The Instigator
kingkd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Briannj17
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Factory Farming is morally superior to dogfighting

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...
Briannj17
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 717 times Debate No: 84213
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

kingkd

Con

Select Winner, 2.5k
No new arguments last round. Pro will post an argument Round 1

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc.)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. The BOP will be shared
10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss


Intorduction

I was thinking one day and came to think, "Why is dogfighting considered so much worse in society than factory farming?" Pro must prove factory farming is morally superior, Con must prove they are equal or dogfighting is morally higher.

In other words, no reason for dogfighting to be banned if factory farming isn't.

I await pro arguments.
Briannj17

Pro

Moral is defined as, concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
https://www.google.ca...

I claim that dog fighting is just as bad or worse than factory farming.

1. Factory farming makes more jobs than dogfighting. This is because it is so widespread and there is Moe demand for food than the entertainment of dogfights.
http://www.buzzle.com...

2. Factory farming serves more purposes than dogfighting. Including food, money and jobs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://greengarageblog.org...

3. Obviously less risk of debilitating injury is involved in factory farming than dogfighting since the dogs are used to fight and spill blood instead of make meat.
https://www.aspca.org...

4. It is a terrible form of Grammer to say something is more moral than something else. What is immoral is simply wrong. Either right or wrong you can't be more wrong or less wrong. Dogfighting is definitely immoral. However the benefits are obvious in factory farming.

These are my arguments for this round. It should be obvious that factory farming benefits mankind more than dogfighting ever will. Therefore factory farming is either equal or "more moral" than dogfighting. I look forward to my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
kingkd

Con

kingkd forfeited this round.
Briannj17

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
kingkd

Con

kingkd forfeited this round.
Briannj17

Pro

Extend again.
Debate Round No. 3
kingkd

Con

kingkd forfeited this round.
Briannj17

Pro

In conclusion, I just want to say vote pro, for my arguments haven't been rebutted. I was hoping for a great debate however it was rather sad. As for me my name is Brian N Johnson, this debate is now over.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Sorry, misspoke. Meat has a lot more iron. To get your necessary iron, you have to overeat your grain, which involves an excessive amount of intake of carbohydrates, which is really unhealthy. I actually looked up the protein thing to explain, but grain doesn't have the full set of amino acids. Vegetarians have to eat the right foods in order to get their full amino intake, or they have to make sure the foods they're eating complete the amino intake. Grain doesn't have the 9 amino acids we need to get from food for a complete protein: http://www.popsugar.com...

As for the morality thing, sentience doesn't inherently mean anything significance. I mean, the fact that we can have complex thought processes doesn't mean we have moral significance. It's the way inanimate objects interact to create something that can make decisions. Besides, there's philosophies that would argue that suffering is good, like Neitzche.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago
Dookieman
@Jonbonbon

For me, sentience or the ability to have feelings is what grounds moral consideration. Since plants and cells permanently lack sentience, they do not have moral status. However, human beings and other animals are sentient and therefore are entitled to protection. What's the moral significance of having feelings? I'd argue it's because beings that possess sentience care about their own welfare of whether their lives go good or bad.

If I care about my own happiness and suffering, it seems like I should also care about other's too.

As for objective morality, meta-ethics is not something I'm familiar with. Thus, I can't give you a philosophical proof of its existence. My opposition to factory farming doesn't merely rest on my feelings. I believe there are strong arguments for why it should be abolished.

I don't know why you claimed there is no iron in grain or that it doesn't give you the necessary protein. That's obviously ludicrous.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Well my point about it being moral for us to kill the animals is just from a logical standpoint. I mean what is a living being other than a complex organization of molecules? Everything can be broken down into the basic elements eventually.

There's nothing particularly special about it. What makes us above plants, for example? Plants are technically alive, and they don't have a central processing unit. However, they have an organized system of operation one could call instinctual. What about cells? They're a complex organization of elements, but bleach and alcohol are perfectly fine with us.

I mean, why does morality favor an arrangement of atoms and molecules more complex than another? And because it does, can't you say that because we're higher developed than animals, can we say that we're morally superior in the same way that it's not immoral to break a celery stick?

I mean, I'm sorry you feel disgusted by me. But I see my position as logically justifiable. I mean, what can you honestly use to prove that a sort of objective morality governs us? Why does it matter what you personally feel when it comes to regulations? Reason is the only thing we can use, but reason says that the only thing significant about life is that it's cool. It's not morally superior in any way to something non living.

And grain doesn't give you iron or a lot of the other nutrients we get from meat (there's probably others, but I'm far too lazy to look that up). And it doesn't give you the necessary protein. I mean, you can probably use other foods to get complete proteins, but meat is the most efficient way to get protein.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago
Dookieman
For example, when a lagoon filled with farm animal waste is flooded by rain, it goes into rivers which kills fish.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago
Dookieman
@Jonbonbon

We would actually be able to feed more humans if we stopped killing animals for food.

If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million. [1]

Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [2]

http://news.cornell.edu...

I didn't see you responde to my point about livestock production being a huge contributor to climate change.

I fundamentally disagee with your claim that factory farming "isn't really a bad thing." Honestly, how can you even say that? It breaks my heart to see my fellow human being say something so callous.

I realize the purpose of farm animals currectly is for them to be killed for human consumtion. But how does that at all show what we do to them is permissible?

Yes, all animals will eventually die of something. But, other things being equal, isn't it better to die later rather than earlier? Animals used for food are killed at a fraction of their natural lifespan, and therefore are deprived of all the good experiences their life otherwise would have had. Cows, for example, are killed at 18 months of age but can live up to 15-20 years.

Your claim we are justified in killing animals because humans are the most fit animal sounds rather elitist or that might makes right. I don't see how us being the most advanced species gives us permission to inflict needless suffering and death on other sentient beings. Moreover, factory farms do disturb outside population of animals.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
@Dookieman: my point is from the perspective of pragmatism and utility. Every non vegan eats factory farmed meat. There are not enough fruits and vegetables in the US to support everyone being vegan and having a proper diet. Eliminating factory would most likely lead to the starvation of everyone lower class and under (it would certainly lead to the deaths of all homeless people), and all middle class individuals would be forced into the lower class, because food that's not factory farmed meat costs a lot.

It would lower the quality of living for everyone except the rich whom could afford to live without factory farmed meat.

Plus, factory farming isn't really a bad thing. Animals serve a purpose, and we breed animals that are purposed to be eaten. When you think about it, all animals essentially meet the end of being eaten whether before or after natural death. It's how nature works. In order to support our population, we need to create populations of animals that are purposed with death. That's just speaking from a darwinistic standpoint. We are the fitter animals that use lower animals for food in an efficient way that doesn't disturb the outside population of animals.

Factory farming is currently necessary for the continuation of the general American populace.
Posted by kingkd 1 year ago
kingkd
There is a debate if factory farming is moral. If morality is subjective it is the Pro burden to prove that factory farming is more moral. I disagree with that and challenge the morality of factory farming
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
In which case there is ample evidence of the opposite being true.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Last time I checked morality is subjective. So either my opponent has created a truism. Or is claiming that dogfighting benefits the world more than factory farming.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago
Dookieman
@AWSM0055

Hello. Like I mentioned earlier, factory farms torture and kill fifty six billion land animals every year. Dogs used for fighting don't even come close to that number. So, factory farming causes more suffering and death than dog fights.

According to the USDA, almost a million chickens are boiled alive every year when they miss the neck-slicer and go, fully conscious, into the water bath that is used for feather removal. [1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Last time I checked, no dogs used for fighting are boiled fully conscious like chickens used for food.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
kingkdBriannj17Tied
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: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro. Pro was the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Pro by default.