The Instigator
Freeman
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
MTGandP
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,881 times Debate No: 9250
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

Freeman

Pro

From where do rights flow? How are we to determine who has rights? Clearly a claim to rights should have something to do with whether or not an entity can hold preferences and suffer. It would simply be absurd to say that kicking a rock is a violation of its rights because the rock cannot desire anything. A rock is not capable of holding any desires about the world nor can a rock suffer, one would presume. Chickens, cows, and pigs on the other hand can all feel a great deal of pain and also hold rudimentary preferences; i.e. they would really prefer not to be eaten. Of course animal suffering exists on a continuum. Clams, if they can suffer at all, suffer a lot less than pigs or other farm animals.

At the dawn of the agricultural revolution, for probably the first time in history, man was able to regularly grow his own food without having to hunt it down. This lead to many different things, among which, was a decreased need for the reliance on meat as a form of sustenance. Ten thousand years later the age has long past when we can make a strong utility claim for the necessity of meat in our diet. In our modernized world gathering food need not be more difficult than a telephone call or a short trip to the supermarket. We are perfectly capable of sustaining ourselves without eating meat. I accomplish this feat on a daily basis even though I may occasionally falter. The claim that humans need meat to survive is demonstrably false and any thinking person should not take it seriously.

Our own desire to eat meat contributes daily to the death and misery of millions upon millions of animals. These animals have mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters very much like your own family. Many of these animals are forced to live out the entirety of their lives in the artificial conditions of huge factory farms with no access to air, sunshine, or freedom of movement. And our insatiable appetite for flesh leads us to be culpably acquiescent in these atrocities. This could simply be remedied by our refusal to eat meat. Our needless encroachment on the happiness of animals is not only unnecessary; it is deeply unethical because it leads to the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of conscious creatures.

I am not arguing that there is anything prima facie wrong with the consumption of meat. For example, I would not be opposed to people eating road kill, insofar as this behavior didn't encourage other people to run over extra animals. Nor would I be opposed to eating meat grown in a laboratory, which did not require the death of a conscious creature. I would also not be opposed to consuming meat if a person was starving. Now when I say starving I really do mean starving- literally on the verge of starvation. Someone that misses lunch or breakfast and finds himself to be quite hungry would not be a viable candidate for starvation under this view.

The ad hoc argument that man was created in the image of God and was given dominion over the animals is simply a cop out and irrelevant to this debate. Man was not created in the image of God; the Gods were created in the image of men. And even if I was wrong and a "God" did exist there is no reason to think that this God approved of Christianity or our wanton cruelty to animals. As humans we were not given special rights by a deity to reign over animals; we merely evolved alongside them over millions of years.

A related argument contends that God has endowed humans with an immortal soul that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Other problems arise if one wishes to take this route. Firstly, and most obviously, it is an unprovable and untestable hypothesis. Secondly, it does seem to raise rather difficult issues given that we share 98% of our DNA with our closely related, presumably soulless, primate brethren. At what point in human evolution did we acquire this immaterial soul? Was it when we acquired the ability to walk bipedally? Was it in between the transition from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus? No doubt theologians have been ruminating over these conundrums for decades.

Some will try to argue, from a cynical standpoint, that their consumption of meat leads to no perceivable increase in the suffering of animals. The major flaw in this defense is that it disregards the connection between the meat we eat today and the future killing of animals. Granted, the chicken and pork in the supermarket freezer would still be there even if I were to never have existed. However this contention completely glosses over the way markets operate in a free society. The fact that someone chooses to buy chicken instead of tofu will determine how many pounds of chicken and tofu that store orders the following week and thus contributes, in a small way, to the future suffering of animals. This is what the laws of supply and demand are all about. We can't merely ignore the divisibility of responsibility of our own actions individually or as a society. If I were to cheat on my taxes it would make such an imperceptible difference to the total revenue of the IRS that we might be tempted to dismiss such an action as inconsequential. However, if everyone cheated on their income tax this could have disastrous effects on the economy and everything that flowed from that system. We must recognize the consequences of our actions and take responsibility for them.

Others will contend that humans deserve special rights over animals merely because we are members of the species homo sapiens. This argument, at least to me, seems sorely lacking in substance. Membership in a species is no more relevant to questions about ethics than skin color or gender. Undoubtedly this claim will raise one or two eyebrows so allow me to unpack it for you. Imagine we were visited by extraterrestrials that possessed more or less the same characteristics as human beings. Would we be justified in treating them as second-class citizens purely because they weren't members of our own species? I think not. Unless we wish to raise the specter of speciesism then membership in a species is not relevant to whether or not animals should have rights. Having said that I don't want people to think that I believe animals and humans should be given equal rights. We can weigh our ethical responsibilities to animals by appealing to their qualities e.g. (their capacity to suffer), which at the end of the day would put human persons at the top of our ethical purview.

We would do well to reflect on what Jesus of Nazareth said regarding how we should treat our neighbors. "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12 RSV) There is grandeur in this view of life. Put yourself momentarily behind a veil of ignorance and imagine that you are a cow or pig. How would you wish to be treated? Would you wish to be eaten? Would you wish to be conscripted to a life of manual labor only to be consumed at a later date? Would you wish to be ruled over? Wouldn't you wish to be free?

All the best,
Freeman

Sources

http://www.utilitarian.net...

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

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Writings on an Ethical Life- Peter Singer (My source of inspiration for the debate)

Definitions

Speciesism- Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals.

Pleasurable - enjoyable: affording satisfaction or pleasure; "the company was enjoyable"; "found her praise gratifying"
MTGandP

Con

Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical.

I thank my opponent for issuing this challenge. This should prove to be an interesting debate.

My opponent's case is largely based on the works of Peter Singer; perhaps ironically, I will also base my case on the ideals of this brilliant and insightful man. After all, he has been called the most moral person on earth, so how could I not?

Much of my opponent's case is irrelevant, and will be ignored.

Definitions
Animal: a member of the kingdom Animalia. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
The following definitions are from Merriam-Webster:
Unethical: not conforming to accepted standards of moral conduct; immoral.
Pleasure: a state of gratification.
Meat: animal tissue considered esp. as food.

========

Contention 1: Rights and Preferences

From where do rights flow? Clearly, there is no consensus on this. I agree with my opponent that suffering should be minimized, and I agree to an extent about the idea of preferences. But I disagree that animals can truly have preferences. Very few animals are self-aware (http://www.wiu.edu...) (http://www.americanchronicle.com...) (http://earthtrust.org...); all other animals are incapable of having true preferences. They may have evolutionary directives, but that is a much more superficial concept. Self-awareness is necessary to have true preferences. Therefore by my opponent's ethical standard, it is ethically possible to eat meat purely for pleasure.

========

Contention 2: The Moral Imperative

What is the true dictation of morality? My opponent and I would both agree that morality is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. What does this imply?

It implies that we have no loyalties to animals of other species. Bears, for instance, have no qualms with eating other animals. So why should we? Are we really so different? Bears could just as easily eat plants (http://www.medvede.sk...), and yet they do not.

Humans have no loyalties to members of other species. In survival of the fittest, we may do whatever we please to further our own goals.

========

Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering

By stating that animal meat should not be eaten for purposes of pleasure, my opponent is making an overgeneralization. I can provide several cases in which eating meat for pleasure is not unethical, and in doing so I win this debate.

3a. It is possible to reduce the suffering of livestock to virtually naught. If animals are allowed to roam free, and they are euthanized painlessly, their lives will be no more painful than if they were in nature, and in fact suffering may even be reduced. We would still be eating meat for our own pleasure, but the animals would not suffer and thus would not be unethical by my opponent's standard.

3b. Not all animals are capable of suffering. For example, ants are incapable of feeling pain; their nervous systems are not even equipped for it (http://www.wildbiology.com...). By my opponent's own moral standard, there is nothing unethical about eating insects. And yet, what are insects but animals?

========

Contention 4: Source of Morality

Morality is but a code of conduct that is useful for communal creatures. These communities that we live in consist of humans, so morality relates to humans and humans alone. We do not cooperate with other animals (although sometimes we force them to do our labor), so conventional morality does not apply to them.

========

Conclusion

I have shown three reasons why eating meat is not unethical by my opponent's standard: most animal preferences (all animals but humans, chimpanzees, dolphins, a few other species) are not preferences but are mere evolutionary directives; suffering in livestock can be greatly reduced; and some animals do not feel pain. I have also undermined portions of my opponent's foundation and shown why, evolutionarily, we have no loyalties to other animals. Resolution negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Freeman

Pro

Let me first being by thanking my opponent for accepting my challenge to this debate.

======
Case Con
======

Contention 1: Rights and Preferences

"From where do rights flow? Clearly, there is no consensus on this. I agree with my opponent that suffering should be minimized, and I agree to an extent about the idea of preferences. But I disagree that animals can truly have preferences. Very few animals are self-aware (http://www.wiu.edu......) (http://www.americanchronicle.com......) (http://earthtrust.org......); all other animals are incapable of having true preferences. They may have evolutionary directives, but that is a much more superficial concept. Self-awareness is necessary to have true preferences. Therefore by my opponent's ethical standard, it is ethically possible to eat meat purely for pleasure."

I completely agree with you. This doesn't detract from my argument in the slightest. It merely adds to the list of exceptions I have already carved out. There is nothing absolutist about my position and I've never claimed that all animals can hold preferences. The resolution is not "consuming meat for pleasure is always wrong regardless of circumstances". Snails probably aren't self aware therefore I wouldn't be opposed to eating them for pleasure. Chickens, cows and pigs however are self-aware, however primitively, and thus can be included in our moral purview. And even if certain animals weren't self aware, by your standards, they would still be capable of feeling pain insofar as they had evolved a nervous system.

Contention 2: The Moral Imperative

"Humans have no loyalties to members of other species. In survival of the fittest, we may do whatever we please to further our own goals."

A.)This is a very dangerous slippery slope that my opponent is going down. I'm reasonably confident that I could overpower my antagonist if not physically then certainly with the aid of a gun and take his money. Insofar as this increases my chances of survival then why shouldn't I do this? If my own selfish desires were all that's relevant to questions of ethics what moral boundaries would prevent me from subjugating the weak or using slavery to further my own goals? What's to prevent me from raping women that I find to be attractive? After all, I would be propagating my genes and thus acting naturally. Chimps do this all the time in the wild and even in captivity. [1] On top of all this my opponent also committed the naturalistic fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) In other words he posits that if X is natural then X is good. In this view survival of the fittest is a natural principle and therefore it is a moral principle for guiding our decisions about ethics.

B.)My opponent apparently views membership in a species as being significant to questions of ethics. At the potential expense of your patience allow me to take you on a thought experiment. Imagine that a mad scientist took your brain and placed it inside the body of a chimpanzee. You would still be the exact same person with the same mind, desires and goals except now you would be trapped into the body of a chimp. Would I be right in locking you in a cage and treating you as my pet merely because you are now a member of a different species? I think not and unless my opponent is willing to defend the view that he should be removed from our moral sphere if he were in the body of a chimp then my contention stands.

Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering

"I can provide several cases in which eating meat for pleasure is not unethical, and in doing so I win this debate."

A.Come on stop playing around. You know full well that I wouldn't be opposed to eating meat if it didn't lead to the death or suffering of a conscious creature. I've already stated that there is nothing prima facie wrong with the consumption of meat if it doesn't lead to animal suffering e.g. (eating road kill), (eating tissue grown in a lab) etc. Insofar as an animal is incapable of suffering then I wouldn't be opposed to eating it. Ergo I wouldn't be opposed to eating ants because I'm fairly confident they can't suffer their own destruction in any meaningful way. Your casuistry does nothing to further the debate.

B.The argument you brought up about painlessly euthanizing livestock is quite interesting but it doesn't reflect reality. Its first fault lays in the fact that it is flagrantly unrealistic. This just isn't the way factory farms operate. Its second, and more crucial fault is that it disregards the importance of animal's future abilities to feel happiness. The future potential to experience happiness, insofar as that ability had been previously present, is relevant to questions of ethics. If I were to painlessly murder everyone in a city in their sleep I would be acting in a way that did absolutely nothing to increase my victims suffering. Therefore by your own standards there would be nothing wrong with this action. I'm tempted to say Q.E.D. but I think I overuse it sometimes. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Contention 4: Source of Morality

"Morality is but a code of conduct that is useful for communal creatures. These communities that we live in consist of humans, so morality relates to humans and humans alone. We do not cooperate with other animals (although sometimes we force them to do our labor), so conventional morality does not apply to them."

Contention number 4 makes the exact same mistake that contention number 2 makes. It views membership in a species as inconsequential to questions of ethics. So, allow my previous arguments to carry over.

======
Case Pro
======

Contention #1
Humans do not need meat to survive.

Contention #2
It is wrong to cause a conscious creature to needlessly suffer.

Contention #3
Eating animal meat for pleasure is unethical insofar as the animal eaten has the capacity to suffer.

Contention #4
Membership in a species is no more relevant to questions of ethics than skin color or gender.

Contention #5
We share a responsibility in the suffering and death of animals when we eat meat because we empower factory farms when we buy the meat they produce.

Best,
Freeman

Sources

[1] http://www.thesun.co.uk...
MTGandP

Con

Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical.

Contention 1: Rights and Preferences

A snail is an animal. My opponent is not opposed to eating a snail for pleasure. Resolution negated.

Pigs and cows are NOT self-aware. Self-awareness is assessed most effectively with the mirror test (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). Dolphins, chimpanzees, and a few others have passed the test and are therefore considered self-aware. Pigs and cows have not passed. Yes, they can feel pain, but that is a different matter.

========

Contention 2: The Moral Imperative

A.) My opponent should not overpower me and take my money because if he does so, it will sow distrust. He may go to jail. More directly, though, no one will trust him and he will be hurt in the long run. A person may feel that it is morally wrong to rob someone at gunpoint, but this feeling originates out of a selfish desire to continue to be accepted in a community. Slavery has a similar problem. Rape as well: women do not want to be raped, so even if you rape one time you will get the reputation of a rapist and women will avoid you, so overall you will have fewer children. The reader may feel that these things are morally wrong, and that is correct. But this is the reason why they are wrong. I ask the reader to step outside of the evolutionary directive and understand WHY we consider these behaviors to be wrong. It is not truly because they are harmful to others; it is because they have social repercussions.

I am perfectly aware of the workings of the naturalistic fallacy. I am not saying that we should follow the moral imperative simply because it is natural. I am saying that we should follow it because the fact that it is natural makes it the only true option. All other options are arbitrary and artificial. Subsequently, how can we even hope to define morality without at least basing it upon our evolutionary roots?

B.) The analogy is inapplicable. It is impossible to put a human brain into a chimpanzee without completely changing the brain structure. But false analogies aside, the brain is a large part of what makes us human. A chimpanzee with a human brain would be more human than chimpanzee.

========

Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering

A.) I'm not playing around. My opponent has just conceded for the second time. My opponent provided no definitions in round 1. Is it my fault that he was using an unconventional definition of "animal"? No. My definition is the one which will be accepted.

B.) Ethics do not have to perfectly model reality. It is easily conceivable that there is a scenario in which animals are painlessly euthanized. There is nothing morally wrong with this. My opponent objects to factory farms; it is true that factory farms are very common right now, but euthanasia is still entirely possible.

"If I were to painlessly murder everyone in a city in their sleep I would be acting in a way that did absolutely nothing to increase my victims suffering."
This is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self-awarely considering the future. Humans have a truly conscious desire not to die. Animals merely have evolutionary directives.

========

Contention 4: Source of Morality

My opponent misunderstands the true source of morality. This has been addressed in contention 2.

========
Case Pro
========

(These are not contentions. This is a syllogism. However, I will retain my opponent's labeling system.)

Contention #1: Agreed.

Contention #2: Wrong. This is addressed repeatedly in my case.

Contention #3: False, since #2 is false.

Contention #4: False. See my second contention.

Contention #5: True, but irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 2
Freeman

Pro

Let me first begin by thanking my opponent for this debate and also for his thought provoking and timely responses.

"A snail is an animal. My opponent is not opposed to eating a snail for pleasure. Resolution negated." If obscurantism were an Olympic sport then that argument would have just won you the gold medal. I closed the door to this line of attack on numerous occasions in my first round.
-
-
-Round 1 quotes
-"Clearly a claim to rights should have something to do with whether or not an entity can hold preferences and suffer. It would simply be absurd to say that kicking a rock is a violation of its rights because the rock cannot desire anything. A rock is not capable of holding any desires about the world nor can a rock suffer, one would presume. Chickens, cows, and pigs on the other hand can all feel a great deal of pain and also hold rudimentary preferences; i.e. they would really prefer not to be eaten."
-"I am not arguing that there is anything prima facie wrong with the consumption of meat. For example, I would not be opposed to people eating road kill, insofar as this behavior didn't encourage other people to run over extra animals. Nor would I be opposed to eating meat grown in a laboratory, which did not require the death of a conscious creature."

Your obscurantism is unwarranted because snails probably can't suffer.

============
Case Pro - Rebuttals
============

Much of our debate hinges upon whether or not animals can hold preferences. There are several peripheral issues we touched on that rest upon the outcome of this. So, I will try to focus in and make my case that animals can hold preferences. Insofar as an animal can suffer it can hold a preference not to suffer. I must now make a concession and acknowledge that you were probably right about self-awareness in animals like cows and chickens. I do this, however, without conceding my basic premise: namely that animals can suffer and thus hold preferences not to suffer or be tormented. Consider the following fact. A full grown dog, hoarse, and cow all have higher capacities to be rational, converse, and be aware of their surroundings than a month old or even a year old human baby. If your argument that animals cannot hold preferences and merely follow evolutionary directives were sound then this argument would be equally valid when applied to 1-year-old infants. Indeed, one-year old infants, by your own standards, are not "capable of self-awarely considering the future". Your argument immediately begins to crumble upon close scrutiny because it was built upon some rather dubious premises from the start. Consider the following hypothetical situation. A one-year-old orphan, with no living relatives, shows up on your doorstep. If your argument about painlessly euthanizing cows were valid then we could also conclude that painlessly euthanizing a one year old infant is not morally wrong. By now the flaw in your argument should strike you like an uppercut from Mike Tyson. I suspect that my opponent is too intelligent to get into an argument about the potentials for living entities but if he does take this route he should consider the following. Given what we know about genetic manipulation every cell in the human body with a nucleus has the potential to develop into a full grown human. http://en.wikipedia.org... So, arguments for an infants potential aren't going to get you anywhere.
=============

I firmly maintain that the capacity to suffer is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. [1] In the same way it would not be moral to euthanize a severely retarded person if they lacked the capacity to be "capable of self-awarely considering the future" it would not be moral to kill a cow or pig that can suffer that also lacked those same capacities. All other moral boundaries reek of sexism, racism, tribalism, and indeed speciesism. In the same way it would be obscene to discriminate against humans on the basis of intelligence or rationality it is also faulty to use these characteristics to discriminate against animals. I have demonstrated twice that membership in a species is irrelevant to ethics and my opponent has offered nothing but smoke and mirrors in response. Allow me to use a third and final hypothetical situation to drive my point home. Imagine that humans were not the only living hominid species left on the planet. In other words imagine that a highly intelligent equally capable species of hominids had survived the evolutionary process and still walked among us today with more or less identical characteristics. Unless my opponent is willing to discriminate against them because they are members of a different species then he must concede my point. Even if the chimp analogy I gave were unrealistic, as he claims, it still demonstrates the truth of my position. And given the recent advances in genetics the prospect of having a human mind in a chimp body isn't even that unlikely and only grows more probable by the day.
=================

======
Case Con
======

"My opponent should not overpower me and take my money because if he does so, it will sow distrust. He may go to jail. More directly, though, no one will trust him and he will be hurt in the long run." My opponent's position on these matters amounts to little more than special pleading. He isn't prepared to live in the dog eat dog world he beckoned us to when he wrote, "Humans have no loyalties to members of other species. In survival of the fittest, we may do whatever we please to further our own goals." You say that I shouldn't beat you up and steal your money because I may face social repercussions but surely someone like myself is skillful enough to get away with crimes. Uneducated criminals do it all the time. And educated criminals do it even more adeptly. If your position were taken to its logical conclusion my decision to steal, murder, or lie are only "wrong" insofar as they have negative social repercussions. If however I were skillful enough to commit these acts and not incur social repercussions then I would be free to steal and murder to my hearts content. Indeed these acts would even be moral in the world to which you beckoned us, because they would serve my own selfish interest and not accumulate negative social repercussions.
===================

"I ask the reader to step outside of the evolutionary directive and understand WHY we consider these behaviors to be wrong. It is not truly because they are harmful to others; it is because they have social repercussions."

"I am perfectly aware of the workings of the naturalistic fallacy. I am not saying that we should follow the moral imperative simply because it is natural. I am saying that we should follow it because the fact that it is natural makes it the only true option." On top of committing the naturalistic fallacy and then backpedaling my opponent has dug himself in deeper by creating a false dilemma. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Nowhere has he demonstrated that following nature is the "only true option" to form moral principles.

========
Conclusion
========

My opponent has already conceded that our purchase and consumption of meat, however small, leads to the needless suffering of animals. Likewise I have demonstrated that the capacity to suffer is the only defensible boundary for weighing the interests of others. Once we realize that our desire the eat meat contributes to the suffering of animals the moral choice for us becomes obvious. With this in mind I affirm the resolution that eating meat purely for pleasure is unethical.

Best,
Freeman

Sources

[1] http://www.animal-rights-library.com...
MTGandP

Con

========
Case Pro
========

The Capacity to Hold Preferences

My opponent's entire contention relies on the infant analogy. If I show that it is not morally wrong to euthanize an unwanted infant, then I win this point.

If an infant is unwanted, all alternatives have been exhausted, it is not morally wrong to euthanize him. He will not suffer, and he will not be aware of what is going on so he will not be afraid. My opponent has utterly failed to demonstrate what is morally wrong with euthanizing an unwanted infant; I have shown that there is nothing wrong with it by his very own moral philosophy. Of course, if you accept the philosophy that we have no loyalties to other species, then a case could indeed be made for the immorality of euthanizing an infant. But my opponent's attempts to twist his own position have failed.

========

The Capacity to Suffer

My opponent believes that the capacity to suffer "is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others." However, he has not considered why. According to Peter Singer's philosophy, the moral objective is to reduce suffering by as much as possible. This is a logical philosophy. But my opponent contends that animals are granted rights simply BECAUSE of their capacity to suffer. There is nothing magical or special about animals that can suffer. The objective is to minimize suffering, but my opponent has strayed from this objective. If an animal is painlessly euthanized, the animal does not suffer. Objective achieved. But my opponent misunderstands, and wants to grant all rights to these animals. He misrepresents my case by saying that "membership in a species is irrelevant to ethics"; but as I have shown, his case falls apart even if I concede that point (which I don't). My opponent claims to have "demonstrated twice that membership in a species is irrelevant to ethics", but his demonstrations rely on arguments by analogy. Unless he can provide concrete reasoning, this point is not to be accepted.

Placing a human mind in the body of a chimpanzee has nothing to do with genetics. And as I said, since humans are defined greatly by their brains, the chimpanzee may be defined as human (or at the very least, partially human). So this analogy fails.

========
Case Con
========

As long as you are living in society, it is possible to commit a crime without social repercussions. My opponent has not rebutted the essence of my argument (that which is based upon selfish gene theory) nor has he offered an alternative explanation for altruistic behavior. Stealing and lying are not moral, despite what my opponent may seem to believe. Those actions became immoral because of the social repercussions, and they will continue to be immoral as long as we continue living in communities.

"Nowhere has he demonstrated that following nature is the 'only true option' to form moral principles."
What basis for morality would my opponent suggest? He has not yet proposed any concrete basis which provides a different set of morals from those put forth by nature. Emphasis is on the word "concrete": it is easy to make up a moral system, but such a system would be arbitrary. [1]

"My opponent has already conceded that our purchase and consumption of meat, however small, leads to the needless suffering of animals."
I have done no such thing. Animals can be euthanized.

========
Conclusion
========

I have effectively defended my own moral standard, under which it is ethically acceptable to consume animal meat. I have proven that even by my opponent's moral standard, there are situations in which eating animal meat is not unethical. Resolution negated. Vote Con.

[1] http://books.google.com...
[2] http://books.google.com...
[3] http://books.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"A snail is an animal. My opponent is not opposed to eating a snail for pleasure. Resolution negated."

This primarily was the reason for the Pro vote, it was clear that the argument was never intended to be an absolute and though it can be defeated semantically quite easily there was nothing clever in such an approach. That being said it is clear this was an early debate by Freeman as it is significantly less structured than recent debates.
Posted by SirAntonyP 7 years ago
SirAntonyP
If you are a 200 stone fat person yes it's wrong.

Im skinny and poor i need meat to keep me alive the fat people who eat and eat need to put the poor baby cow down and pick up a salad once in a wile.

If you are genetically fat and don't eat much then i mean no offense, it's the fat people who choose to be fat or just can't stop eating, i can't stand, and then wine about being fat, i would love to have a few extra stone on me fact is i can't afford to.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
RFD
B/A: Und/Con
Conduct: Tie
S&G: Tie
Arguments: Con - for obvious reasons.
Sources: Tie - both sides had sources that supported their case.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Good job MTG.

*Favorited.*
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
This is already his 2nd debate on this topic.

I'm not interested in debating the same topic that has already been debated multiple times.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I'm sure that you can just ask Freeman to make another one, and... well, he probably will.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Well Nags, you know how Freeman loves his duplicate debates.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Aww.. shucks.

I wanted this debate.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
What wjmelements said.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Challenge his definition of rights and you'll win.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
FreemanMTGandPTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
FreemanMTGandPTied
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 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
FreemanMTGandPTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
FreemanMTGandPTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JonathanCid 7 years ago
JonathanCid
FreemanMTGandPTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
FreemanMTGandPTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
FreemanMTGandPTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
FreemanMTGandPTied
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