The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Eating meat endorses cruelty.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 282 times Debate No: 82923
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I. Definitions


" 1.
the act of a person or thing that eats.
" [1].


"The flesh of an animal, typically a mammal or bird, as food (the flesh of domestic fowls is sometimes distinguished as poultry):" [2].

to approve, support, or sustain: [3].

" 1.
the state or quality of being cruel.
cruel disposition or conduct.
a cruel act.

Pro will contend for the resolution and Con against.



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


First, definition of cruel and pain, since cruelty references cruel.

" 1.
willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others."

causing or marked by great pain or distress:
a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.
" [5].


: the physical feeling caused by disease, injury, or something that hurts the body

: mental or emotional suffering : sadness caused by some emotional or mental problem

: someone or something that causes trouble or makes you feel annoyed or angry
" [6].

First, this is worldwide. Chickens in Asia have no relevant differences from those in the Western World. A huge portion of meat production if factory farmed. All factory farmed meat should count automatically as cruel. Now for big farm organic. A large portion is more or less factory farmed and therefore cruel. "Cage Free Eggs Cage-Free Eggs: Behind the Myth
Some animal advocacy organizations are working together with a segment of the egg industry to promote consumption of eggs labeled "cage-free."[7].

Now what about the organic farmers who honor their contract and produce meat in almost ideal conditions? The small farmer who really does his or her best to minimize cruelty. The problem with minimizing cruelty is its not cruelty free by its very nature.

First, a look at the lifespan of wild creatures versus those in captivity. "1. Premature Deaths

Orcas in the wild have an average life expectancy of 30 to 50 years"their estimated maximum lifespan is 60 to 70 years for males and 80 to over 100 for females. The average age of death for orcas who have died at SeaWorld is 13 years old.
" [8].

What is the relevance of this to the resolution? If killer whales live less time in captivity a person can extrapolate that other animals have a shorter life span in captivity. Chickens can live over ten years. [9]

Due to profit margins chickens don't live anywhere near ten years in factory farmed conditions. On a small scale farm due to the profit margin no chicken would be allowed to live for ten years.

"The lifespan of an industry chicken would be 5"8 years. However, when egg production declines after 1"2 years, hens are considered "spent" and sent to slaughter." [10].

Hens are "spent" after only about 1/4 of their lifespan. Pro asks, if 1/4 a living sentient being's lifespan isn't cruelty what is cruelty then? Pro contends that dividing a sentient being's lifespan purposely and willfully by four is cruelty within itself.

The shorting of lifespan qualifies as the severe part of cruelty. " 1.
harsh; unnecessarily extreme:
severe criticism; severe laws.
" "3.
grave; critical: "[11].

Pro contends that cruelty in animal raising for meat is well established, even on small organic farms.

Onward, to endorse. "Endorse
to approve, support, or sustain: [3]."

By eating meat a person is approving, supporting, and most of the time sustaining cruelty. A person most of the time sustains the act because if the person bought the meat by eating the meat that person encourages himself or herself to buy more meat. If the another person bought the meat the person who eats the meat is sustaining meat production by eating the meat, encouraging that other person to buy more meat.

A person shows approval by eating the meat. Adversely by refusing to eat the meat a person is showing disapproval. This is non-verbal communication. If a person eats meat he or she is showing approval non verbally, refusing shows disapproval non verbally.

Support "5.
to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for: " [12].

An establishment, like a meat grocer needs money. By buying meat you supply the establishment with what is necessary for its existence. If the business lost enough money, it would close down and no longer exist. As shown earlier by eating meat you are encouraging more meat to be bought. Thus supporting meat establishments thus supporting and endorsing cruelty.

Thanks for the debate, looking forward to Con's arguments. Eating meat endorses cruelty. Vote Pro.



Pro gives a very good case as to why factory farm raised meat is cruel. However, the subject is not whether factory farming is cruel. It is "Eating meat endorses cruelty".

To address this, I will contend my position mainly with hunting. Hunting allows an animal to live in it's natural habitat and live a normal life. Due to natural predators, ending the life of an animal in the wild is not cruel because dying before the end of it's lifespan is something to be expected i.e The wolves take fawns, foxes eat young rabbits, the bear eats the fish both before and afer it's reproductive season.

The U.S currently has around 13.7 million registered hunters ( Assuming 90% of hunters eat what they harvest, and that is roughly 12.4 million animals each year that are consumed but in no way encounter any form of cruelty.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


Bah, always forget something. Hunting is cruel for several reasons. First and foremost humans don't need to eat meat to survive. There are plenty of high protein vegan foods. B-12 can be gained from supplements and from raw organic fruit and veggies.

Second, the animal doesn't always die right away. Reading about Cecil the lion's killer anybody can tell that Cecil suffered for a prolonged period of time. "With one shot of his bow, Walter Palmer went from being a Minneapolis dentist to the world"s most reviled big game hunter. Only wounding Cecil, the lion spent two days bleeding while being tracked by Palmer who eventually killed him and taking his 'trophy.' "[13][14].

Third, there is still the issue of ending the animal's life prematurely.

Finally, as for animals killing each other and eating each other. Surely the animals must suffer from the actions of other animals sometimes. Yet, this does not negate the suffering caused by humans. Rephrased, if a person A causes a cruel act and then person B does the same. This two cruel acts do not negate each other. Just as if an animal performs a cruel act, it does not negate the cruelty of humans.

Pro contends that by consuming the meat of animals hunted and killed a person is endorsing cruelty. Think about a hunter bringing meat to his or her family. If the family members refuse to eat the meat, they are rejecting hunting. Yet, if they eat the meat they are supporting and sustaining the practice of hunting. Same for the hunter.

Thanks for the debate, vote Pro.



1. Needing meat to survive has nothing to do with whether it is cruel.

2. Cecil the Lion is a stiatistical minority. Trophy hunting is out of reach as far as cost goes for average americans. Cecil's hunt cost $55,000. $55,000 for 1 lion vs $50 for 12 deer (In TX). Which one of these sounds like the more likely purchase for 13.7 million Americans.

3. I already addressed premature death. An animal dying prematurely in nature is nothing new and is normal for most species. If you really want animals to live a full live do you support the removal of predators of predators from their environments?

4. The suffering these animals endure as a result of being hunted by a predator is called nature. And I would think that a bullet in the brain is preferable to being chased down by a predator, knowing you're going to die, and then being torn apart. Or starving to death. Or slowly succumbing to a disease.Hunting can be a lot more human than nature sometimes.

Con contends that hunting an animal is not cruel because traditionally, the animal doesn't know you're there, unlike being hunted a predator. Dying at the hands of a hunter is prefereable to dying of starvation, disease or predators. At least to me it is.

Also Pro ascertains that you are either on one side or the other, and leaves no room for people who simply don't care or don't think about where meat comes from.

""If the family members refuse to eat the meat, they are rejecting hunting.""

This is not necessarily true. They might refuse the meat because they aren't hungry or they may be so used to farm raised meat that wild meat may make them ill.

""Yet, if they eat the meat they are supporting and sustaining the practice of hunting.""

This is also not true. Not everyone who eats meat consciously supports hunting. You have provided no evidence to enforce this claim. I contend that the majority of these people simply don't care.

Hunting is not animal cruelty.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mr_Anderson 11 months ago
Why do people always use the argument of need?Who cares about need? You don't NEED a Tv, you don't NEED a Mercedes, you don't NEED nice clothes. You don't NEED a big house, you don't NEED gold jewelry.

I don't care about the concept of NEED. I eat what makes me happy. I drive what makes me happy. I watch what makes me happy, I wear what makes me happy and I live where it makes me happy because I am a sentient and I am free to do whatever I want. Including the pursuit of happiness. You knwo what makes me happy?

Bacon. Bacon makes me happy. So I will eat bacon.
Posted by Stupidape 11 months ago
"Our bodies need meat." waspstinger

I beg to differ waspstinger. Humans only need about 10% calories from the macro nutrient protein. Oats macro nutrients are 15% protein and could easily satisfy human protein needs.

"How Much Protein Is Enough?

Adults in the U.S. are encouraged to get 10% to 35% of their day's calories from protein foods. That's about 46 grams of protein for women, and 56 grams of protein for men."
Posted by WaspStinger 11 months ago
The funny thing is, wild animals THEMSELVES eat meat. It's part of the natural food chain of life. Now I don't like to think of anything being killed but it's still going to happen rather you eat it or not-so what's the difference? Our bodies need meat.
No votes have been placed for this debate.