The Instigator
Tommy.leadbetter
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Being vegan

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...
Tommy.leadbetter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 59793
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Meat eaters must be either more ignorant to life of earth, less caring or more selfish, than vegans. Or possibly all three. This only applies to the developed world. Tribes, historical societies and any non-developed societies are exempt from this claim.
Ozzyhead

Con

Meat eaters are not ignorant in my opinion. I am sure there are many biologists, gastroenterologists, vets, and pro animal rights people who eat meat, me falling under the last one. Being at least one of the things on the preceding list should disqualify ignorance as a reason for eating meat. Personally, I enjoy meat because of preference. I understand what happens on farms, factories, butcher shops, restaurants, etc with meat. More selfish? Well, what's selfish? Selfish seems to mean that one cares for one's self without any regards to others. I will agree that selfish is a proper word to use. Meat eaters take advantage of life on earth for personal gain and pleasure. However, we as humans are way past selfish all together. Anyone taking part in the industrial revolution and the results of it are selfish. We take advantage of earth and the things of it for our own personal gain or pleasure. We chop down trees, we dirty up water, we burn oil and coal, we dig and landscape every other acre of earth, we capture animals and genetically change them to be our fluffy pets instead of letting them roam free in the environment, we run over squirrels, and instead of eating food that grows from our surroundings, we destroy land that is already there, plant new plants that aren't natural to the area, and then they take the crops and turn them in to something more desired. Simply put, humans are selfish. We all do things that destroy the environment for our personal gain with little regards for the environment. So, we as humans are selfish and care less about others for our own personal reasons. If this debate is how vegans are better and smarter than meat eaters, than this debate is not a good idea. You and I (I'm assuming you're a vegan) are only different because of our eating choices. We are both, at the end of the day are selfish, less caring beings because we are humans. You have been destructive to the environment for pleasure and personal gain, just as I have. So, I am a more selfish, less caring person than you are because I have different eating choices? I don't think that is a fair, honest analysis of a fellow human being
Debate Round No. 1
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Thank you for responding. I am aware of the somewhat pretentious and audacious attitude of my argument, but it is just to provoke a response and give me something to argue that is quite difficult, as it is an uncustomary point of view. Everybody I know is a meat-eater, and I don't sit in my room alone hiding from the world. What my frail attempt at humor is trying to say is that I don't think meat eaters are stupid. Nor are they ignorant to anything else but life (life being the earthlings). They may be very good at lots of things, and not ignorant to everything else, but they MUST be ignorant to life (UNLESS they are more selfish or less caring than the vegans).

Your argument.

" I am sure there are many biologists, gastroenterologists, vets, and pro animal rights people who eat meat, me falling under the last one. Being at least one of the things on the preceding list should disqualify ignorance as a reason for eating meat."

I agree. If these people are not ignorant to the suffering of the meat industry then IGNORANCE can be crossed of the list. These people must, therefore, be either more selfish (they care more about their own needs than others) or less caring (care less for the suffering of others) than those who choose to not support it.

Your argument.

In a nutshell, you said "Simply put, humans are selfish"

I agree. But there are differing levels of selfishness. We cannot accept responsibility, as individual people, born into a corrupt, earth destroying species/society. We make our own choices because that's all we can do, Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world". I believe this. Every cultural norm was held in place by the mentality you have just revealed to me. If everybody was like you, the world would still be trading slaves. My goal in life is to play my part in ending the suffering of the world, and I know I wont succeed, but I will die trying. So you may say humans are selfish but I don't believe we are. I think the reason suffering continues is because good men fail to act. (I know that's already been spoken lol). I don't expect everybody to be a revolutionary but eating meat when you are aware of the suffering must involve some sense of selfishness. One of the comments admits to being a bit selfish.

Your argument is basically that everybody is selfish. I would say that all life is selfish, but we have the capacity to not be selfish. As a whole we are selfish, but individually we don't have to be. Not everybody is, those who are aware of the suffering and still choose to support it are acting more selfishly than those who also aware, but choose to not enjoy meat in order to not support it. I don't see how anyone could disagree. Meat eaters just want it both ways, i.e to be seen as good, aware people and also to take material pleasure at the expense of a creature.

You say.

"I am a more selfish, less caring person than you are because I have different eating choices?"

Well when you put it like that and just ignore the consequences of the eating choices it sounds like i am crazy. You could say that about anything, like "I am bad just because I have different recreational choices?" when the recreational choice is dog fighting. So no, its not because you choose to eat different food, its because you support the suffering and murder of fellow earthlings purely for pleasures of the flesh. (no pun intended). You would not support it if you didn't have to give up meat would you? You know you would say to shut them factories down if you didn't have to give up your steak. Be honest with yourself.

For the record, we don't have different eating choices, I absolutely love meat (Chicken,beef,lamb,duck,pork,bacon,salmon,pigeon you name it) and I am a chef so I love to cook and I love meat with every meal. I am a vegan now though. So I have pretty much had to give up my true pleasure in life in order to align my life with my soul.

Thank you
Ozzyhead

Con

Thank you for your response.
The argument I made about me being more selfish was meant to be taken on a very, very broad scale. If I do support the murder of fellow earthlings than yeah, I am selfish. BUT, and I'm not saying it's okay, but why do we draw the line at animals' living condition (current state of life)? Why don't we draw the line at destroying their habitats, using them for testing and using them for experiments? And if the line is drawn there as well, why is the only frontline of this battle? Why is vegan the start of it all?
Animals who are not meant to eat meat would probably reject it when ingested, however, humans, whom are animals, do not reject it (actually, on some scale, I do. I have IBS but... another story another time). I know this area of this popular debate was not mentioned, I just wanted to throw that out there.
I hope it can be understood that I am running on zero sleep right now and I am not 100% focused, so what may seem off topic or weird is just me typing with one eye closed. but my turn is almost up and I shall fight through.
Something I want to cover is this pleasure. We are selfish, and we are eating at another's expense, but if we enjoy it, it boosts our morale and mental health. Mental health is an important part of anyone's overall health. Now, it's wrong to seek this pleasure in the form of murder (I think murder is the incorrect word for this and I will explain why soon) in my opponent's eyes, however, because it was introduced to us, it is hard to go back.
Now about that murder: murder seemes to be a word meaning unjustified killing. Meat is justifiable.
At this point, having had captured and farmed so many animals for so long, many farm animals have genetically changed over time to depend largly on humans, making life hard for them if they were free. We as humans let them live a pretty good life before meeting it's end.
My point is, it would take a lot of years to reverse what we have done, and it would also destroy the first world (and some lesser) economies. So many states in the United States and European States rely on having meat used. By the time we are able to stop and reverse our damage, humans will be on their way out of their turn on Earth.
Debate Round No. 2
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Your point:
"The argument I made about me being more selfish was meant to be taken on a very, very broad scale. If I do support the murder of fellow earthlings than yeah, I am selfish. BUT, and I'm not saying it's okay, but why do we draw the line at animals' living condition (current state of life)? Why don't we draw the line at destroying their habitats, using them for testing and using them using them for experiments? And if the line is drawn there as well, why is the only frontline of this battle? Why is vegan the start of it all? "

Good point. So you are saying that many of us do our bit, for example charity work, and are not vegan. You should of expanded this point further, for its the only point I have heard from a meat-eater that I have found substantial. But it doesnt mean in any way, that eating meat is less bad than I already believe it is. But it does pose a threat to this particular debate, due to the reckless and cocky nature of my opening statement. However, I will attempt to refute.

Lets take an imaginary man. He devotes his life to charity, he spends all of his time and effort on helping people who need help. He eats meat. So he is not less caring or more selfish as he is very caring and selfless. But he must be more ignorant to life on earth because if he is so much moved by the needy, then he would care for the needy animals too. So if he is genuine in his compassion, he would care for the animals too. If he eats meat, then he must be somewhat ignorant to what he is supporting-either he has never questioned it, he thinks that animals are like robots or he thinks that they have happy lives. All three are examples of ignorance. At least, more ignorance, too animals, than vegans.

You say:
"We are selfish, and we are eating at another's expense, but if we enjoy it, it boosts our morale and mental health. Mental health is an important part of anyone's overall health. Now, it's wrong to seek this pleasure in the form of murder, but because it was introduced to us, it's hard to go back."

That logic is what keeps us from moving forward. You admit it's wrong, how can you then condone it on the grounds it can feel good, without sounding like somebody who may have knowledge of right and wrong, but has little intention of actually doing the right thing? Slavery was maintained on your logic would you not agree?

I will tackle your point regain riding murder. You say murder is unjustified killing, what does that really mean? So you can kill something and it not be murder? The definitions are irrelevant to the reality of death. Does the fact that it doesn't fit the definition of murder, make it any less unfair? Besides that, animals cannot even be 'murdered' by the Oxford dictionary's definition of the word so this terminology class is irrelevant. But you also say something else wrong: 'murder is unjustified, killing animals is justified'. Murders are justified to the murderer. And how is killing an animal for a pleasurable meal, more justifiable than killing a person for revenge? Revenge seems more justifiable than a meal to me.

You point about them dying if they where set free is a total contradiction. So on the one hand you seem to care for the survival of the species, but really it's just so they can serve you. We don't have to murder all the animals, that are going to be murdered anyway, we just stop getting them to mate. And no, the species wouldn't die out, Zoo's and pet animal loves will make sure they don't.

And your point about the economy. Not eating meat could end world hunger. It takes 24x more clean water to make a pound of meat than a pound of grain. It takes something like 15 pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. And this debate is about individuals, not the broader society. However for the record, I believe it would be a positive thing for the world, and I would argue that in another debate.
Ozzyhead

Con

I can only extend my arguments at this point asi am Un able to participate in this round
Debate Round No. 3
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

I should sum up but I have no time, so I will just have faith on what i have said during the argument. It's only fair.
Ozzyhead

Con

Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
FMAlchemist : so agree with me then? You admit to being selfish, so you must agree that it is selfish yes? And I don't have to prove its better for society as the debate is concerning the individuals personality who choose to eat meat, compared to those who choose not too. Also, for the record, not eating meat is far better for the society and world than continuing eating meat. But this very attitude you have (concerned for the betterment of society, not the prevention of suffering) demonstrates brilliantly the ignorance or self grandious attitude of typical humans. Thank you.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Message me when it's time to vote.
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
I don't think i'm ignorant,but i'm indeed a little selfish.I'm also an atheist leaning to solipsism,so i guess they are not really "suffering".Also,this is appealing to emotion,so you must provide evidence that it is more advantageous to society not to eat meat than eating it.
Posted by CentristX 2 years ago
CentristX
So the Con must argue that meat eaters are not ignorant, not less caring and not more selfish than vegans?
The semantics are just slightly confusing
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Tommy.leadbetterOzzyheadTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: ff