The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Eating meat is right

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,279 times Debate No: 17166
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

This will be a debate on whether it is right fot humans to eat meat or not.
Pro (me) will argue that it is right for humans to eat meat and that there is nothing wrong with it.
Con will be arguing that it is not right for humans to eat meat.

First round is for acceptance only. I wish luck to whoever accepts this debate.
petersaysstuff

Con

Before I start I want to thank my opponent for this fun debate.

Firstly I would like to state a critique of the basis of this debate. My opponent uses the word right in a moral sense and in said sense right is defined as "Morally good, justified, or acceptable"[1] The problem with this is that it implies objectivity in morals but that is simply not the case and one can prove this as follows. Meat is defined as "The flesh of an animal as food."[2] and since humans are animals, human flesh is included in this definition. Now, in America almost everyone would say that it is morally wrong to eat human meat whereas in some tribes it is perfectly fine. This is a prime example of moral subjectivity thus before one can even debate about whether or not eating meat is "right" or "wrong", one must prove that moral objectivity exists.

I plan to debate this as follows, I will provide an argument that shows that IF moral objectivity were existent then eating meat is wrong. What my opponent must do to win is to prove that moral objectivity exists and thus disprove the above argument and then he must refute my argument showing it is wrong. What he can do is post his argument for why it is "right" and I shall refute it from a morally objective framework but all the while the above argument is in play. If the above argument is not refuted then both arguments regarding "right" and "wrong" are rendered moot and I win.

======Now entering objective framework=======

just: "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and FAIR"
fair is defined as: "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice"[5]

1: It takes 4.8lbs of grain to feed a cow to proud 1lb of meat
2: This could be used to feed starving children in Africa and other places
3: It is not fair that we get to live in luxary and waste food on factory breeding cows when that food could save a child
4: Since it is not fair to do such a thing it is not just
5: Since it is not just it is not "right"
6: Since it is not "right" it is wrong
QED

An example of the waste is as follows:
"A 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle."[4]

Another example would be:
"Imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. "Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the "feed cost" of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains."[4]

Are the above two examples right? I think not. (I reserve the right to add more evidence at a later date)

1: http://www.google.com...
2: http://www.google.com...
3: http://www.google.com...
4: http://www.emagazine.com...
5: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Con

I dislike this. Extend.
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Con

Deathbeforedishonour, you have dishonored yourself. Please extend.
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Con

...I win...
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Pro is clearly right, but he chickened out. There are so many points that could have shattered con's argument. I will not vote for either pro or con.
Posted by ExNihilo 5 years ago
ExNihilo
I agree with the PRO, but I would take this debate if I had the time. I'd love to use Singer.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
I would put work into defining which species "meat" are we talking about here?
Posted by vbaculum 5 years ago
vbaculum
I would put some considerable work into defining the terms "right" and "wrong".
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
DeathbeforedishonourpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
DeathbeforedishonourpetersaysstuffTied
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: Pro forfeit leaves arguments unanswered. Con violated "first round is for acceptance only" so there are conduct violations on both sides.
Vote Placed by Puck 5 years ago
Puck
DeathbeforedishonourpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
DeathbeforedishonourpetersaysstuffTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.