The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
marymcnamara
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Every adult in first world countries should be 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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 94239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Outline

I. Intro
II. Animal suffering ethics
III. Environment
IV. Health
V. Conclusion
VI. Sources

I. Intro

Thanks for accepting this debate. I will be arguing that every adult in first world countries should be vegan. Exceptions, rare medical conditions, extraordinary circumstances, and lab grown meat. [0]

Examples of extraordinary circumstances would be stuck on a desert island or in an elevator shaft.

There are three main points to my argument, animal suffering & ethics, environment issues, and health concerns. As a responsible adult and productive member of society I feel it is necessary to take care of one's health, the environment, and to show compassion for animals.

II. Animal suffering ethics

First and foremost is animal suffering and ethics.

Claim 0: There is no survival need to eat animal products.

Warrant 0: "Typically, vegans can avoid nutritional problems if appropriate food choices are made. Their health status
appears to be at least as good as other vegetarians, such as lactoovovegetarians."[1]

Impact: Any suffering via the raising, transportation, and breeding of livestock can be seen as animal cruelty. Vegan is the morally superior path.

Claim 1: Animals suffer greatly during factory farming.

Warrant 1: Common knowledge.

Impact 1: When combined with the fact that we don't need to eat meat to survive and the abundance of wealth in 1st world countries, factory farming has no relevant difference than dog fighting, pig wrestling, pigeon shooting, and cock fighting. We are simply eating meat for pleasure at the cost of great suffering and pain to animals. This is animal cruelty. Halt a large portion of animal cruelty by becoming vegan.

Claim 2: Humans have drawn an arbitrary line between animals and humans.

Warrant 2: Richard Dawkins a famous person known for his intellect says so. [2]

Impact 2: This is a cruel double standard. Such a double standard is an injustice. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." [3] Martin Luther King, Jr. As long as such an injustice is allowed to stand, a threat to justice everywhere remains. Become vegan today to help remedy this injustice.

Claim 3: Cage-free, free range, pasture raised, and their variants are a form of humane washing.

Warrant 3: "the movement to treat farm animals better is based on the idea that it is wrong to subject them to unnecessary harm; yet, killing animals we have no need to eat constitutes the ultimate act of unnecessary harm." [4]

Impact 3: While factory farming is common knowledge humane washing is not. Not only does humane washing have the injustice of animal cruelty but of deliberate deceit to the public. Adults in 1st world countries should become vegan thus boycotting such products.

III. Environment

If you paid attention in elementary level science class you learned about the food chain, autotrophs, heterotrophs, and tropic levels. That each trophic level requires significantly higher amount of biomass and thus energy. Therefore, it is logical to eat at a lower level in the food chain, plants instead of animals. Cows require up to sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.

Then, there is destructive fishing habits, rain forest deforestation to clear land for cows, and so forth.

IV. Health

I think it is immoral to carelessly destroy your health and leech off of the various forms of welfare and public assistance. I ideally a person should repay his or her society and become an industrious citizen. There are many health benefits from becoming vegan with little health concerns.

The benefits including receiving plenty of the good while avoiding the bad. The good being antioxidants, fiber and phytonutrients. The bad being excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, heterocyclic amines, endotoxins, and IGF-1.

V. Conclusion

The first world is plagued by immoral and morbidly obese humans leeching off not only their own nations but destroying the environment for everyone. We can no longer afford to allow these evil humans to desecrate our morals and future. They will hide behind their religions and selfish ideologies, nevertheless we cannot afford to be infinitely patient.

For justice, the environment, and your health become vegan today. All adults in first world countries barring a few exception should become vegan as soon as possible. Thank you for reading and thank you for the debate.

VI. Sources

0. http://prime.peta.org...
1. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...
2. https://richarddawkins.net...
3. https://www.brainyquote.com...
4. http://freefromharm.org...
marymcnamara

Con

Con thesis: The pro thesis is absolutist and not every adult living in a first world country should be Vegan.

There are five main points to my argument. Economy, Health/Survival, Developing Countries

CON CASE-

Economy-

Claim: The meat industry is extremely valuable to the world's economy

Warrant: (Using the United States as an example) "In 2013, more than 482,100 workers were directly employed in the meat and poultry packing and processing industries, according to data from the North American Meat Institute (NAMI). Their combined salaries total more than $19 billion, it said. With suppliers and distributors included, that number climbs to 6.2 million jobs and generates $864.2 billion annually, or roughly 6 percent of the entire U.S. GDP, it said." (1)

Impact: Following the warrant, eliminating the meat industry is not economically viable and would result in severe economic consequences.

Health/Survival-

Claim: Humanity in present day could not survive a worldwide vegetarian/vegan diet

Warrant: Our resources are not sustainable enough and would not be even without the meat industry's negative environmental effects. the notion that an ideal form of food production operating with a minimal environmental impact should exclude meat " nothing less than enacting "vegetarian imperative" (Saxena 2011) on a global scale " does not make sense.
"This is because both grasslands and croplands produce plenty of phytomass that is not digestible by humans and that would be, if not regularly harvested, simply wasted and left to decay. In addition, processing of crops to produce milled grains, plant oils and other widely consumed foodstuffs generates a large volume of by-products that make (as described in Chapter 4) perfect animal feeds. Rice milling strips typically 30% of the grain"s outermost layers, wheat milling takes away about 15%: what would we do with about 300 Mt of these grain milling residues, with roughly the same mass of protein-rich oil cakes left after extraction of oil (in most species accounts for only 20"25% of oilseed phytomass), and also with the by-products of ethanol (distillers grain) and dairy industries (whey), waste from fruit and vegetable canning (leaves, peels), and citrus rinds and pulp?" (2)

Impact: An unsustainable food/vegan farming system to replace the old one. No change in sustainability.

Developing Countries-

Claim: Developing Countries rates of meat consumption are rapidly rising

Warrant: "Developing countries have very diverse food consumption patterns and agricultural production systems. The proportion of meat in national diets varies from negligible in some countries in central Africa to 30-40% in some countries in Latin America and Mongolia. However, the demand for meat in developing countries is increasing rapidly (53%/year from 1982 to 1993), as the result of population growth and the trend for people to move to the cities. Growth rates in consumption are greatest in Asia, with China dominating the statistics, in view of the size of its population. Theoretically, livestock production can be increased to meet this demand, but the multiple roles of livestock in developing countries must be recognized if this is to be achieved in a sustainable manner. Resource-poor farmers who keep livestock may value more highly their contribution to livelihoods and to crop production, through provision of draught power and improvements in soil fertility through the recycling of manure, than the production of more meat. Recognition of the goals of the farmer and the wishes of the consumer regarding meat quality need to be reflected in the way in which opportunities for increasing meat production are identified and communicated to farmers. The impact of the global economy on cereal prices, for example, will also influence which interventions will be economically viable. Interpretation of information in an integral manner, using geographical information systems, mathematical models and/or simple spreadsheet models will be an important ingredient in turning scientific knowledge into increased meat production in developing countries." (3)

Impact: there are multiple warrants within this argument and therefore multiple impacts. The first is that developing countries have seen a major rise in meat production and will therefore offset benefits to eliminating meat industries in the united states. The second is that farmers in developing countries continue to produce more without regards to the environment and health, leaving countries that have eliminated the meat industry unable to help them for moral and political reasons. On the flip side, if they did help developing countries eliminate their meat industries, the global economy would be tanked (no warrant, see first claim). The third warrant is that the meat industries in these countries will continue to grow despite drawbacks, meaning developing countries then have a moral obligation to assist them in order to preserve their populations and the environment, which turns the pro impacts.

REBUTTALS-

Ethics-

Rights are unique to human beings
rights only have meaning within a moral community
only human beings live in a moral community
adult mammals don't understand or practice living according to a moral code
the differences in the way human beings and adult mammals experience the world are morally relevant
therefore rights is a uniquely human concept and only applies to human beings (4)

AND No impact to ethics, it's mere philosophical speculation

Arbitrary Lines-

concede this claim, it has no link to the argument, neither King nor Dawkins practiced veganism and are not credible sources. The evidence was shifted to try to favor pro's argument and should therefore be dropped in the debate.

Humane Washing-

http://www.qmscotland.co.uk...
This link gives multiple reasons as to why meat is good for humans, meaning that there is a reason behind killing animals (to eat) and is therefore not an "unnecessary harm"

AND I question the logic of this argument on my opponent's part. If animals are not being treated inhumanely, the harms of factory farming go away and thus so do environmental impacts, and all this is because OF cage-free and similar methods, why get rid of them? Couldn't that model be used to then help developing countries to become more sustainable, and wouldn't that be better overall? This particular argument is meant as a challenge of logic rather than a direct rebuttal

Environment-

Counter Claim- Grazing is necessary to a sustainable ecosystem (5)
AND cattle do not contribute greatly to greenhouse gases (5)
AND optimal farming includes animals. This outweighs the impacts of the pro argument (5)
(The quotes from source (5) are quite lengthy so i did not insert them verbatim)

Health-

Counter-Claim: Studies for the health setbacks of meat are inconclusive and contradicted by credible sources.

In one cohort study, scientists studied 11,000 people, 57 percent of whom were omnivores (meat eaters) and the other 43 percent were vegetarians. Both groups were health conscious. Yet in this study, researchers found the overall death rates were cut in half for both health-conscious meat eaters and for vegetarians, as compared to the average person eating a western-style, processed food diet. The study concluded that for the vegetarians, there was no benefit found; and for the meat eaters, there was no increased risk for heart disease, cancer or death. (6)

(1)http://www.nbcnews.com...
(2) http://www.scientificamerican.com...
(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
(5) http://articles.mercola.com...
(6) http://drhyman.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Rebuttal, I will go line by line and rebut my opponent's arguments. My opponent's arguments will be in bold and italics, mine will be plain text.


"Con thesis: The pro thesis is absolutist and not every adult living in a first world country should be Vegan." marymcnamara


First, as in my round one argument there is some exceptions rare medical conditions, extraordinary circumstances, and lab grown meat. [0] Second, when it comes to justice, an absolutist attitude is often best. "2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard." [5] We should use an absolute standard or principle. Animal cruelty is never justified. I stand firmly behind my absolute principle of abolishing all forms of animal cruelty.


"Claim: The meat industry is extremely valuable to the world's economy" marymcnamara

"Impact: Following the warrant, eliminating the meat industry is not economically viable and would result in severe economic consequences." marymcnamara

Agreed with claim and warrant, disagree with impact. You assume everyone would simply become vegan overnight. This is highly improbable. People are resistant to change. Instead, I find it much more probable that slowly more and more people would become vegan until meat eaters were in the minority. At that point a law would most likely be passed outlawing meat production.

Due to the mostly gradual change people would simply change vocations. There is no shortage of help wanted signs in my area. Justice is a higher priority than economy.

"Claim: Humanity in present day could not survive a worldwide vegetarian/vegan diet" marymcnamara

"Impact: An unsustainable food/vegan farming system to replace the old one. No change in sustainability." marymcnamara


Your claim and impact don't match. You claim we couldn't survive on a worldwide vegetarian diet, give a long quote and then use a completely different impact. As for the warrant, which I didn't copy and paste due to character length restrictions, there is a lot of factors to take in. Overall, plant based diets win enviormentally. [6][7][8]


"Claim: Developing Countries rates of meat consumption are rapidly rising" marymcnamara

"Impact: there are multiple warrants within this argument and therefore multiple impacts. The first is that developing countries have seen a major rise in meat production and will therefore offset benefits to eliminating meat industries in the united states. The second is that farmers in developing countries continue to produce more without regards to the environment and health, leaving countries that have eliminated the meat industry unable to help them for moral and political reasons. On the flip side, if they did help developing countries eliminate their meat industries, the global economy would be tanked (no warrant, see first claim). The third warrant is that the meat industries in these countries will continue to grow despite drawbacks, meaning developing countries then have a moral obligation to assist them in order to preserve their populations and the environment, which turns the pro impacts." marymcnamara

The claim is correct, yet this is about 1st world countries. I take issue with the impact again.

"The first is that developing countries have seen a major rise in meat production and will therefore offset benefits to eliminating meat industries in the united states. " marymcnamara

Eliminating injustices in the 1st world helps justice overall. The fact that meat production in developing countries will cause environmental damage is irrelevant to this debate. You seem to be making an argument that the entire world should become vegan, which would include first world countries, if so you are agreeing with me.

"The second is that farmers in developing countries continue to produce more without regards to the environment and health, leaving countries that have eliminated the meat industry unable to help them for moral and political reasons." marymcnamara

You make an argument that the entire world should become vegan, thus agreeing with me.

"On the flip side, if they did help developing countries eliminate their meat industries, the global economy would be tanked (no warrant, see first claim). " marymcnamara

Again, gradual change as seen with my rebuttal to your first claim.

" The third warrant is that the meat industries in these countries will continue to grow despite drawbacks, meaning developing countries then have a moral obligation to assist them in order to preserve their populations and the environment, which turns the pro impacts." marymcnamara

An argument for everyone to become vegan.

"Ethics-

Rights are unique to human beings
rights only have meaning within a moral community
only human beings live in a moral community
adult mammals don't understand or practice living according to a moral code
the differences in the way human beings and adult mammals experience the world are morally relevant
therefore rights is a uniquely human concept and only applies to human beings (4)" marymcnamara

Animals already have some rights. There are plenty of anti-animal cruelty laws. See what happens if you commit one of these acts in public. This argument also falls apart when dealing with the mentally challenged. An insane person can't be accountable for his or her actions, yet also has certain rights. Animals are sentient and can feel pain.

"AND No impact to ethics, it's mere philosophical speculation

Arbitrary Lines-

concede this claim, it has no link to the argument, neither King nor Dawkins practiced veganism and are not credible sources. The evidence was shifted to try to favor pro's argument and should therefore be dropped in the debate." Mary

You are the one with philosophical speculation. How are MLK and Dawkins not credible sources? Just because someone isn't vegan, doesn't discredit them intellectually. Also, are the authors of all the links you provided vegan? By your train of thought we should discredit them if they aren't.

About 2000 characters left going to quote you less.


"Humane Washing-

http://www.qmscotland.co.uk......
This link gives multiple reasons as to why meat is good for humans, meaning that there is a reason behind killing animals (to eat) and is therefore not an "unnecessary harm"" Mary


Yes, meat can provide substance and is better than starving, yet we can receive all those nutrients on a vegan diet, especially with fortified foods and supplements.

You seem to miss the entire point of humane washing. Animals are still often mistreated. There will always be the conflict of interest between animal welfare and the profit motive.

There will always be studies that contradict each other. Yet, this is how science works. Some studies will find a strong correlation between cholesterol and heart disease and others will find none. Overwhelmingly the answer is becoming clear that vegetarians have an advantage over meat eaters. Remember the meat industry is huge and has lots of money to influence results.

As for the environment see these links. [6][7][8] If you use pasture raise animals you need a lot of acreage thus deforestation. Factory farming requires massive amounts of water and grain. Fishing is incredibly destructive. Vegan is clearly the environmentally superior choice.

Thanks for the debate I look forward to next round.


Sources.
5. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
6. http://www.greenpeace.org...
7. http://www.earthsave.org...
8. http://wwf.panda.org...
marymcnamara

Con

I will go line by line for the rebuttal, then extend my first argument

First my opponent gives a definition of absolutism but fails to explain why it is best for this round. Where's your warrant?

Then my opponents assumes I think the meat industry would be eliminated overnight, however my supporting evidence is specific to things like GDP and why the vegetarian and vegan industry would NOT be able to replace it. You have to disprove this warrant in order to gain ground because if there is no other SUSTAINABLE alternative to food production in the status quo, adopting radical veganism does more harm than good. In counter to environmental claims, here is a good article about the misconceptions of meat industry environmental harms, and justification to its use in diets. https://www.theguardian.com...

Then my opponent claims that meat would be outlawed when vegans were the majority. This is incorrect for several reasons. First, there are many real world examples of bad things that are in the minority and still legal such as cigarettes, dog meat, and duck meat. According to an article published in the last two years ( http://inhabitat.com... ) it is still legal in 6 states to eat cat and dog meat, meaning a federal ban of meat coming from cows and chickens is highly unlikely even in a pre dominantly vegan world.

Then my opponent makes to claims 1) that my impact and warrant don't match. This is not true, the reason humanity could not survive a vegan diet in this example had nothing to do with the health debate but the sustainability debate which I can't seem to get my opponent to answer directly. This article is excellent on this debate (https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com... ) and explains why things like the amount of healthy land able to be used is not sufficient and will not become sufficient, and all plant diet would use too much water to sustain the earth and itself, and many plants would not survive growing in industrial conditions which are the only conditions that would be able to produce enough in the first place. A worldwide vegan diet is unsustainable, end of story.

Then my opponent says that the developing countries impact doesn't make sense and that I am agreeing the world should become vegan. These are both incorrect. First, the exclusion of second and third world countries from the pro contention means the pro can never solve which, on the most fundamental level possible, is the point I was trying to make. Second, I am saying that the entire world WOULD HAVE TO become vegan to make any real change, but not that it SHOULD. That is why I am Con in this debate.

Then my opponent says their authors are credible and mine would have to be vegan to be credible. First of all your authors are not credible. You applied their philosophy to prove people should be vegan, but they themselves weren't meaning obviously they did not feel the need to apply there own philosophy in the way you are doing as the pro. Second, my authors would actually have to be meat eaters to be credible because a) most of them are writing from medical and moral standpoints and b) they must practice what they preach to be credible.

Finally my opponent addresses humane washing. I'd like to start off answering this by offering this article :
https://medium.com... (morality debate) . It gives empirical evidence as to how a vegan world would actually be a world more cruel to animals. The warrants are very long and I don't have enough characters to elaborate on them. I would also like to point out that my opponent has turned an argument they made on their own case into a reason to vote against them and that is this: logically, if meat is outlawed like a drug, prostitution, etc people would react violently and meat eating would become a violent merciless trade. Ever heard the expression "laws are meant to be broken" ?

On to extensions:

Extend all my health claims in round 1 including the counter claim I made at the very end. here are a couple of credible articles to contribute to the health debate:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com...
http://articles.mercola.com... (health factor)

Next extend source 5 from the last round which disproves some environmental claims my opponent made and actually gives environmental incentive to keep the meat industry.

Next extend my ethics argument. My opponent has failed to disprove that ethics are solely a human concept . This is critical for the debate because applying justice to animals serves no purpose if animals themselves cannot recognize it as justice. It is simply self serving for the pro.

Next extend my economy argument at the top of my con case. Any risk of damaging the meat industry's GDP, even with gradual transition, means you vote neg because it is still the biggest impact in this round.

Finally, and I'm only doing this because it has happened to me before, I'd like to clarify the next round is for rebuttals only. No new evidence should be submitted unless it follows a line of argumentation already established and does not make any new claims. If you accidentally make a new claim or something it should be disregarded but I won't be someone who claims to win the round because of it, since that does no good.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round 3 my opponent's arguments will be in bold and italics and mine in plain text.


"I will go line by line for the rebuttal, then extend my first argument

First my opponent gives a definition of absolutism but fails to explain why it is best for this round. Where's your warrant?" Mary

I already explained that animal cruelty is never justified. That is my warrant.


"Then my opponents assumes I think the meat industry would be eliminated overnight, however my supporting evidence is specific to things like GDP and why the vegetarian and vegan industry would NOT be able to replace it. You have to disprove this warrant in order to gain ground because if there is no other SUSTAINABLE alternative to food production in the status quo, adopting radical veganism does more harm than good. In counter to environmental claims, here is a good article about the misconceptions of meat industry environmental harms, and justification to its use in diets. " Mary

This is a little confusing, you seem to imply that veganism is not environmentally sustainable in addition to the economic penalty. First, justice is more important than economy. As I've stated before its unjust to slaughter animals. Mainly because its unnecessary.

I've read your link about Fairlie and it confirms the current agribusiness is inefficient. Then, goes on to talk about pigs eating parts of grains that would be composted. This is unconvincing, first composting replenishes the soil. It is not like the part of the grain that isn't used just disappears. Second, there's no figures to compare from credible sources.

"Then my opponent claims that meat would be outlawed when vegans were the majority. This is incorrect for several reasons. First, there are many real world examples of bad things that are in the minority and still legal such as cigarettes, dog meat, and duck meat. According to an article published in the last two years ( http://inhabitat.com...... ) it is still legal in 6 states to eat cat and dog meat, meaning a federal ban of meat coming from cows and chickens is highly unlikely even in a pre dominantly vegan world." Mary

Let's not get too sidetracked. We can speculate all we want about the future, but I don't think this is getting us anywhere.

"Then my opponent makes to claims 1) that my impact and warrant don't match. This is not true, the reason humanity could not survive a vegan diet in this example had nothing to do with the health debate but the sustainability debate which I can't seem to get my opponent to answer directly. This article is excellent on this debate (https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com...... ) and explains why things like the amount of healthy land able to be used is not sufficient and will not become sufficient, and all plant diet would use too much water to sustain the earth and itself, and many plants would not survive growing in industrial conditions which are the only conditions that would be able to produce enough in the first place. A worldwide vegan diet is unsustainable, end of story." Mary

Well first and foremost, this debate is about 1st world countries adults. Which is not a worldwide vegan diet. I didn't read though your entire warrant, but the only argument with teeth that I saw made was high quality crop growing land versus lesser quality livestock. The problem of course is a lot of animals are factory farmed, and being fed grain from high quality crop growing land.

"Then my opponent says that the developing countries impact doesn't make sense and that I am agreeing the world should become vegan. These are both incorrect. First, the exclusion of second and third world countries from the pro contention means the pro can never solve which, on the most fundamental level possible, is the point I was trying to make. Second, I am saying that the entire world WOULD HAVE TO become vegan to make any real change, but not that it SHOULD. That is why I am Con in this debate." Mary

Second and third world countries are not within the scope of this debate. I've seen this type of argument made before, that the difference would be negligible. Yet, look at the numbers by simply getting rid of factory farmed beef we can save a lot of water and free up a lot of crop land. Every drop of water counts.

"Then my opponent says their authors are credible and mine would have to be vegan to be credible. First of all your authors are not credible. You applied their philosophy to prove people should be vegan, but they themselves weren't meaning obviously they did not feel the need to apply there own philosophy in the way you are doing as the pro. Second, my authors would actually have to be meat eaters to be credible because a) most of them are writing from medical and moral standpoints and b) they must practice what they preach to be credible." Mary

I think regardless of the person's diet what really matter is are they correct? Justice is always important. Sure MLK was not vegan, but I think its wrong to confine his words just to the issue he was addressing. I think Dawkins is correct that humans have drawn an arbitrary line between animals and humans. What Dawkins eats is irrelevant to the correctness of the previous statement.

"Finally my opponent addresses humane washing. I'd like to start off answering this by offering this article :
https://medium.com...... (morality debate) . It gives empirical evidence as to how a vegan world would actually be a world more cruel to animals. The warrants are very long and I don't have enough characters to elaborate on them. I would also like to point out that my opponent has turned an argument they made on their own case into a reason to vote against them and that is this: logically, if meat is outlawed like a drug, prostitution, etc people would react violently and meat eating would become a violent merciless trade. Ever heard the expression "laws are meant to be broken" ?" Mary

Sadly, there is some logic to your statements about outlawing meat production. Just as many nations have lost the war on drugs, that making animals illegal to slaughter would create a black market. Yet, this fails to address humane washing. In fact, the words "humane washing" is not within the article. This is important, because there is virtually no difference between conventional and cage-free eggs.

"Extend all my health claims in round 1 including the counter claim I made at the very end. here are a couple of credible articles to contribute to the health debate:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com......
http://articles.mercola.com...... (health factor)" Mary

Mercola is renowned or being a quack. As for the healthyhomeeconomist it mentions that there is only 150 or so vegetables and plants. So what? How is that relevant? More importantly there is only like 5 animals we eat, and there is plenty of heirloom vegetables. Let's see chicken, pig, cow, turkey, and salmon. Far less variety in the animals we eat than 150.

"Next extend my ethics argument. My opponent has failed to disprove that ethics are solely a human concept . This is critical for the debate because applying justice to animals serves no purpose if animals themselves cannot recognize it as justice. It is simply self serving for the pro." Mary

Link 5 in previous round is Mercola the Quack. See my link 6 slaughtering the amazon.

The mentally challenged and comatose patients don't understand justice, yet you can't just slaughter one for meat. They have rights too. The idea that the animal must recognize justice seems arbitrary.

"Next extend my economy argument at the top of my con case. Any risk of damaging the meat industry's GDP, even with gradual transition, means you vote neg because it is still the biggest impact in this round." Mary

Justice trumps economy, there is no way around this. People were upset about abolishing slavery of humans. Somehow we survived the economic downfall. Thanks for debate, out of characters.

http://www.quackwatch.com...

marymcnamara

Con

There are three things this debate comes down to:

Impacts, evidence, and the morality/justice debate

Let's start line by line

First my opponent claims animal cruelty is never justified. I agree, but I also made the distinction in the first round between suffering and death, and my opponent has clearly conceded that there are moral alternatives to the pro case. Farming reform through legislation being amongst the best options. It has nothing to do with cattle ranchers or grass fed cows, but true reform that makes farming smarter and more sustainable.

Then my opponent attempts to discredit my Farlie link but completely overlooks it's most important arguments. Farlie cannot compare numbers because this country has never been on an all vegan diet and secondarily, Farlie discusses that the amount needed to plot that much vegetation and sustain it so it does not endanger consumers is not feasible. There are multiple warrants but I have limited characters and highly suggest that voters read the article for themselves.

Next my opponent says let's not speculate about the future and I agree, for the last round it's a waste of characters.

Then my opponent claimed that a majority of my environmental impacts should be disregarded because the pro case is exclusive to the first world. Here's where my opponent makes a major contradiction because then the impacts of justice and morality are completely taken away. If the pro case can act as an entity that has the power to gradually abolish meat in ALL first world countries, then choosing not to do the same in other parts of the world means my opponent is in a double bind that I discussed in round two. Then, I win the morality debate by at least keeping the status quo which would actually be more morally sound. That is where my opponent was confused in this debate.

In addition, my opponent has yet to answer any of my environmental warrants to what a vegan first workd is probelmatic such as water usage (mildly contested but never had any evidence or warrants to back it up) , amount of healthy and available land, amount of output required, and many of my links from the first round have also been overlooked. If anything, I don't need to win economy because I've already proved there is more than enough evidence that the plan will fail. It's sad that I was never able to get into a really good warrant debate about the environment. The only claim made that tried to challenge mine was that grain is composite or, but my opponent overlooks the fact that the amount of grain the U.S. produces is also unsustainable and would contradict efforts to create a absolute vegetarian diet in this country.

As for humane washing, it really is of no issue in this debate round. As long as impacts like black markets, second and third world countries lack of vegan diet, and inability to have sustainability outweigh it, there is no need to consider it as a major impact in the round.

In answer to Mercola, 1) he's a member of ACN, ANA, IABDM, and multiple health organizations that at least give him the minimum requirements necessary to be a credible source. If you don't want to accept that, then there is still no issues because the health debate is almost non existent at this point.

In answer to healthy homes the article talks about how when we industrialize plants, we will lose diversity. That's a serious issue because bio diversity is key to survival. I strongly encourage voters to read these articles, from both debaters, so you gain a better understanding of how the impact debate favors the con.

Finally my opponent made two comparisons. First they compared animals understanding of justice to comatose patients understanding of it, and as much as I find it problematic use that example, it does prove my point; animals have no mental capacity to underrand justice.

Next they compared justice outweighing the economy to the injustice of slavery. First of all, there are many published articles about capitalism and the incentive to improve the economy one of the most prominent reasons that the civil war was successful. I don't know if I can post new evidence since it's the last round but if you'd like an article or multiple articles comment and id be happy to provide them to you. Second, to compare the justice of freeing slaves to the justice of freeing animals is an insult to many people. Slavery is a human rights issue, becoming a vegan is not under any circumstance one that falls under that same category (for obvious reasons).

Here is the link to the animals will be worse off argument:
https://medium.com...

My final statement is this:

I have proved that the environment, the economy, and even the morality of our world will under no circumstance be improved with the pro case. To make it easy and simple, my opponent failed to correctly refute my best piece of evidence which talks about how animals would, if anything, be in more danger. Thanks for the debate..
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by marymcnamara 4 months ago
marymcnamara
Samcoder1 and opponent,

Nothing is black and white. I don't know how old you both are or what level of education you've completed, but that's a pretty straight forward idea that a person usually discovers early on. When it comes to debates like morality and diet, this concept applies. Never in the entire debate nor in the comment section did I claim that it's completely and absolutely wrong to be vegan because that simply is not true. But if we flip the coin, we find the same goes for your side of the debate. So now that it is over let's clear a few things up.

First of all, a vegetarian diet can be healthy but it can also be unhealthy. Factors like timing, health conditions, pre disposition to diseases, and so on determine whether or not it works out for a person. It is my honest opinion that even when we are talking hypothetically, not every adult in a first world country can adopt a vegan diet, even if it were timed out correctly (but I can't begin to conceptualize how that would possibly play out).

Second, morality is a concept that our race developed and so applying it to non human beings is difficult to do because the rationale to it is based upon something that isn't set in stone (that something being our own morals). Nature isn't the most attractive part of being alive, but it certainly is the most brutally honest. I agree that we tend to treat animals like dirt and that's wrong to do, but this plan takes animal rights to an extreme that is not supported by pure evidence. I promise I am hearing you correctly and I get what you are saying. If a vegetarian diet could work for me, I would definitely consider doing it.

But I urge you to at least attempt to compare and contrast the consequences of such a drastic plan, even before trying to fathom if it is realistic in any way. I am listening to you and I agree with you in places, but based on what I've researched and what I've learned, I do not believe you are right. Plain and simple.
Posted by Stupidape 4 months ago
Stupidape
"People can be extremely healthy whilst consuming meat as long as their diets are well balanced. Keep in mind human beings are omnivores, meat is an essential part of our diet. It provides us with natural nutrition that artificial substances cannot substitute completely." Letsdebate24

If you believe that after reading this debate that I have utterly and completely failed to make my points. Humans do not need to eat meat to survive. Any nutrition that can be gained from meat can be gained from vegan sources. Where in the world did you get these ideas that we need meat?

Read the below link, the scientific evidence is becoming crystal clear that we do not need meat. Vegetarian and vegan diets are the way.

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Posted by Samcoder1 4 months ago
Samcoder1
The article wasn't supposed to completely back up my claim, but merely show that animals do have a sense of morality. Indeed maybe they acquired this morality to avoid infighting however this by no means undermines my point. Just because these animals do not assert their morality to other animals, that does not mean it doesn't exist. Moralities vary, some better than others. It happens to be the moralities of these animals are atrocious in that they aren't based on suffering, but on whatever improves their own species.

Regardless I don't really see how having a morality is the be all and end all when it comes to causing suffering or reducing happiness. If you came across a creature that had no sense of right or wrong, no form of intelligence, the only feelings they are capable of are happiness and suffering, does that give us the right to induce the suffering? Would it not be right to stimulate the happiness and reduce the suffering? And if not, what could possibly be more important? Arguably the only thing more important is our own well being, which I don't think is improved enough to permit causing suffering.

This is the ethical case. Nothing to do with whether a dog knows the difference between right and wrong. If the killing of a dog for example is permitted solely because it can't distinguish right from wrong (to assume you are correct), then nothing stops us from torturing it. If you hesitate to torture the dog, there must be other reasons.

Regardless morality is quite clearly driven by evolution, and as organisms get more developed they establish more complex moralities. There's no reason to assume that morality only starts once one reaches the intelligence of a chimpanzee. As we can show with mice and dogs and elephants, it quite clearly can start at earlier levels, only the morality itself is less complex, and consequently less inclusive.
Posted by marymcnamara 4 months ago
marymcnamara
Samcoder1

I read the entirety of the article and there are some major flaws with it

First and foremost, the article itself concedes that even with current science it is very hard to prove or disprove the cross species morality of any of these groups, meaning that there still is no substantive evidence to back the claims you're making.

Secondarily, all of the animal examples they site in categories at the bottom only have evidence of being moral when it comes to their own.

Finally, here are some major quotes from the article that actually support my point.
"Moral codes are species specific..." Meaning we can still not eat dogs but eat cows if we determine them not morally bound for example.

"These rules help to control fighting within the group and encourage cooperative behavior" essentially, a large part of this article discusses that morals a) only apply to more aggressive species, which would exclude most species we use for food and that's) in animals it's only function is to prevent them from killing each other, not to elevate them on the food chain/intelligence level.

Essentially, your article doesn't say what you think it does.
Posted by Samcoder1 4 months ago
Samcoder1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

This link has plenty of examples that you can research further if you wish that imply that organisms have a sense of fairness and indeed justice within their own species. To say this sense of fairness doesn't exist because it doesn't extend to other organisms is a logical fallacy. If morality has an evolutionary advantage, then the development of said morality will be different with different species. We happen to have developed more, and so have a better morality.
Posted by Samcoder1 4 months ago
Samcoder1
marymmcnamara,

What does ecologically unsustainable mean? If a vegan world is ecologically unsustainable, it means that removing meat production would cause a significant fall in biodiversity world wide. Please post your proof of this. To the contrary, giving up beef allegedly will reduce the carbon footprint more than removing cars so it seems the unsustainable approach when it comes to biodiversity is to continue to increase the number of cattle. https://www.theguardian.com...

Sustainability for the planet includes the affects of greenhouse gases, like methane from cattle. Thus reducing the number of cattle will reduce the greenhouse affect, and so may contribute to saving the enormous number of organisms at risk from the changing climate. My point about diet is an ethical one, in that more humans (who's welfare you have claimed is of utmost importance) will have access to calories and so will reduce starvation and suffering.

Animals do not care for others because they need to. Unless you have proof of that, it is a non claim. There is a very good chance that they care for others because it would provide a survival advantage. It is entirely possible that morality is evolution driven. If it is, then that would explain the decreasing levels of morality as you move down the animal kingdom in terms of cognitive capabilities. We as humans have the ability to comprehend morality. Apes to a lesser extent, mice to an even lesser extent. However to say that humans alone have any grasp of morality is to ignore the evidence. Apes are different to other mammals, however in elephants and dogs also, food is shared equally etc. It is a logical fallacy to say that because other mammals do not think like we do, they therefore share none of our traits or abilities.

Animals may not care about other animals, that doesn't rule out a sense of morality. It simply means it is an early incomplete form
Posted by marymcnamara 4 months ago
marymcnamara
Samcoder1

My reasons for being moral have been stated and, unlike almost all of your claims, backed up with non bias and legitimate evidence. I have proof that 1) an all vegan world would be ecologically unsustainable and that 2) it would result in an increase in suffering for animals, specifically mammals. What part of that don't you get?

Second, what do calories have to do with the impacts of our debate?! Your entire thesis is morality and the health argument has been extremely minimal! For the third time I am not exclusively talking about sustainability in the context of diet, but instead (like most of my evidence for you and the actual debate round has stated) for the planet as well.

Finally, I understand where the confusion from the ape debate comes from. The point I have been trying to make is once again twofold. First, animals care for their own kind because they NEED their own kind whereas humans attribute it to things like religion, morality, and conscience. And even if you don't believe me or science, apes are very distinct from other mammals in their level of intelligence which you have yet to answer since we started this conversation. Secondarily, apes and mice don't go walking around with pets, or visit petting zoos. It's ridiculous that common sense can't prove to you what I have been saying; animals don't care about other animals. It's as simple as that.

Look, I get you're an animal lover, possible a vegan as well. But I don't think you truly realize how unrealistic the pro side of the debate is. There are so many alternatives that follow your moral standards, and even though I still don't agree that animals have a moral agenda or the ability to conceptualize justice, I do agree that the current meat industry has MAJOR issues and needs serious reforms.
Posted by Samcoder1 4 months ago
Samcoder1
Your reasons for being morally correct in this situation are that animals cannot comprehend right and wrong (Wrong as I will show), that animals may kill us, and so that gives us the right to kill them (However a pig or cow is not going to kill us except in very specific circumstances), and that due to predator and prey relationships, we have a duty to kill and eat animals (A world view that if taken seriously would amount to enormous suffering). It is madness to say that these reasons give you the moral high ground. One is completely wrong, another unlikely, and the third the antithesis of a moral world.

Sustainability is a moral argument. I think that it is clear that due to trophic levels and the loss of energy between them, we would obviously have more calories available for the growing population. It is less sustainable to have a rapidly growing population whilst feeding said population with a food supply that requires enormous calories going into it to get only a few calories out.

As for an example of morality, I have already cited the mice. Now I was wrong, as are you, to say that the mice show distress at the death of their own kind. This is not what the study said. What the study said was that mice showed GREATER distress at the SUFFERING of a familiar mouse to a stranger. As for the chimps, once again you have stated very clearly 'The human race is the only race that has ever shown tendency to care for each other' straight after saying 'apes caring for their own species only proves my point'. You have completely contradicted yourself. Now you can say "Ah but apes have similar neural structures to humans!" which is a fair point, but in your debate that is NOT what you said. You said that ONLY HUMANS are capable of morality.

Your argument is filled with contradiction.
Posted by marymcnamara 4 months ago
marymcnamara
*theyre
Posted by marymcnamara 4 months ago
marymcnamara
Samcoder1

If this is just the comment section then why do you draw out this conversation and why are your posts thousands of characters long?

To clarify you believe my stance is wrong, but your opinion doesn't make it wrong factually.

As for my moral compass it is on the right side. I have provided more than enough evidence in this debate and more than enough reasons to prove o am morally on the right side and I will not take up what little space I have in the comments to give you a detailed outline as to why that is so.

Sustainability is a moral argument , like it or not. It is my responsibility, or at the very least I feel it is, to care more about the human species than other ones. However even if we put all creatures on an equal playing field, I am still on the right side of the debate as I have said since the beginning of our discussion. Perhaps you should be the one to invite me to debate rather than criticizing me for answering your claims.

Finally, in answer to your question, no. I will not retract my claim because what I said is the pure truth. Give me one empirical example of how animalistic nature values morality and justice, and perhaps we will end up taking this beyond the comment section. But mice becoming a frightened by another's death and apes caring for their own species only proves my point. Naturally all species disregard those who aren't there kind. Symbiosis, meaning two species benefiting from one another's natural evolutionary advantages, is much different than someone walking by a homeless man and giving him money or even shelter. The human race is the only race that has ever shown tendency to care for each other or even other species and expect nothing in return. THAT is why you are simply wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Letsdebate24 4 months ago
Letsdebate24
StupidapemarymcnamaraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate by both sides. Both sides put forth very compelling arguments but I am leaning towards the way of con. People can be extremely healthy whilst consuming meat as long as their diets are well balanced. Keep in mind human beings are omnivores, meat is an essential part of our diet. It provides us with natural nutrition that artificial substances cannot substitute completely. That being said I do believe something needs to be done about the treatment of animals meant for food production. I believe the way they're treated is unacceptable but as to what the solution is I do not know yet. Hopefully someone will have that answer soon.