The Instigator
Tulbakra
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Merrit
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Merrit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,600 times Debate No: 36416
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Tulbakra

Pro

I see you oppose animal rights, and I think there is no rational basis to do so.
First round is acceptance, then I will make my argument.
Merrit

Con

I will be arguing against the resolution. I will clarify my stance. I believe in some animal rights. I don't believed that animals should be killed for no reason, and am against animal cruelty. However, I do believe animals can be tested on, and eaten.

I wish Pro luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Tulbakra

Pro

1. Humans are not designed to eat meat. We have long digestive tracks, which make seating meat poisonous, and we have to cook meat to kill the bacteria most carnivores are immune to. Our canines are tiny and pathetic, and couldn't tear raw meat. We also do not have the predator instinct. If you were hungry, which would you rather eat, some wild strawberries or a rotting carcasses? When was the last time you ran outside, grabbed a rabbit, strangled it, and ate it raw? Eating meat causes a host of diseases such as high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, colon cancer, etc. So all in all, meat is not needed for the human body, and is in fact quite dangerous.
http://www.peta.org...
2. Animals can make moral decisions. They gave a monkey a choice of pulling a chain and getting a treat, but they would have to watch another monkey get electrified if they did, but most did not. This proves animals are not purely instinctive as we thought.
http://www.wisdomcommons.org...
3. Pigs are smarter than 3 year old children, yet butchering and eating them is not okay. You cannot argue that they will grow up into smarter beings, because it is illegal to kill people with profound mental handicaps who are probably less intelligent than pigs. IQ<20 http://www.unleashed.org.au...
4. Animals can suffer, so why do we inflict pain on them just it eat them?
5. There are no laws that protect food animals but there are "animal cruelty" laws that protect dogs and cats. This is absurd. Anyone who has ever known a dog or cat, like my cat Motzi sitting on my lap right now, will tell you they can suffer, feel joy, surprise, fear,love, etc. they can also recognize people. Many food animals are no different. I am told pigs make great pets. (Except maybe turkeys--those are seriously stupid) try putting your pet in the conditions of factory farms.

I await your rebuttal to my points and I may add more
Merrit

Con

I would like to thank Pro for the debate.

Rebuttals:

"Humans are not designed to eat meat. We have long digestive tracks, which make seating meat poisonous, and we have to cook meat to kill the bacteria most carnivores are immune to."

Humans are designed to eat meat. In fact, they can both digest cooked or even uncooked. [1] I've eaten meat my whole life and I've never been poisoned, or had stomach issues because of meat. Wild dogs eat fresh, raw meat. Often times, if they eat a squirrel or bird, they will get rabies if it is infected. Does this mean that wild dogs aren't designed to eat meat because they are prone to disease as well? No, it's nature. Humans can eat raw meat; they just need to stay away from the intestines, and the sketchy meat from birds, rodents, etc.

A study has shown that humans are in fact omnivores. Not carnivores, not herbivores, but omnivores. [10] This means that we are designed to eat both meat and plants. The argument that humans cannot eat meat is illogical. I eat meat every weak


"Eating meat causes a host of diseases such as high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, colon cancer, etc. So all in all, meat is not needed for the human body, and is in fact quite dangerous."

Eating meat is not to blame for these diseases and disorders. The human is at fault for eating too much meat, and not exercising. It's about a balanced diet, and exercising. Even so, this wouldn’t prove that animals should get rights; it would only show that vegetarians are slightly healthier from a disease POV.

"We also do not have the predator instinct. If you were hungry, which would you rather eat, some wild strawberries or a rotting carcasses? When was the last time you ran outside, grabbed a rabbit, strangled it, and ate it raw?"

When our ancestors ate meat they ate fresh raw meat, not rotting meat. [6] Our ancestors had the predator instinct, as they went hunting for meat. [6] The last two arguments are irrelevant to the debate. Humans don't eat rotting carcasses, and they can eat meat raw.

"Animals can make moral decisions. They gave a monkey a choice of pulling a chain and getting a treat, but they would have to watch another monkey get electrified if they did, but most did not. This proves animals are not purely instinctive as we thought."

Every living thing can make decisions. Even plants. [2] Not only can plants make decisions, but plants can also feel pain. [3] Does this mean plants deserve rights as well?

"Pigs are smarter than 3 year old children, yet butchering and eating them is not okay. You cannot argue that they will grow up into smarter beings, because it is illegal to kill people with profound mental handicaps who are probably less intelligent than pigs."

Intelligence doesn't matter. It's the food chain. The shark eats the fish, the fish eat the smaller fish, and the small fish eats the plant. Fish are intelligent. [4] Does that put the shark at fault? No, it's natural. Also, plants are quite intelligent as well, but that doesn’t make eating plants immoral. [8]

"Animals can suffer, so why do we inflict pain on them just it eat them?"

As I've already shown, plants feel pain as well. Eating plants is essentially eating them alive. When animals are going to be eaten, I believe they should be killed instantaneously so they won't feel pain at all. We kill them to eat them. We wouldn't eat them alive like other animals do.

"There are no laws that protect food animals but there are "animal cruelty" laws that protect dogs and cats. This is absurd. Anyone who has ever known a dog or cat, like my cat Motzi sitting on my lap right now, will tell you they can suffer, feel joy, surprise, fear,love, etc. they can also recognize people. Many food animals are no different. I am told pigs make great pets. (Except maybe turkeys--those are seriously stupid) try putting your pet in the conditions of factory farms."

I agree that there should be laws protecting farmed animal's living conditions. I concede that. I do not, however, concede that animals should not be consumed.

Argument:

Eating meat is natural.

Eating meat is natural. Despite claims that eating meat is dangerous, it really is not. Getting sick from meat is very rare, and only occurs when you eat bad meat. Besides, it’s the food chain. Big fish eats small fish, small fish eats smaller fish, and smaller fish eats plants.

Animal Rights is illogical.

Animal Rights is illogical. This is because the same excuses can be made for eating plants. Plants can make decisions. [2] Plants can feel pain. [3] Plants are intelligent. [8] When one eats a plant, they are eating the plant while it is still alive. How painful that must be for the poor plant! Does this mean vegetables and fruits should have rights?

Definition of rights: “Thatwhich is morally correct, just, or honorable.” [9]

Let’s get this straight, vegetable rights is ridiculous and so is animal rights. Eating meat is not morally bad. It’s natural. [10]

Eating meat is healthy.

Eating meat provides protein, which is an essential part of a balanced diet. While it is true that vegetables do have protein, they are not as complete and concentrated as found in meat. [12] Not only are plants not an efficient source of protein, but meat has certain proteins not found in plants that give our brains nutrients. [11]

Meat is healthy. It only becomes unhealthy if you eat too much of it. However, too much of anything is bad for you anyways.

Conclusion:

Eating meat is natural for humans, and is part of the food chain. Meat is proven to be healthy in moderation. If it is completely natural then why is that immoral? If plants are intelligent, can make decisions, and can feel pain, shouldn’t they get rights as well? We can’t give everything rights. They only thing that should have rights are humans. Animals should only get very basic rights: the right to not be abused, and only killed to be eaten.


Sources:
[1]: http://theprimalparent.com...;

[2]: http://www.vancouversun.com...;

[3]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;

[4]: http://www.peta.org...

[5]: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

[6]: http://frugivoremag.com...

[7]: http://www.livestrong.com...

[8]: http://io9.com...

[9]: http://www.google.com...

[10]: http://www.vrg.org...

[11]: http://authoritynutrition.com...

[12]: http://www.livestrong.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Tulbakra

Pro

Okay, I will concede that point. Humans can eat meat, and small amounts are healthy. However, a supplemented vegan diet is much healthier than the cord fed meat diet of most Americans.

I think we are getting off topic regarding whether or not meat is healthy then.

Plants do not have a central nervous system, so cannot feel pain. Releasing stress chemicals is not the same as feeling pain. My computer can react to my environmental inputs, that doesn't mean it can feel pain. Even so, you have to set up a moral hierarchy. Obviously humans are at the top. If I could save one child or a million cows from a burning building, I would pick the child. Some insects can feel pain, so you should avoid inflicting pain on them but it is okay if it is accidental, as everyone will kill insects in their lifetime.

Just because something is natural doesn't make it right. No animals wear clothes, so we should all be nude by your logic? Animals kill and rape each other. Does that make it okay for us to do so?

It is impossible to raise animals in such a way as to make a profit and be cruelty-free. Keeping another being captive causes suffering, correct? As does slitting it's throat, and hanging it to bleed? Even to make milk and eggs, the "by-products" male calf's and chicks, have to be killed at birth to keep making a profit.

Dog fighting is wrong, right? Then why is meat any different?

http://io9.com... My computer can do all of those things, doesn't mean I'll give it rights.

None of your sources suggested plants feel pain. My counter argument follows to principles.
1. Plants cannot feel pain, so are not moral agents. Amoebas react to their environment, so do plants. Doesn't mean they can feel pain. As far as we know, a central nervous system is required to feel pain as we know it. Of course, it is possible that rocks can feel pain and scream in agony when we kick them, but that is an assumption we have to make, or I could justify killing everyone on Earth by saying that breathing tortures the air. Of course, this means some animals such as sea stars are not moral agents. You can quote me on this, sea star is vegan. As is anemones, etc.

2. Just because something is natural does not make it okay. We are a species that breaks every natural law. Show me a species with cars, clothes, factories etc. Show me a species that buys all of its food. http://theweek.com...
So by your logic because it is "natural" I can kill any human I want?
http://www.livescience.com...
Ants commit genocide, so it is natural. So what Hitler did was okay?
Drinking milk is unnatural. No species drinks another species milk. I seriously doubt that that milk which was made for baby cows is good for adult humans, again, because it is unnatural.

You cannot use what is "natural" to justify killing.

My arguments is as follows. If you believe animals have a moral worth, that their suffering matters and it is wrong to kick a dog because you feel like it, then that requires you to not eat meat because animals can feel pain. Either you believe animals are rocks or you are a vegan, or you are a hypocrite.
Merrit

Con

Rebuttals:
"Just because something is natural doesn't make it right. No animals wear clothes, so we should all be nude by your logic? Animals kill and rape each other. Does that make it okay for us to do so?"

"Just because something is natural does not make it okay. We are a species that breaks every natural law. Show me a species with cars, clothes, factories etc. Show me a species that buys all of its food. http://theweek.com......
So by your logic because it is "natural" I can kill any human I want?
http://www.livescience.com......
Ants commit genocide, so it is natural. So what Hitler did was okay?
Drinking milk is unnatural. No species drinks another species milk. I seriously doubt that that milk which was made for baby cows is good for adult humans, again, because it is unnatural."


Ok, I would first like to point out that Pro specifically made the point in R2 that eating meat is wrong because it is unnatural. Pro admitted that it is natural, but why doesn't Pro think it works the other way around? Pro is trying to present a one sided argument. Not only is Pro presenting a fallacy, but they are comparing what is natural to a human, to what is natural to an animal; a comparison that cannot be made.

Pro mentions that because animals naturally act uncivilized, that it doesn't make it ok. Which I agree/disagree with from different perspectives. Pro fails to mention that there are distinct differences between human beings and wild animals. While some animals possess traits of humans, they don't possess nearly all of them. First, humans are intelligent, civilized, have character, and have a capacity for wisdom. [1] What really makes humans different is, their ability to question, their moral compass, and their free moral agency. [1]

These are the natural instincts of human beings. That being said, there are similarities between what is natural to a human and an animal. Genocide, is a crime to human beings and is not seen as natural. This is because of human beings moral compass and our free moral agency. Animals however do not possess these same traits. Animals are "programmed." The do not question, they act of instinct. However, genocide to some animals is ok, because that's their instinct; it's natural to them. It may be natural to certain animals, but it's not the same type of natural as a human beings. This is why you can't compare an animal's "natural" to a human's "natural."

Pro's point has been negated, and therefore, my prior arguments remain standing.

"It is impossible to raise animals in such a way as to make a profit and be cruelty-free. Keeping another being captive causes suffering, correct? As does slitting it's throat, and hanging it to bleed? Even to make milk and eggs, the "by-products" male calf's and chicks, have to be killed at birth to keep making a profit."

Once again, Pro is comparing animals to humans. Once again, what's natural to a human is not what is natural to an animal or vice versa. Keeping humans in a prison is not natural to a human, and is a form of suffering. However, it is not the same for an animal. Keeping cows in enclosed areas is not making them suffer; that's what cows/sheep/pigs do. They sit around eating grass or rolling around in the mud. Their in their natural habitat doing what they naturally do.

As for the slaughtering process, Pro is greatly exaggerating the "pain" and "suffering" of the animal. This is simply not true. As required by the Humane Slaughter Act, livestock must feel no pain when slaughtered. [2] Slaughterhouses can do this through a shot in the forehead (which causes instantaneous death with no pain), or through other means such as electrical or chemical (which renders the pain absent.) [2] These methods provide ways in which the death is either instant, or quick and painless.

"Plants cannot feel pain, so are not moral agents. Amoebas react to their environment, so do plants. Doesn't mean they can feel pain. As far as we know, a central nervous system is required to feel pain as we know it. Of course, it is possible that rocks can feel pain and scream in agony when we kick them, but that is an assumption we have to make, or I could justify killing everyone on Earth by saying that breathing tortures the air."

I concede that plant are unable to feel pain. However, this does not change my argument. Plants may not be able to feel, but they are still living. As I've shown earlier when livestock are slaughtered, they feel no pain. So how does this make killing a plant and killing an animal different, when it happens by the same means? I know the idea is absurd, but that's exactly the point.

Pro's point is negated so my analogy remains standing.

"My arguments is as follows. If you believe animals have a moral worth, that their suffering matters and it is wrong to kick a dog because you feel like it, then that requires you to not eat meat because animals can feel pain. Either you believe animals are rocks or you are a vegan, or you are a hypocrite."

I've shown that the livestock's death is quick and painless, therefore, they are not suffering. Of course kicking a dog is just plain mean, but you cannot compare torturing a dog to humanely killing livestock; only one causes pain. Furthermore, I do not see how that would require one to not eat meat. Consumption of meat does not harm animals in any way shape or form. I would also ask of Pro to expand on why meat-eaters are hypocrites? They practice what they preach: eating meat is ok.

Conclusion:
It is completely fine to eat meat. It's natural, and a way of surviving. Both people and animals need food, and meat is one of the many ways of obtaining food. The argument that people shouldn't eat meat because it causes animals to suffer is somewhat understandable, but illogical when you think about it. Animals do not feel pain when killed, and keeping them in enclosed areas isn't causing them to suffer whatsoever. Livestock naturally sit in fields, and they naturally eat grass, roll in mud, etc. Eating meat is not immoral.


Sources:
[1]:http://realtruth.org...

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Tulbakra

Pro

I said it was unhealthy, and you convinced me it was in moderation, although I still am willing to bet you eat more than is healthy. That discussion is over.
Intelligent-Pigs are as smart as 3 year olds, raven and crows use tools and solver problems, apes have been taught human sign language, elephants grieve for their dead, dolphins protect people from sharks, monkeys make moral decisions.
Civilized-What is your definition? Ants and termites make civilizations. If you define it as having the characteristics of a human civilization, that is like claiming women shouldn't have rights because they are not the same as men.
Character-How do you know animals don't? I have already proved they make moral decisions, why isn't that character?
Capacity for wisdom?

Con is making up random reasons to separate animals and humans. We might as well say that someone in a coma can be butchered and eaten because they have none of those traits, same with children or those with dementia. There is no single criteria to separate animals and humans.

Animals can suffer, and feel pain, so deserve rights.

That has actually been proved to be incorrect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
In addition, most people have a desire to reproduce. That is an instinct you cannot control. One cannot decide to stop being that way because there are too many people on earth and reproducing is unethical. Humans are also instinctive in many ways. All of our traits have a genetic purpose. Research sociobiology.
And again, since when did babies not have rights? They don't have a moral compass. Even if you are right, either we are allowed to butcher people in a coma, babies, and people with severe mental illness or animals get rights.

No, those animals should never have existed. They are unnatural breeds. The cow is descended from the aurochs, which died off hundreds of years ago. Pigs are descended from wild boars. Tell me that those animals enjoyed being in cages. If a man is born into slavery, isn't it stupid to say that you shouldn't free him because that is what he is used to? I think all sheep, cows, and pigs should die off. There is no reason those species should even exist, except maybe in poor communities where grains will not grow.
http://en.wikipedia.org... Let's see, being withstrained, watching other animals die, (And animals mourn their dead, it would affect them) http://news.yahoo.com...) seeing blood be spilt, sounds like suffering to me, not to mention the jarring transport in stuffed trailers.

Because animals can still psychologically suffer during slaughter. Not to mention living conditions in factory farms. And I am willing to bet your "humane meat" isn't as good as you think it is. http://www.humanemyth.org...
And animals have the right not to be treated as property, plus animals can reflect on their existence and fear death, which plants cannot.

How does consumption of meat not feed the meat industry? Simple economics. Even in humane conditions, animals still suffer. I have proved that. That is ridiculous, dying is suffering. Because you obviously believe animals have the right not to be subjected to pain, yet you feed an industry that subjects them to pain and kills them.

You can survive without meat. You can get anything in meat from plant products, except B12 which you can easily supplement or eat fortified foods. Yes it is. Animals can suffer psychological pain, like you and me. And being cramped and fed so much food you can't stand up is painful. Chickens develop horrible diseases from the excrement on their floors. And by your logic, it is ethical for a doctor to involuntarily euthanize patients because they don't feel pain. I could do the same. Killing is wrong, regardless of whether or not it is painful. If I killed you in your sleep, that is ethical, right? You feel no pain.
Livestock are not natural animals. There is no where on earth where cows, pigs, and chickens roam free. That is not an argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Merrit

Con

"I said it was unhealthy, and you convinced me it was in moderation, although I still am willing to bet you eat more than is healthy."

Ok, that comment was really unnecessary. I live a very healthy lifestyle, and eat everything in moderation.

"Civilized-What is your definition? Ants and termites make civilizations. If you define it as having the characteristics of a human civilization, that is like claiming women shouldn't have rights because they are not the same as men.
Character-How do you know animals don't? I have already proved they make moral decisions, why isn't that character?
Capacity for wisdom?"

Let's not get off topic, as the backbone of this debate is "natural." Pro seems to think that "natural" is the same for all animals. However, this is wrong. You seem to mention ants several times, and how they commit genocide. Well, that is natural to them. That is their instinct. Does that mean that is human instinct to commit genocide? No. Ants live in the ground, and in trees. Do humans naturally live in trees? No, of course not. Do humans naturally live in houses? No, but this is what makes humans different. Humans invent, they build, they question. Humans don't act on instinct. They act on what they want to do, when they want to. Once again, you cannot compare what is natural to an animal to what is natural to humans.

"Con is making up random reasons to separate animals and humans. We might as well say that someone in a coma can be butchered and eaten because they have none of those traits, same with children or those with dementia. There is no single criteria to separate animals and humans."

I am not making things up. I am using common sense. As you can see, humans and animals are VERY different. I'll use an example. Do animals have analytical thought? Do animals have recorded history? Do animals have economies? Do animals have art? Do animals have intricate language? Do animals worship? Do animals bury its dead? It is extremely illogical to think that humans and animals are the same. They are very different.

A disabled person is a human, and typical humans do not eat other humans. That would be murder and cannibalism. Humans (in their right mind) do not kill and eat other humans.

"Animals can suffer, and feel pain, so deserve rights."

As I have showed, when animals are slaughtered they are instantly dead. No pain at all. No pain, no suffering. Also, I see you support abortion. Why does your logic only apply to animals? Shouldn't humans be put before animals? Abortion is murder.

Murder- The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. [1]

Fetuses are beyond no doubt human. It has human cells, human genetics, and it is alive. Don't believe me? Well, take this from NARAL (a pro-choice organization): "There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole." [3].

Also, fetuses can in fact feel pain at just 8 weeks. [2] I find your logic very backwards. Animals deserve rights, but human fetuses don't? I would like to you explain this, because I do not get your logic here.

"In addition, most people have a desire to reproduce. That is an instinct you cannot control. One cannot decide to stop being that way because there are too many people on earth and reproducing is unethical. Humans are also instinctive in many ways. All of our traits have a genetic purpose."

Yes, I will admit that humans have some instincts. But, these instincts are general in every animal: to reproduce, and eat. That's it. Overall, humans have free-will. Humans decide what job they want, when they get up, what exactly they want to eat, where they want to go, what they want to do. However, animals are very programmed, and act on practically pure instinct. For example, ants wake up, go out get food, bark, leaves and bring it back to the nest, do that all day, eat, sleep, then repeat. Another example is bees. They wake up, collect pollen, and bring it back to the hive all day, only to produce 1/12th of a teaspoon of honey in their lifetime.

I also extend all of my arguments that I have made previously in my argument.

"And again, since when did babies not have rights? They don't have a moral compass. Even if you are right, either we are allowed to butcher people in a coma, babies, and people with severe mental illness or animals get rights."

I extend my arguments made further up in the post. Fetuses, according to you, should not have rights. I believe you misunderstood why I was mentioning things that make humans different. I was mentioning them to show that animals and humans are different, and you cannot compare what is natural to an ant to a human. They are two VERY different animals.

"No, those animals should never have existed. They are unnatural breeds. The cow is descended from the aurochs, which died off hundreds of years ago. Pigs are descended from wild boars. Tell me that those animals enjoyed being in cages. If a man is born into slavery, isn't it stupid to say that you shouldn't free him because that is what he is used to? I think all sheep, cows, and pigs should die off. There is no reason those species should even exist, except maybe in poor communities where grains will not grow."

Not quite getting it with the first part. Just because something has evolved doesn't make it "unnatural." Once again, you cannot compare cows and humans. Cows naturally sit around and eat grass all day. Humans do whatever they want. They have no instinct. I never said that they should not exist. They absolutely should exist.

"http://en.wikipedia.org...... Let's see, being withstrained, watching other animals die, (And animals mourn their dead, it would affect them) http://news.yahoo.com......) seeing blood be spilt, sounds like suffering to me, not to mention the jarring transport in stuffed trailers."

I will repeat this again, when animals are slaughtered, they don't feel pain. Your source shows that animals don't watch each other get killed. The cows and the slaughter house are in two separate locations. You also mention that animal transport is suffering. I am often uncomfortable during long trips, does that mean I am suffering? No. Also, my Grandpa owns horses, and he transports them all the time. The horses aren't sad, they aren't suffering, they are actually very happy and friendly.

"Because animals can still psychologically suffer during slaughter. Not to mention living conditions in factory farms. And I am willing to bet your "humane meat" isn't as good as you think it is. http://www.humanemyth.org...;

I have showed that animals do not psychologically suffer during slaughter, as they do not see each other being killed. As I have mentioned before, I am for SOME animal rights. I believe that the animals should live in better living conditioned, but that is it.

"And animals have the right not to be treated as property"

Your dog is your property right?

"Killing is wrong, regardless of whether or not it is painful. If I killed you in your sleep, that is ethical, right?"

That is murder. Also, it is natural to eat meat. Killing others isn't.

"And by your logic, it is ethical for a doctor to involuntarily euthanize patients because they don't feel pain."

I am not quite sure how a doctor would involuntary euthanize someone. I will repeat myself again, you cannot compare animals to humans in that way. Killing animals for food is natural. It is what other animals do, and it is what we have done since the beginning of time. Killing humans is not natural and is essentially murder.

Sources:
[1]: http://www.google.com...

[2]: http://www.abortionfacts.com...

[3]: http://www.abort73.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Tulbakra

Pro

Tulbakra forfeited this round.
Merrit

Con

I extend my arguments. Vote Con.



Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
Misty, I have no real interest in debating you in the comments. If you have a problem, just challenge me to a debate other wise I'm wasting my time.
Posted by MistyBlue 3 years ago
MistyBlue
Wait a second.....
You think the hens are just CRAMPED?????? THIS IS MORE THAN "CRAMPED HENS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* counts s l o w l y to 10 in head *

It is pretty easy to become vegetarian or vegan. I am vegetarian myself so I have the right to say that. How can modifying your diet have anything to do with putting animals over humans?
Also, it is the USDA's job to look after Agriculture, not welfare. So human welfare doesn't have that much to do with this anyways.
Posted by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Tulbakra
Even if you believe that humans matter ore than animals in every instance, you could still take up a more humane diet.
Posted by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
As I've stated earlier, I believe that animals should have some rights. The hens for example should have better living conditions. However, this should not be taking top priority. America has far worse problems to solve then cramped hens. Animals should not take priority over human welfare.
Posted by MistyBlue 3 years ago
MistyBlue
People have a false reality of what misery farm animals live in.

Let's take an example with poultry and eggs.

Most hens and chickens are raised in battery farms, buildings where hundreds of cages are stacked on top of each other. A small shed can hold up to 70,000 cages. They are crammed so tight into these wire cages that they cannot stretch their wings. They are so close that they tend to peck each other, so what is the solution? Trim the BEAK of the chicken. It is incredibly painful. The same thing goes for their claws, they often get caught in the wire mesh, so the end of their toes are frequently cut off. When a egg-laying chicken starts to age and lay less eggs, they are starved and given no water for several days, and their light-dark cycle is reversed, causing them to lay more eggs all over again. When they are inches from death, they are put into chicken soups.
Also in these egg factories, male chicks are considered useless 'by-products' and are usually thrown into plastic bags where they suffocate as more and more bodies pile up on top of them. They are then thrown in the trash. Other male chicks are ground into animal feed, alive usually.

Source- Harvest for Hope by Jane Goodall

This is a modern horror story.
Another thing, if it was cats/dogs instead of hens, people would be outraged, but 'those dumb and useless hens deserve it' and 'hens aren't intelligent enough' etc.
This is only with hens. Similarly awful conditions are on other meat farms.

Merrit, do you really believe that these factories care how ethical they are? They will not change. The conditions have only worsened over the years.
Posted by Leigh-Anna 3 years ago
Leigh-Anna
I believe in animal rights so lets see if this argument can sway me. i will add this debate to my faves. thanks for the interesting topic and stay sweet
Posted by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Tulbakra
Sure. Let's argue for vegan ism.
Posted by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
Are we talking about consumption of animals, animal testing, or both?
Posted by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
Define what you mean by "Animal Rights."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
TulbakraMerritTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Final round forfeits are hard to me to judge the impact on argument, yet it tips conduct firmly. ARGUMENT: Pro made me really hungry, "When was the last time you ran outside, grabbed a rabbit, strangled it, and ate it raw?" Far too long! I loved pro's RF refutation about dogs as property. Overall I wish this had been a troll debate, as it was so much fun already, I think if they'd really tried it could have been brilliant.