The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
kbub
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Animals should be slaughtered to provide people with food.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
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 10 votes the winner is...
kbub
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,049 times Debate No: 43827
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (179)
Votes (10)

 

Wylted

Pro

I'm arguing animals should be slaughtered to feed humans. Round one can be used for acceptance or for arguments. Final round is to provide a summary and to tie up loose ends.
kbub

Con

Intro:
When discussing the killing of sentient animals, or the killing of anyone for that matter, it is extremely important to exercise caution. Historically, humans have tended to fail to exercise such consideration, and their history books are a testament to their mistakes. Though, perhaps "mistake" is not an appropriate word to describe African Colonization, the Trail of Tears, Apartheid, slavery, the cruel treatment of persons with mental and physical disorders and non-straight sexual identities, the eradication of species, the oppression of women, and the Holocaust.

What "Counts?"
In each of the above shameful catastrophes, humans have justified their measures because they believed the victims didn't "count." The bondage of black persons didn't "count" because they were considered part-animals, ape-like, who had inferior moral and mental capabilities. American Indians didn't count because they were "uncivilized," "un-Christian," "animal-like" "savages." During the Holocaust, Jews, homosexuals, persons of color, and persons with mental disabilities didn't count because they were "less evolved" than the master-race that is the blonde-haired, blue-eyed anglo-saxon. At the time, the powers-that-were saw this hierarchy as matter-of-fact, or maybe slightly incorrect. Historians in the future looked back on these events and winced. The methods that the historical groups used to differentiate between those who "count" and those who "don't" were found to be flimsy and ridiculous. And yet, whole cultures used such differences to justify horrendous crimes at the time. The historical precedent is clear. If humans are to learn from such tragedies in order to avoid them, they must be careful of committing crimes against those whose perspective they think doesn't "count."

I believe that right now many humans are committing the same sins that history warns us against. We must learn from history, and rethink our assumptions about who "count" in order to recognize our cruelty so that we may stop the violence against those who don't "count."

The Debate (see comments for further rules):
My opponent accepts the Burden of Proof that nonhuman animals ought to be slaughtered for food. This is what BoP means in this context: If Pro can't prove that killing animals is better, Pro loses--even if I don't prove that killing animals is bad.

On the other hand, I plan though to argue that this contemporary practice of systematically slaughtering animals is not only bad but among the most horrible, morally destitute policies that humans have ever committed. That being said, I would not even need to come close to proving that to win that it is bad. And again, I don't have to prove that it is bad (though I will) to win, but only that Pro has not sufficiently demonstrated that it is acceptable.

Be aware: I may copy and paste arguments I have made from other debates of mine that have similar topics.

Ninety-nine percent of meat comes from factory farms, so if we are talking about meat-eating in general, it seems only natural that we focus on factory farming. In addition to that, 99% of all slaughtered animals are raised and slaughtered in the United States, so it would seem that factory farms in the United States are most relevant to our discussion [1].

Contention 1: Non-human animals are not so different from humans.

Nonhuman animals are capable of (I don't have room to cite these, so if you wish to contend Pro I'll give cites next round):
1. Experiencing pain
2. Belonging to complex societies
3. Loving their children
4. Feeling empathy
5. Using tools and
6. Possessing great intelligence.
Many animals can do mental tasks that humans cannot, such as remembering the locations of hundreds of nuts for months without revisiting them.

Pigs:
Nevertheless, these traits of nonhuman animals do not matter to the slaughterhouses. Pigs, for example, are highly intelligent animals and highly social animals. In a factory farm, for a pig's entire life she lives in a cage so small she can't turn around. She is forced to wallow in her own defecation. She will never see the sky. She is so fat and her legs so weak that her heels snap. She has one of the sharpest noses in the animal kingdom, but she constantly smells godawful. She is so bored that she becomes neurotic and gnaws on her cage bars until her teeth break. Before she dies, she is forced to receive a rod in her private areas while a worker fondles her sensitive nerves to ease its passage [2, 3]. That way, she can give birth to another child that will experience the same Hell, and the same assured death. All of these pigs are convicted to life imprisonment, torture, and death row for absolutely no crime whatsoever. The human supervisors do not care about the pigs' lives, but only their bodies. They and their children are the living dead--living in a perpetual nightmarish existence, all so they can be used for their bodies.

Poultry:
In America, chickens are not given even the legal status of "animal" [4]. This means that literally any cruel action may be taken against the chicken, and it would be legal. They have been bred to be too fat to walk, and live their entire existence in extreme pain [5]. Turkeys are also bred to be too fat to walk or even breed. That's right: humans have made turkey's so unnaturally fat (x300%) that they cannot even have sex [6]. The solution? Humans spread the turkey's legs and gives them artificial insemination. This problem of turkey breeding is across factory -style farms and non-factory-style farms. Both chickens and turkey's are eventually crushed to death under their own weight [7]. Poultry also do not get to see the sky, but are bred and killed in utter captivity. Here's a really sick fact: Because there is no federal protection for chickens, "almost all chickens are conscious when their throats are cut, and many are literally scalded to death in feather-removal tanks after missing the throat-cutter" [7].
Veal [8,9]:
I don't think I need to mention the extraordinary cruelties of veal. Cows are slaughtered when they are very young. When a male cow is born, rather than be given to a live of imprisonment as a dairy cow, he is slaughtered to produce veal, which is prized for its tenderness. The diary cows have strong attachments to their children, and yet their children are stolen away hours after they are born. We drink their stolen milk, and eat their unnaturally tender male young.

Immorality:
This system of torture would be horrible for any creature, regardless of its label or epidemiological status. And yet, we continue to ignore these problems. Approximately 9 billion animals are slaughtered in factory farms in America alone every year. One's enjoyment of animal flesh comes at the cost of agony, and yet many say that it is morally acceptable because humans are omnivores, not recognizing the cultural parallel in which "boys will be boys" is a culturally-acceptable justification for rape, and one's evolutionary dominance was a justification for the Nazi's genocides. The nonhuman animals are enslaved, forced to breed, imprisoned, tortured, and killed without a second thought, for no crime. This is in no way justice, in no way morality, and in no way good.

Animals are alive, and have their own value independent of the economic value we assign them. Humans may think that an calf is worth a hundred or so dollars, but his mother and the calf undoubtedly think differently. Unfortunately, no humans bothered to find that out before they slaughtered the calf. They have inherent value beyond the human price tag.

Health: My opponent may try to say that humans need nutrients that only meat can give then. My opponent would be wrong: In fact, vegans and vegetarians tend to be far more healthy, including having lower cancer risk and lower risk of heart disease [10, 11]. There are no vitamins or minerals that vegetarians cannot access through other sources besides meat, such as eggs, milk, cheese, and yogurt. Vegans in refusing to eat any kind of animal products may have a slightly harder time finding vitamin b12 (the only difficult nutrient), but there are vegan b12 vitamin supplements that are easy to access and cheap, and many cereals, soy milk, and tofu are fortified with b12 [12].

On the other hand, factory farms are the #1 of food-related illnesses. They are the chief and almost exclusive source of salmania and E. Coli (due to the animals wast products gathering on their dead flesh and fecal runoffs infecting other food products such as spinach) [13].

Environment: Factory farms play a major role in soil runoff and global warming [14].

Sources:
[I have 14 sources. Yes, one of them is PETA. PETA is correct in this case, as are all my other sources. Don't be scared off by the name.]
[1] http://www.farmforward.com...
[2] http://www.aspca.org...
[3] http://www.farmsanctuary.org...
[4] http://www.animallaw.info...
[5] http://gulfnews.com...
[6] http://www.wired.com...
[7] http://www.peta.org...
[8] http://www.exploreveg.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[11]http://brown.edu...
[12] http://www.vegansociety.com...
[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[14] http://ecowatch.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

Con begins her argument by arguing humans have done bad things, and they have done bad things to others because they deemed others as not counting. This argument is incorrect and not valid to the debate. Obviously people attack poultry because the poultry has value. If the poultry had no value ( didn't count ) there would be no reason to breed and kill them.

" Be aware I may copy and paste arguments I have made from other debates"

Go for it. I've seen your other debates. I would reccomend against it though, based on the fact those arguments aren't pertinent to this debate. Or even the debates they appeared in.

For example-

In one debate where you argue that eating animals is wrong, you bring up how your family was kicked out of a resturaunt for having a black family member[1]. This appeal to emotion on issues not pertaining to the debate is baffling. The story is also very suspect.

In R1 con gave a list of animal attributes and said if I contend any of them she will provide sources.

Attributes I contend-

2. Belonging to complex societies- if it doesn't come close to the complexity of human society, then this attribute is deceptive.

6. Possessing great intelligence- please give examples any animal who's intellect rivals DaVinci or Tesla. Having a brain that works differently is not evidence.

Con after listing attributes pulled from several different animals to make them seem equal to humans then goes on to list how they suffer to get on our plate. These claims of suffering are a little exaggerated to say the least and the sources are biased. I don't have adequate space to criticize each source individually, but if you look at the PETA source you will see an article on the mistreatment of animals.the article doesn't discuss or mention where their information came from. Con mentions the slicing of a chicken's throat as a form of cruelty. Slicing an animals throat provides a quick death and is probably the most humane way you could reasonably kill any animal.

In my opponents immorality section she compares the eating of meat to rape of human women and the holocaust. I don't have anything to add to that statement.

My opponent asserts that factory farming is the main source of salmanella and Ecoli. This is obvious seeing as the Ecoli and salmonella come from the animal your eating. Most cases of food borne illness can be prevented in the consumer's kitchen where thoroughly cooking your food and having proper hygiene goes a long way [2]

Con asserts that Factory farms play a major role in soil runoff and global warming. When you examine her source though you see it's an article that provides no sources for where the guy gets his information. It appears to just be a propaganda piece on an extremely biased website.

Contention 1- Any diet that doesn't involve meat is unsustainable.

Going without meat for the rest of your life is near impossible. The alternative to a diet consisting of at least some meat is just not feasible. As many as 75% of people who go on a vegetarian diet give it up[3]. The 25% who remain typically don't last beyond 7 years either. The fact is we need to kill animals for food because there is something in our biology that gives us such an intense urge for this type of food that it is futile to resist it.

Contention 2- Plant based diets are bad for the environment.

Environmental arguments against meat eating are nullified by environmental arguments against plant eating. About 90 percent of U.S. cropland suffers from topsoil loss at 13 Times the sustainable rate[4]. 92% of U.S. Soybeans ( a vegetarian staple protein) are planted with genetically modified Soy, immune to herbicides[5]. This immunity allows Soy farmers to douse their fields With large quantities of weed-killing herbicides which are toxic to other plants and fish. Some scientists worry that increased herbicide use could lead to " super weeds "[6].

Processed vegetarian protein options such as tofu can cause more greenhouse gas pollution than farming meat. A 2010 report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) found that the production of soy-based proteins such as tofu could contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than eating locally produced meat. [12] According to a peer-reviewed 2009 study, giving up all animal products would only give a 7% reduction in green house gas emissions, [13] not enough to be worth the dietary sacrifice.

Contention 3- My comfort is more important then any animals. Animals taste good.

Unless a reason is given to care about the comfort of animals then any argument that takes into account the suffering of animals is invalid. My argument is that animals should be killed to feed humans. One of the reasons they should be killed to feed humans is because they taste good. If an animal's suffering is to be taken into account before deciding to order a Mcdouble please explain why anyone should care about the suffering of animals slaughtered to provide most people food.

Arguments comparing the suffering of humans to that of animals aren't good enough. I have reason to care about the suffering of people. The reason is because protecting the rights of the oppressed actually gives a nice buffer zone to me and by extension protects my rights.

Contention 4- vegetarianism isn't neccesarily as healthy as meat eating.

My opponent may point out that being a vegetarian is a healthier alternative to meat eating. This is simply not true and it's merely propaganda used by animal rights organizations to lure people away from eating meat. 2 out of every 3 vegetarians are vitamin b12 deficient [7]. Eating meat provides a better source of Iron then a vegetarian diet? The body absorbs 15% to 35% of the heme iron in meat, but only absorbs 2% to 20% of the non-heme iron found in vegetarian sources like leafy greens and beans [8].

A meat-centered diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options. One serving of lean beef (3 oz.) contains as much protein as one serving of beans (1" cups) or a veggie burger. However, the lean beef has half the calories of beans (180 vs. 374), and 50%-75% fewer calories than the veggie burger. [9][10]

Some of these myths of vegetarians being healthier are myths that stem from the fact that vegetarians tend to be more health concious. If we stopped slaughtering animals today then forced everyone onto a vegetarian diet then the rate of health concious people to non health concious people wouldn't change, and you would see that mortality rates would remain the same [11].

Contention 5- Killing animals isn't neccesarily morally superior to killing plants

Vegetarians mistakenly elevate the value of animal life over plant life. Research shows that plants respond electrochemically to threats and may feel fear, [14] so vegetarians are also causing harm every time they kill and eat a plant.

Contention 6- it's almost impossible to eat food without some animal being slaughtered

Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals too. According to a 2003 study by Steven Davis at Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, or 52-77% of the animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields, are killed during harvest. [15] So if your against slaughtering animals so people can be provided with food, then plants and animals are both off the table. What does con propose that we eat?

Summary-

1. Animals taste good. Unless reason is given for why an animals comfort should be taken into account by the typical meat eater, then there comfort should not be taken into consideration.

2. The alternative to a meat eating diet is unsustainable. It is futile for most people to resist the urge to eat meat.

3. Environmental problems stem from human consumption regardless of if the consumption comes in the form of plants or animals.

4. Dietary needs are more conveniently met through a diet consisting of protein then one without.

5. Killing plants isn't neccesarily morally superior to killing animals.

6. It's nearly impossible to eat anything without killing an animal.

Sources
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov...
[3] http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com...
[4] David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel, " Sustainability of Meat-Based and Plant-Based Diets and the Environment" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003.
[5] http://vegetarian.procon.org...
[6] http://vegetarian.procon.org...
[7] Wolfgang Herman, et al., " Vitamin B-12 status! Particularly Hobotranscobalamin ll and Methyllmalonic acid concentrations, and Hyperhomocysteinemia In vegetarians," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, July 2003
[8] http://vegetarian.procon.org...
[9] National Cattlemen's Beef Association, "Proteins Are Not Created Equal," www.beefnutrition, 2009
[10] Courtney Hutchison, "Nutritionist Does Twinkie and Steak Diet, Loses Weight," www.abcnews.go.com, Sep. 30, 2010
[11] Jenny Chang-Claude, Silke Hermann, Ursula Eilber, et al., "Lifestyle Determinants and Mortality in German Vegetarians and Health-Conscious Persons: Results of a 21-Year Follow-Up," Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers
[12] http://vegetarian.procon.org...
[13] Helmi Risku-Norja, et al., "Dietary Choices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Assessment of Impact of Vegetarian and Organic Options at National Scale,""Progress in Industrial Ecology, 2009
[14] Derrick Jensen, "The Plants Respond: An Interview with Cleve Backster," The Sun, July 1997
[15] United States Department of Labor, "Industries with the Highest Nonfatal Total Cases, Incidence Rates for Injuries and Illnesses, Private Industry, 1998," stats.bls.gov, Dec. 1999
kbub

Con

This was a message I sent earlier:
Hey Wylted! Unfortunately I may not have time to write my arguments, because I'm traveling all weekend starting tomorrow. I really hate to ask this, but would it be possible that we skip over the next argument so can have time to respond to your argument with the attention it deserves? Judging by the high quality of the debate so far, and I mean that sincerely, I think we'll be able to both fit in the good arguments within the three remaining rounds, but that's totally up to you. There is absolutely no written or unwritten requirement that says that you should feel obligated agree to this, so I absolutely understand if you don't want to do so.

Thanks for listening and your patience! Please don't feel obligated.
--kbub

Wylted graciously agreed. Thanks so much! Can't wait to get back for some more debating!
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

I've waited for about as long as I can to give con as much time as possible. Please deduct no points from con for the forfeit of her previous turn. I look forward to con's rebuttals.
kbub

Con

Thanks for allowing the delay! Let's begin.

I want to first make clear for the voters that my opponent has the BoP to defend current animal-slaughtering practices for the meat industry (see comments). When my opponent talks about animals killed through plant-based agriculture tools, he is NOT using this as an example of slaughtering animals for food, but trying to show that agriculture is equally bad to factory farms. I only have to attack factory farms; I don't have to say that agriculture is wrong.

My opponent says that chickens do have value, because we breed and kill them, and that proves that they "count." My opponent is here talking about the body of the chicken having a price that humans gave them. What I am talking about is the value of the life of the chicken (not it's flesh) having an inherent value that humans have no right to assign an economic value to. Lives are no reducible to a cash value. My opponent's argument in fact helps prove my point: The current system is trading lives for money like slavery, as if their lives didn't "count" beyond them being a mere object. This exclusion and objectivity is the same mentality that was used the other historical examples, as I've explained.

"Go for it. I've seen your other debates. I would recommend against it though, based on the fact those arguments aren't pertinent to this debate. Or even the debates they appeared in."

--My opponents' remarks about my other debates are pointless, and I find them extremely rude. My opponent goes on to imply that I lied about my personal experiences, and that my debate was terrible. I do not have to waste time defending my other debate.

Contention 1: My opponent dropped the arguments that humans are similar to nonhuman animals except for two arguments, which I will address.

2. Animals do belong to complex societies. Flocking birds are great examples [1], as are merecats [2]. I don't have to prove that they are as complex as humans, but only that they are complex. Elephants also have complex social functions [3].

6. My intellect does not rival DaVinci or Tesla. Besides, you confuse intelligence (cross-species) with IQ (human). Intelligence has to do with using one's brain-like functions for their particular needs. Tesla and DaVinci make very well-adapted, intelligent humans but would have made very dumb chipmunks. Chipmunks recall hundreds of exact foraging locations across miles for multiple months after visiting them once. "Elephants exhibit mirror self-recognition, an indication of self-awareness and cognition [3]."

These are only a few examples. There are many more. Realize though, that the traits we value and other species value are different. Nevertheless, we are not more or less evolved. Rather, we are quite "social Animals" in Aristotle's words, so we tend to value social behavior more than most nonhuman animals. Remember that we are animals too. Nevertheless, all of these aspects of nonhuman animals are true.

My opponent dismisses all of my arguments about the suffering of nonhuman animals. My opponent says that all of my sources are bad, but only listed one example (PETA), and didn't provide counter sources. Here's another [4]. My opponent does not address any other source of mine.

Here's a video that puts into graphic reality all of the arguments I made that my opponent doesn't think is worth responding to:

Immorality: These nonhuman animals are living torturous lives simply because the dominant group has deemed them "inferior" and wanted to use them for their bodies. This is a massacre of billions every year. Believe me that I have the most profound sobriety when I say that this practice may be comfortably compared to the Holocaust. The animals are only objects to our culture, so we have allowed torture for pleasure. This is not rape, but it does bear a striking resemblance in some ways. Also, I am talking about the act of slaughtering of animals for taste pleasure, not simply eating meat.

Slicing an animals throat causes animals to bleed/suffocate to death. Why my opponent thinks this is "humane" is beyond me. The chicken is in considerable pain. Even if the chicken wasn't in pain, it would still be taking the life of another innocent.

This video makes clearer the connections I've pointed out between sexism, racism, and speciesism. I dare you to watch 30 minutes of it.

Health:
My opponent concedes that meat is the #1 source of food-related illnesses. Yes, food-related illnesses can be avoided by careful sanitation, but the point still remains that it is the #1 food-illness hazard. Check this out: "CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases." [5]

Now for my opponent's arguments:

Contention 1: "unsustainable?"

My opponent says that because life-long vegetarians are in the minority that it is "impossible to sustain" such a diet. This only shows that not eating meat is counter-cultural, not "impossible." We are a culture that glorifies meat. When was the last time you saw a broccoli commercial aired on the Superbowl? Vegetarianism is inconvenient, because so much meat is consumed in America. That's far from impossible. Many Hindus do not eat meat for their entire lives for religious reasons.

These human weapons who stretch their body to unbelievable limits do not eat meat their entire lives:

There is a biological drive for things high in calaries and fat, like ice cream. This does not make it impossible to resist, and does not make it good for you. It is hardly futile, and even if one makes a mistake and returns to vegetarianism, that is still better than not at all and saves nonhuman (and human) lives.

Contention 2: Bad for the environment
My opponent does not contend that factory farms are not bad for the environment but only that agriculture is also bad for it. I am willing to concede that it is bad too.
However, most of my opponent's arguments are about bad farming practices and not about the vegetarian diet itself. We certainly need to increase regulations to make more environmentally-friendly practices.
Seven percent decrease in greenhouse is huge! It may not be enough alone to stop factory farms, but it certainly is a huge disadvantage for my opponent's case considering that all transportation is responsible for twenty-seven percent! [6]

"Contention 3- My comfort is more important then any animals. Animals taste good."

My opponent's entire contention 3 is proof for my case. THIS is what I mean by "not counting." My opponent saw my arguments about the torture of animals and dropped them, saying that they were probably "exaggerated." Note that my opponent offered not one scrap of evidence of what happens inside factory farms. Now, my opponent says that this torture doesn't matter because it gives my opponent "comfort." This is awful. My opponent refuses to acknowledge that others matter beside himself; even though he is now informed of the torture and injustice.

Also, I think my opponent is forgetting that humans are animals, which makes his wording (perhaps appropriately) shocking and bewildering.

Contention 4:
I have demonstrated that vegetarian diets reduce the amount of fat intake and heart problems. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, killing 597,689 Americans each year. Vitamin B deficit doesn't even compare. If we are going to be concerned with human lives, we must fight heart disease, which vegetarianism has been shown to do.

Besides that, my opponent does not come up with a single nutrient that can't be found outside of meat diets. In addition, my opponent failed to demonstrate that these lack of nutrients is unique in vegetarian Americans. Many Americans are already deprived of appropriate nutrients. Additionally, your analysis on veggieburgers vs regular burgers is incorrect. Either the lean beef your talking about is not the correct proportion in normal burgers, or the regular burgers aren't lean beef [10].
Red beef also could cause cancer and death [11
As a fun example, see not only the Shaolin Monks but this bodybuilder who set two world records and holds the title of "strongest man in Germany" [8].

Contention 5: Killing animals is like killing plants?!?

Well, I've got to give my opponent kudos for creativity. But no. Responding to adverse stimuli can hardly be considered "fear," and breaks Morgan's Cannon of good behavioral analysis [9]. Nonhuman animals DEFINITELY feel pain, definitely have social interactions, definitely have nervous system, definitely suffer, definitely avoid death, definitely communicate, hear, smell, taste, and are sentient. Comparing them to plants is not a good argument.

Contention 6:

A good argument that again shows that we must seek to change farming practices to make them safer for nonhuman animals. However, agriculture kills far, far, far fewer nonhuman animals than factory farms. Again voters, please realize that the subject of the debate is whether animals should be slaughtered for their meat, not out of happenstance (see comments). Slaughterhouses kill more: See this link [9]

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(behavior)
[2]http://meerkats.wikia.com...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://advocacy.britannica.com...
[5] http://www.cdc.gov...
[6] http://www.epa.gov...
[7] http://www.cdc.gov...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9]http://www.animalvisuals.org...
[10] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[11] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

Con,

" I want to first make clear for the voters that my opponent has the BOP to defend current animal slaughtering practices for the meat industry (see comments)"

This is not true. I never agreed to defend animal slaughtering practices of the meat industry. I did tell you it was fair to bring up those types of arguments and that I would not counter them by arguing a more ethical way to eat meat. I have not argued for a more ethical way to eat meat. I'm arguing that animals should be slaughtered for human consumption. I have accepted the burden of proof for this.

Con,
"My opponent says that chickens do have value, because we breed and kill them, and that proves that they "count." My opponent is here talking about the body of the chicken having a price that humans gave them. What I am talking about is the value of the life of the chicken (not it's flesh) having an inherent value that humans have no right to assign an economic value to. Lives are no reducible to a cash value. My opponent's argument in fact helps prove my point: The current system is trading lives for money like slavery, as if their lives didn't "count" beyond them being a mere object. This exclusion and objectivity is the same mentality that was used the other historical examples, as I've explained."

Con keeps repeating this same red herring argument, as if merely repeating it gives it credibility. We are not Debating the morality of eating meat. I do not have to prove its morally right to do so. If my opponent wants to use the suffering of animals as a reason to say humans shouldn't eat animals she needs to show why humans should care about such a thing. She has consistently failed to do this.

My opponent is now showing signs of desperation by posting videos meant to over ride voter's logical reasoning and appeal to their emotion.

As far as comparing acts such as the holocaust or slavery to factory farming practices. It's silly. I've already explained that there is a reason to care about the rights of our fellow man. Ultimately it protects our own rights. The reason to care about the rights of other humans can be summed up with this verse from a famous poem, which refers to the holocaust.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

By, Martin Niemoller http://en.wikipedia.org......

The poem doesn't really work when you put the word chicken in it instead of Jew. Protecting the rights of chickens does nothing to protect my rights.

Con,
"--My opponents' remarks about my other debates are pointless, and I find them extremely rude. My opponent goes on to imply that I lied about my personal experiences, and that my debate was terrible. I do not have to waste time defending my other debate."

Con said she was going to pull arguments from your other debates which opens the door for me to make a reference to them. I was merely trying to discourage her from using the same arguments in these debates because they are nothing but red herrings and appeals to emotion. I wanted my opponent to give me a good fight. My remark about a completely unverifiable and quite frankly unlikely event ( I have been out to dinner with black relatives several times and never seen the stuff you describe) that she mentioned in her other debate was an attempt to get her to use only relevent arguments. Giving my opponent fair warning that arguments she has stated she plans to use in this debate are irrelevant to this debate. I'm not sure how trying to get a tougher fight out of my opponent is pointless. Maybe rude but definitely not pointless. In my oppinion it's actually the opposite of rude, but that is beside the point.

Con,
" my opponent dropped the arguments that humans are similar to nonhuman animals except......."

This is one of those red herrings I was referring to. It doesn't matter how similar to other animals humans are. This argument is irrelevant, but let's briefly address it. You took several different traits from several different animals (as already mentioned) and put them together to make animals seem more human like. Since con is insinuating that animals are like humans I asked for her to further elaborate on 2 of her examples. She has elaborated and reinforced my point that animals are not like humans.

" my opponent dismisses all of my arguments about the suffering of non human animals"

Because they are red herrings and appeals to emotion that do nothing to show why humans shouldn't eat meat.

"My opponent says that all of my sources are bad, but only listed one example."

After looking through 3 at random then I stopped. There is a reason I used the word biased instead of bad. I encourage the voters to look at a few of her sources at random for themselves particularly in round 1. You'll see sources from animal rights groups containing facts, that aren't sourced. There is a few sources that are obviously reputable like ASPCA and Brown.edu, but for the most part the sources aren't very trustworthy.

" here's a video that puts into graphic reality"

If you guys haven't watched the videos yet then don't. They are just another red herring and appeal to emotion, intended to guilt people out of eating mcdoubles.

" my opponent concedes that meat is the #1 source of food related illness"

No I didn't. Ecoli and salmonella clearly come from meat. Ecoli is from fecal matter, and salmonella is ussually found on the skin of chickens and Luther poultry, so obviously those 2 specific types of food related illness are typically from meat. I also pointed out properly cooking and handling your food is the best way to avoid food borne illness. As my opponent has pointed out deaths from food borne illness are extremely rare.

Foodborne illness is caused by more then just ecoli and salmonella though, and an interesting thing happens when you click on my opponents CDC link. Just a few clicks away under the heading sources of Foodborne illness is a chart that shows that produce is the number one source of food related illness. http://www.cdc.gov...

Being a non meat eater is unsustainable.

Con,
"There is a biological drive for things high in calaries and fat, like ice cream. This does not make it impossible to resist, and does not make it good for you. It is hardly futile"

My opponent admits to a biological drive that craves things such as meat, though she doesn't directly say meat. She mentions this drive is not impossible to resist. It's also not impossible to run the 4 minute mile, but that has really no merit. What I have shown is it takes a sort of heroic effort to resist our biological urge for meat.

" many Hindus do not eat meat"

Most Hindus do eat meat even in a culture that looks highly favorably on vegetarianism it is still hard to resist the biological drive to eat meat.

Puskar-Pasewicz, Margaret (2010). Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism. ABC-CLIO. p."39. ISBN"978-0-313-37556-9.

Brunk, Conrad Grebel; Coward, Harold G. (2009). Acceptable genes?: religious traditions and genetically modified foods. State University of New York Press. p."168. ISBN"978-1-4384-2894-9.

Environmental concerns

Con,
" my opponenent does not contend that factory farms are bad for the environment, but only that agriculture is also bad for it. I am willing to concede that it is bad too."

My opponent concedes that the only realistic alternative to a meat based diet is also bad for the environment.

Animals taste good

My opponent has not refuted that animals taste good.

Health,

I have made several arguments for why a meat based diet is healthy and a vegetarian diet is unhealthy. My opponent has done the opposite. I'm running out of space, so I just want to add that both types off eating have benefits for health and have specific negative impacts on health. We can both go on forever listing the benefits and drawbacks of each diet but in the end everyone will likely conclude it's a draw.

Agricultural farms kill too

Con,

" However, agriculture kills far, far, far fewer nonhuman animals then factory farms."

The only alternative to killing animals to directly eat them is to kill animals to eat something without flesh. Even the alternatives to killing animals is to kill animals.

I want to point out that my opponent has recently taken to the comment boards to extend her arguments. In the comment boards she discusses how hitler ate meat and that ecoli comes from fecal matter. Points meant to undermine my arguments with people in the comment section and give her an unfair advantage.

Summary,

My arguments for meat eating can be boiled down to humans should eat meat because it tastes good and because most attempts to not eat meat are typically futile. Refraining from meat eating requires a superhuman effort. My opponent concedes that these 2 points are correct.

My opponents arguments have all been refuted.

Her moral arguments have been showed to be both red herrings and appeals to emotion.
Her environmental arguments have been showed to apply nearly equally as well to agriculture ( the only reasonable alternative to not eating meat).
Her arguments about the effects on health have been mirrored by my arguments on health which are equally as valid.
Her arguments about public health have been shown to be extremely weak, and could be applied even more to agricultural practices.

I urge voters to also give me conduct points do to my opponents attempts to win this debate in the comment section.

Ladies and Gentlemen I have met my burden of proof please vote pro.
kbub

Con

First, I know that there are a lot of strong opinions both for and against vegetarianism and the like. As I'm sure you know, personal expressions are best in "opinions" and "polls," and not votes. While expressing our own personal opinions are important, in this debate the only acceptable argument are those between Wylted and kbub (pm me your opinions!).Whether you are for or against these issues personally I ask that you please try to be neutral in voting for the debate. I will be making some seemingly judgmental remarks about eating meat, but please do not take this for me attacking your beliefs personally. Thank you, and please enjoy!

As far as I can tell, there are two/three main points that my opponent made that could risk my winning this debate, which I believe are all based on misunderstanding. I will be going A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER to answer them now. They are: Contention 6, emotional arguments, and "red herrings."


My rebuttals:
Contention 6: Eating plants kills animals too, AND Borden of Proof Reminder:

The chief reason I am concerned with this point is that my opponent seems to misrepresent what this debate is about. Wylted generously says in the comments:

"If I step over any of theses boundaries I've agreed to just refer voters to the comment section in your debate, every one of these comments have been made before you accepted the debate so far so I'm bound to them."

I am holding Wylted to that. Wylted also says:

"I'm looking at how humans actually get their supply of meat now not how in a theoretical universe they could possibly get their meat by living off the land."

"The burden of proof is on me to show that killing animals ( chickens, cows, turkeys etc.)to feed humans is something that should be done."

"No I'm not referring to in times of extreme starvation. If I need to edit the debate I will. I am also specifically referring to non human animals traditionally used for food and under normal circumstances."

*Therefore: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT SLAUGHTERING NONHUMAN ANIMALS FOR THEIR MEAT.

1. I do NOT have to defend that we must avoid killing any animals in any way related to our gathering food. Therefore, under my advocacy we can still kill nonhumans (such as rats) when engaging in plant agriculture.

2. Also, there are farfewer nonhuman animals being killed from collecting plants than slaughterhouses, as I've shown before (picture from previous source).




3. Additionally, with improved farming practices we can avoid killing nonhuman animals. Reaping plants does not necessitate killing animals. "Reaping" meat does, by definition.
4. We are not talking about instances of starvation, as my opponent said.
5. Thus, reaping plants is far better and kill far fewer nonhuman animals than slaughterhouses. It even has the potential to kill none, since all of those deaths are accidental.

Emotional Arguments/"Red Herrings"
My opponent completely dismissed most of my arguments for being "emotional" and "red herrings."

1. Such claims are new arguments in a summary round.

2. Appeals to emotions are only fallacies when they reduce logic [1]. All of my arguments are completely logical. My opponent advocates the slaughter of nonhuman animals through "normal means." All I am doing is pointing out that slaughter is extremely painful, and that most slaughterhouses do what can only be described as "torture."

3. My videos simply shows what happens in factory farms. This is not an emotional fallacy, but education on what happens in factory farms. My opponent seems to have found what happens in slaughterhouses disturbing, appropriately so. Even still, these are the FACTS of slaughtering.

4. In some cases, emotions are unavoidable, even appropriate. If I were talking about a torture or massacre, it would be very wrong to not talk about it with some degree of sadness. We are not robots.

5. My opponent did not give you any reason for showing WHY my arguments are red herrings.

6. Red herring arguments are arguments that are used to distract one from the issues at hand [2]. I do not do that. My opponent is talking about the slaughter of billions of innocent persons every year. I simply point out that we should look to other instances of massacre to make sure we aren't making the same mistake. I find that this is extremely relevant because under the instances of historical massacre and this case millions of innocents are killed because they don't "count." Far from being distractions from the issues, these ARE the main issues. It's rude of my opponent to dismiss them as unimportant when I point out why they are important.

7. My opponent, after dismissing them, did not critique these arguments specifically, but tried to distract the voters from accepting them by name-calling, giving them labels such as "red herring" with no analysis. This, oddly enough, is my opponent's red herring because he is distracting the voters from the real issues.

Other rebuttals:

BoP: Pro is defending slaughter for meat under "normal circumstances." Since 99% of meat comes from factory farms, these are normal.

Even if that was not true, all of my torture/suffering/imprisonment arguments still stand.

My opponent calls my talking about morality a "red herring." In fact, we are talking about slaughtering billions of innocent creatures because their perspective doesn't "count." As I point out, this can only be seen as extremely immoral. Simply because my opponent doesn't like animals doesn't mean they don't have true value. There is good reason then to think that this same mentality of genocide is occurring.

Billions of innocent thinking, sentient, tool-bearing, creatures with complex social systems are being slaughtered for the convenience of those with more power. My opponent does not contend to these creatures being able to feel pain or suffering. My opponent wants to kill them because "they taste good." This is highly immoral.

Contention 1: "Impossible?"
My opponent first pointed out that it is impossible to avoid eat meat. I showed that my opponent is wrong, so he switched to it being really hard. This is entirely irrelevant. We are talking about slaughtering. If we end the slaughter, there wouldn't be meat, so we don't need to "choose" on way or the other.

Poem:
This poem is not mine, or my arguments. By assuming that my arguments are the same as the poem (which they aren't) and then attacking the poem my opponent is doing a classic "strawman" fallacy [3]. The poem is not my argument. Anyway, I don't approve of killing something simply because their life is inconvenient to oneself, which is the egocentric argument that Pro makes.

Rudeness: I leave it to the voters to decide if my opponent's comments about my other debates was rude. I thought is was.

Sources: My opponent gives NOT ONE SINGLE SOURCE on factory farms. All of my sources give the same, thorough evidence. Pro gives no counter-evidence, but is vague on which data are wrong.

Health: My opponent did not contend that millions are sick from foodborne illness, hundreds of thousands are hospitalized, and thousands die. Slaughterhouses are the #1 cause of this. As my source said, fecal matter from factory farm runoff cause the illness in produce!

My opponent wants a tie on health. As I pointed out, meat leads to a higher risk of death, cancer, and heart disease. There is no way I am agreeing to a tie.

Environment: Con pointed out that MAYBE agriculture causes more global warming than factory farms, but that factory farms definitely would lower greenhouse gases 7% (like getting rid of 1/4 of transportation). This has far from proven that it is good for the environment.

Eating plants:
We can kill less animals with improved methods, and we already kill far fewer animals by reaping plants. My opponent does not contend with this fact. Deaths are not simple binaries: some have died unfortunately at farms that don't kill meat, but far, far, far, more have died from meat factory farms!

Conclusion:
My opponent must PROVE that humans should slaughter nonhuman animals with the standard, current methods ("normal" circumstances) for their bodies. We must therefore do a comparison:

Pro:
1. Wylted and others will have tasty meat.
2. Wylted and others won't be inconvenienced by having to end their meat addiction.
3. Wylted and others would need to eat lots of spinach to gain iron (or is that a good thing?)

Con:
1. More people will die from heart disease, food-borne illnesses, cancer, and other health problems.
2. Global warming won't decrease.
3. Entire cultures will be performing immoral killing acts
4. Billions of innocent, sentient, thinking, pain-feeling, social animals that see and feel and hear and think will be killed.
5. Billions of the same will live in captivity.
6. Pigs will live in cages so small they can't turn around.
7. Millions will suffocate without pain-killers.
8. Poultry will live in constant pain.
9. Families will be separated and sold for their bodies (they love their families).
10. Pigs will be so bored they will be neurotic.
11. Most animals will be sexually abused.
12. Will live in a nightmarish existence to be killed.
13. Animals will be assigned a price tag for their lives.

Remember, my opponent has to PROVE that slaughtering animals in normal circumstances for food is something that should happen. In addition to merely showing that my opponent hasn't proved that it is acceptable (only thing necessary for me) I have further showed that doing so is selfish, evil, and bad for all species. Even if you don't buy that, I have certainly shown that my opponent lacks proof. My opponent does not even show that nonhumans are below humans. Therefore, there is no reason for this evil atrocity to continue.

Finally, I certainly was not trying to "win the debate in the comments." That was an attempt at gaining some easy conduct points. I posted only two things about vegetarianism unrelated to the debate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 4
179 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
I also think you have to be careful when going down that road. You'll get some who think it's too far off topic, and some who'll think you're being disingenuous.

In this particular debate, I think trying to argue for nihilism (as opposed to neutrality) would have put you in a bad spot, since the very <em>premise</em>, of this debate presumes that such a thing as "should" exists. If you successfully managed to argue against the concept of morality, it's entirely possible you'd have argued yourself out of an ability to make normative claims.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
That's a hard question. I think a rule of thumb would be the latter; if you don't say it the judge doesn't flow it.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I see what your saying. How would you differentiate between assumptions that don't need to be supported from ones that do? Or are all assumptions givens unless contested?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
However, doing so is usually a "K' or "kritik" in my experience. That's why I think you'll like them Wylted. Next time anyone says anything about morality you can be ready with a morality K. Next time someone talks about the United States Federal Government, whip out a Statism K. Next time someone talks about lowering/raising minimum wage, bring out your "Capitalism K." There "nukespeak" Ks, "anthro" Ks, "deep eco" Ks, "Nietzsche Ks, gift Ks, all sorts of critical arguments geared toward fighting assumptions that one makes. However, unless they are specifically addressed these assumptions go unquestioned.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
I generally do not have to prove that I exist before I debate capitalism. I generally do not have to prove that the United States exists before I talk about welfare. I don't need to prove that time operates through causation in order to hypothesize about the future. These are certainly all assumptions that may be debated, but unless they are done so specifically one does not need to prove each specifically and independently.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Ok I will look at it kbub. Thanks.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Moral nihilism should be the default because it's not asserting a positive. However it does go against a commonly held belief. This is where the trouble is. It's like when most of the population believed in God. Obviously the burden of proof was on the theists, because they were asserting a positive. However for some reason the atheists were required to make some incredible arguments to overcome that.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
By the way, attacking the discourse or one of the assumptions of a debate is often called a "kritik" (pronounced like the English word "critique"). It might be worth investigating how to run "kritiks," Wylted; I think you'd like them. You could probably find a morality kritik somewhere.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
I agree with whiteflame. While I do think that morality is something that can be questioned, nihilism is not the default.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
"It's all NEUTRAL"

You can use that same line of reasoning to say that any debate about morality is inherently frivolous and unnecessary. Which means that we shouldn't discuss subjects like genocide or torture. I don't see why these subjects suddenly stop mattering because there's a subjective aspect to them. You can debate an opinion and provide logical reasons why human beings should care about a given subject. Opinions are often informed by such logic, and the idea that we cannot debate them because people feel differently about them is just about as absurd an idea as I've ever heard.

It's because we hold different opinions on these subjects that we can actually have these discussions. If not for that, then we would all simply hold the same side on any given issue.

I think what you're trying to say is that no one should force others to adhere to their moral views, or shame those who don't. And I would agree with that sentiment - vegetarians shouldn't get a "holier than thou" attitude just because they feel morally righteous. But that doesn't mean that the debate shouldn't happen. This debate has as much merit as any other.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: By incurring the sole BOP, Pro began at a disadvantage. Con had to prove nothing; Con only had to stop Pro from proving something. In this, Con was successful. Con's arguments, particularly about the fact that animals ability to experience emotional and physical pain means they "count" worked. Pro was also needlessly rude when he claimed that Pro used dishonest tactics in previous debates. Those debates are done, and have no bearing on this debate--only issues that arise in this debate should be mentioned. It also seemed hypocritical; Pro accuses Con of using emotion to bias judges, but then Pro smears Con to bias judges in Pro's favor. Finally, Con's sources were easier to access. If I cannot access source, I cannot confirm their validity, nor can I ensure that they are not being misread. Moreover, Con should be able to review all source material as a matter of fairness; failing to offer links robs Con of this right. Therefore, Arguments, Conduct, and Sources all flow Con. Good round.
Vote Placed by glowingdisco 3 years ago
glowingdisco
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not a vegetarian but con made some really good points. Instead of trying to outlaw all meat consumption, we should however, work together to try to bring companies who treat their animals cruelly to justice. Meats like chicken and fish are good for you; but the inhumane process that they go through is completely unnecessary and I truly believe it can be changed.
Vote Placed by amik10 3 years ago
amik10
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con says "my opponent hasn't proved that it is acceptable" But Pro does so Pro wins. Also a side note to both sides: DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA! It is NOT a valid, and credible source. Overall though, good debate Win to PRO!
Vote Placed by CynicalDiogenes 3 years ago
CynicalDiogenes
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro because he made more sensible arguments.Conmerely appealed to emotions and tried to make the readers biased by posting videos that were not necessary.A good number of her sources were Biased as Pro rightly pointed out.Conduct and S&G were pretty even.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments, but I believe Con's sources were slightly better. I tied conduct since Pro explicitly mentioned to not deduct it from Con. S&G was pretty even as well.
Vote Placed by Schopenhauer 3 years ago
Schopenhauer
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides argued extremely well. I found Cons appeals to emotions to be rather tedious, but other than that an excellent debate.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a tough debate to decide since both sides presented valid points about the resolution. Con seemed to use appeal to emotion a few times in the debate when discussing the importance of killing. I am nihilist so I may pick up on this a bit more than others. The appeal to emotion lowered the value of some of Con's arguments. From what I observed, Pro met the resolution of "animals should be slaughtered to provide people with food. Pro wins the debate. The conduct of both sides seemed to deteriorate near the end of the debate. At one point, Con was typing in all caps , perhaps due to frustration with Pro. Con also had to be excuse a round. But it also seemed Pro was attempting to attack Con's previous debates. Then the participants took to the comments section to argue.For these actions, neither side wins conduct. I would ask both sides to refrain from engaging in these actions. Source point goes to neither because both had valid sources. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better points, and more convincing arguments. After observing her sources, I have realised they are more reliable than pro's.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
WyltedkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. I explained my reason for the arguments vote in the comments. As for the remainder, it seems like sources were pretty close, just be careful with those Wiki and overly biased sources in the future, kbub. As for conduct, I honestly have a hard time justifying voting against someone there. It doesn't look to me like kbub was trying to get more points in in the comments (and frankly, I wouldn't take them into account anyway), and that's pretty much just the way Wylted debates. I don't think he was overly mean in this debate, though perhaps I'm just thick-skinned.