The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DanT
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

EATING VEGETABLES IS BLOODY MURDER!!!!! nac

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,034 times Debate No: 34388
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

KingDebater

Pro

'Veges', as these meat-wasting sandal-wearing megaphone-holding sign-waving vegetarian types insist on calling them, are thought to be immune to legitimate criticism. By the end of this debate, I hope to have changed that.

So, here comes the argument. Vegans are always blabbing on about how eating delicious mouth-watering bacon burgers is 'morally wrong', 'BLOODY MURDER' and 'totally gross!' They say this because an animal died for you to be able to eat it. However, this also means that eating 'veges' is all of those bad things, because as all intelligent people (like the generous voters!) know, the plants that vegetables come from would not have the energy to live if it weren't for the energy from dead animals/plants.

(P1) Eating meat is bloody murder because animals died for it to happen.
(P2) Animals died so that vegetables could exist.
(C) Therefore, eating vegetables is bloody murder.

So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether eating vegetables is bloody murder. I hope for a good debate.

I thank you.

Mother brainwashing spouse to commit murder. Pictured above: Malicious mother brainwashing sexy spouse to commit murder.
DanT

Con


What constitutes Murder


The oxford dictionary defines murder as “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” [1], or in the sense used in the resolution “the premeditated killing of one organism by a similar organism”.


In order to prove murder one must prove;


1.) The murderer directly caused the victims death


2.) Similarity between the murderer and the victim


3.) premeditation


Vegetarianism is not murder, because it does not involve the premeditated killing of a similar organism. Slaughtering flesh and blood animals for food (especially mammals) is not only an act of murder, but also a form of cannibalism. I am not a vegitarian because it is murder, but rather because I see it as canibalism. When animals are raised for the sole purpose of slaughter, than the killing is premeditated. Because the animals are made of blood, flesh and bone, eating their flesh is an act of canibalism. Especially if the animal is a mammal, or even worse, a primate.



Pro’s Case


Pro’s case revolves around the belief that animals must die for plants to live, thus eating plants is murder. In actuality it is the opposite; plants must die for animals to live. You grow a potted plant without slaughtering an animal to grow the plant. Furthermore, another plant does not need to die for the original plant to grow.


Pro misunderstands the law of conservation of energy. It is true that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but an organism does not have to die for another to gain energy. Plants gain energy from the sun, in a process known as “photosynthesis”. Also, plants can gain nutrition from decomposed leaves and fruit, as well as animal feces; none of which requires the killing of plants and animals.


In addition to these more obvious fallacies, pro also assumes that all death is murder. Not all death requires the organism to be killed, and killing is only murder if it meets the above circumstances.



Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

First off, Con tries to define words. That is extremely rude, as he is the guest in this debate. I do not accept his definitions. His arguments are based on these definitions.

He then does some nerdy-arse scientific mumbo-jumbo, which I'm sure the voters (who aren't geeks or nerds) will i-i-i-i-i-ignore for its only-nerdy-geeks-can-understandiness. I'm sure that Con just made it up to seem impressive, but to any intelligent (but not super-nerdy) people (like the voters), it's just really geeky and weird. It may even cause this debate to be cancelled by customer support or something.

My case
http://goo.gl...

My arguments
There are more reasons why eating veges is malicious murder: it's that vegetables are just in disguise. Yes! Vegetables have all this super-techno powers which gives them the power to feel pain. But since vegetables (like people who vote against me) have no brain, they only gave themselves the power to feel pain, and not any super-intelligence or the ability to enslave humans or anything like that.

This is a picture that proves me right. It's what vegetables feel when we shove them down our gobs:

Gotten from here: http://www.beorangedesign.com...

I understand that a lot of the generous voters on this super site are from America, so I'll make a few translations to make my arguments bilingual:

Bloody - This is just a pointless adjective used for effect; commonly used when my Dad is in pain. [2]

Another reason eating vegetables is murder is because I define it as [1]:

Murder (noun) [murr-derr] - 1. The process of eating vegetables. 2. Killin' stuff 3. The process of eating meat.

Let it be noted that as the host of this debate, I can introduce and abolish definitions when and where I like. Also, definitions are only official when I say they are.

Also, my case from round 1 is completely correct, as vegetarians/vegans are 100% correct when they say that eatin' meat is murder. The KingDebater's guide to truth confirms this and explains it further [3].

I thank you.

DanT

Con

DanT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
I meant debating period not voting period.

Yeah, I have a tendency not to read the time limit and character limit before accepting. I tend to focus only on the rules and resolution.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
You probably should've seen it in round 1.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
The debating period was half an hour.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
I think it's safe to say that you're not losing the conduct point.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Oh well.
Posted by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
How short was that voting period I was only AFK for about an hour
Posted by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
Damn I didn't mean to FF I thought the Voting period was longer
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Yes, suprisingly, this is a joke debate.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
The rule about no all-caps 'sucks'.
No votes have been placed for this debate.