims that come too late for me to factor them in anyway), but that's not really an ethical argument. Instead, Pro is challenging based on real world value, and I have no clue how to weight that value against an ethical argument. Take the time to explain why your arguments matter, both in the context of the debate and in the context of comparing it to your opponent's arguments, don't just tell me that they do. That lack of context really shows in the end of the debate when neither side sums up their arguments, nor is any weighing analysis done. Both sides just treat it as another round in the debate. It doesn't help that there's just so much left on the table in this debate. Both sides engage very little with the nutritional debate and neither side even touches on the environmental arguments, two of the most concrete points on this debate that either side could have easily used to carry the debate.
So, let's take it back to what was actually done. Con's argument almost solely amounts to an attack on the ethics behind eating animals. He argues that it imparts suffering, which he justifies both by arguing that we mistreat animals and by killing them. Pro does point out that the former is unnecessary and can be avoided, though the lack of a clearly elucidated counterplan beyond a suggestion that it might exist means Con's argument still holds water, particularly as his case ends such suffering completely. The justification for the latter is kind of weak, as Con largely justifies this based on others feeling a sense of loss upon the end of that life. On that basis, if I suffer from watching a rose die, then that rose's death similarly causes suffering. The death itself seems non-unique to all lifeforms, as Pro argues, and while it can be argued that death is a form of suffering, Con doesn't do enough to show that it is.
Pro's arguments mostly amount to mitigation of Con's points, arguing that other life has just as much value despite a lack of sentience. However, mitigate is all these points do. Pro doesn't try to argue that, by setting the standard at sentience, Con is devaluing lifeforms that resemble humans less. He simply argues that they're all the same and that there's no harm in losing one life vs. another. The major problem with this argument is that it largely ignores suffering, and while Pro claims that other organisms can suffer, he never supports this with any evidence. So Con is still winning something on suffering. Even if I buy that Con is being arbitrary in defining what life deserves recognition in this fashion, I don't see any harms to his being arbitrary. Meanwhile, the lack of support condemns many of Pro's arguments to being solely based on logic, which are largely challenged by a similar degree of logic from his opponent, often with evidence to back it up. Con may not always summarize what his evidence provides, but at least he provides it. Lacking that, Pro's argument largely looks like opinion, and for all his claims that he has more objective arguments, Pro's points largely fail to provide anything beyond his personal views on life and how it should be characterized.
That leaves me with little to do but vote Pro on both arguments and sources. While Pro may believe he's winning the majority of points on the flow, even if that's true, he's not winning the debate because his argument largely lacks offense. Winning a debate with pure mitigation requires more than this, as Con clearly showed that we should at least ascribe some value to suffering, and Pro largely accepts this by stating that we can reduce suffering and claiming that other organisms suffer. Con could have done a much better job framing his case and putting the arguments made back into the context of the resolution, but at least he sets up something clear to support with his argument. Pro grants too much of it to win. Much as Con presented his actual stance late in the debate, Pro's stance being largely "Con is wrong" does him no favors.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The interpretation of the debate was unclear, was this a moral issue? economic issue? health issue? I give no points as i cannot discern what the topic is about, doubtless they both had good conduct and spelling and grammar, i put aside pro's sources because of the lack of clearness on the topic.