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!

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/655?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=27

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.