The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ThinkBig
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Factory farming causes Christianity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
ThinkBig
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 94870
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro


I've noticed a strong correlation between factory farming and Christianity. I can only come to the conclusion that factory farming causes Christianity. As seen here factory farming allows food to be grown cheaper and more conveniently allowing more time to spend promoting the Lord's ways.


That means that factory farming causes Christianity. Rather than wasting a lot of time buying organic produce and from local farming, a person can spend more time reading the Bible to himself/herself or a crowd. [0]


" If I search and buy local when it is available and preserve it for the winter, it doubles or triples the time I would spend on feeding myself from California and Arizona produce. That means I'd spend essentially all day just preparing food. As a computer programmer, I can earn 500 times the cost of that TV dinner or can of soup in the time it takes me to prepare food from local, fresh ingredients. That doesn't seem like a good investment of the "talent" God entrusted to me."


99% of the animals raised in the USA are factory farmed. [1] The United States is 77% Christian. [2]

Worldwide there are over fifty billion chickens. [3] Considering Christianity is the largest religion in the world with over two billion followers, it is safe to conclude that factory farming causes Christianity. [4]

Thanks for the debate.


Sources
0. http://www.christianitytoday.com...
1. http://www.aspca.org...
2. http://www.gallup.com...
3. http://www.animalethics.org.uk...
4. http://www.adherents.com...
ThinkBig

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Definitions

This will hopefully teach my opponent why definitions are important.

Christianity - A religion founded by Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century C.E. [1]

Causes: A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. [2]

Factory farming - A system of rearing livestock using intensive methods, by which poultry, pigs, or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions. [3]

With that, let's begin.

Rebuttals

Pro's argument is nothing more than a correlation-causation fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. For pro to meet his burden of proof, he must show that Factory farming causes (gives rise to) the religion of Christianity.

Arguments

My argument is very simple: Christianity has been around a lot longer than factory farming has, only being on the scene since the 1920s [4]. Therefore, the two do not cause each other. If anything, Christianity causes factory farming, not vice versa.

Sources
1. http://bit.ly...;
2. http://bit.ly...;
3. http://bit.ly...;
4. http://www.factory-farming.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

I've already shown how factory farming gives Christians more time to proliferate their religion. I will add by reduced costs of food allows for more money for building of more churches and sending more missionaries.

As for Christianity being around before factory farming, that is easily refuted by there can be more than one cause of Christianity. Just as there are many causes for cancer there are many causes for Christianity. [5] Therefore, my opponent argument amount Christianity existing before factory farming is a red herring. This is the equivalent of stating smoking of tobacco doesn't cause cancer because heterocyclic amines do.

I contend that I have met my burden of proof. Furthermore, my opponent mentions reverse causality.


"If anything, Christianity causes factory farming, not vice versa. " ThinkBig


I will defend my argument by claiming two way causality. An example of two way causality would be health and money. Being healthier causes you to earn more money which causes you to spend more on better health care. Having less health causes you to earn less money which causes you to spend less money on health care.

Another example is Co2 and temperature. Higher temperatures causes water to release Co2 into the atmosphere and higher Co2 in the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise.

The same is true of Christianity and factory farming. Christianity causes factory farming and factory farming causes Christianity. Christians put a low value on animals which causes factory farming. Factory farming in term causes Christians to have more time and money to spread their religion.

I have defeated all my opponent's arguments while reinforcing my own. Thanks for the debate.


Sources
5. http://www.cancer.org...
ThinkBig

Con

Thank you for your response.

Burden of Proof

Remember, for Pro to fulfill his burden, he must show that factory farming gives rise or gives affect to Christianity.

Defense

In my opening arguments, I showed that factory farming cannot be a cause of Christianity because Christianity far outdates factory farming. Pro writes:

"As for Christianity being around before factory farming, that is easily refuted by there can be more than one cause of Christianity. Just as there are many causes for cancer there are many causes for Christianity."

We are specifically talking about factory farming, thus any other causes are irrelavent.

My opponent's example of health and money also fails because he did not actually prove a correlation between the two. All what he did was make an assertion and failed to provide proof of his claims.

"The same is true of Christianity and factory farming. Christianity causes factory farming and factory farming causes Christianity"

Once again, this is a fallacy of correlation and causation. This would be like me saying that the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise. The two, while they might be correlated, the rooster's crowing certainly does not cause the sun to rise.

"Christians put a low value on animals which causes factory farming. Factory farming in term causes Christians to have more time and money to spread their religion."

This is a baseless assertion. Do Christians put a low value on animals? This has not been proven. According to Christianity Today:

"Proverbs 12:10, "A righteous man cares about his animal's health." And, seeing an end to animal cruelty is certainly a worthy goal, particuarly if Christian believers in our churches gain such a passion."

http://bit.ly...;

Conclusion

Pro has failed to prove that factory farming causes Christianity.

The resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Since this is the last round I will make no further arguments. My opponent seems to rely almost exclusively on me not meeting my burden of proof. As for the Bible, there are many contradictions. My opponent talked about a proverb that states Christians should strive to end animal cruelty. Yet, at the same time there are many examples of animals being mistreated in the Old Testament. Kosher slaughtering of animals being an example. The problem with using religious texts is that the two cancel each other. One passage says its moral, the other says its immoral.

Thanks for the debate.

ThinkBig

Con

"My opponent talked about a proverb that states Christians should strive to end animal cruelty. Yet, at the same time there are many examples of animals being mistreated in the Old Testament. Kosher slaughtering of animals being an example. The problem with using religious texts is that the two cancel each other. One passage says its moral, the other says its immoral."

1. Pro has failed to show that Kosher slaughter is in any way cruel or crueler than any other method.
2. Pro failed to give examples of contradictiosn in this case.

Thus, I urge a vote for con.

Factory farming does not cause Christianity.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 9 months ago
PowerPikachu21
@StupidApe If you don't want to have all of the Burden of Proof, you can write "BoP is shared" in Round 1.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The resolution claimed factory farming causes Christianity, but Con showed Christianity.began before factory farming. With this in mind, factory farming couldn't have caused Christianity. Therefore, the resolution is negated.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to reference specific arguments in their analysis. While the voter does so for Con's argument, the voter does not do the same for Pro's. Even if Con met the requirements for showing that Pro didn't meet his burden, it has to be established why Pro's responses failed to dissuade from that view.
************************************************************************
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
I'm still trying to think of a way that I could have phrased the debate, and for Con not to automatically win. Proving a correlation is very difficult. You usually need to prove a 1:1 ratio. Thus I can only conclude that there is no correlation nor causation between Christianity and factory farming.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
The reason a debate should be this way is simple. If the affirmative position doesn't not meet the burden of proof on the first non-acceptance round, that would be round 1 in this debate, then it literally gives Con nothing to do nor attack.

Think of an argument like a sand castle. In this case my sand castle was so weak it fell apart without Con's attack. A good debate is where Pro makes a sturdy sand castle that proves the point, and Con tries to do as much damage as possible to the castle. Afterwards, we see if the castle is still standing enough to meet the burden of proof criteria.

In other words burden of proof is checked twice on the affirmative side. Once before Con makes any argument and once after Con's arguments are finished. I failed on the first check before Con did anything.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
As I see it a debate works like this. Pro must met the burden of proof, then Con tries to tear down Pro's argument. Yet, half the time Pro doesn't even meet the burden of proof and therefore Con automatically wins.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
dsjpk5

I lost the debate by a great margin, though not for the reason you stated. There can be more than one cause of something.

Thinkbig

Even a correlation would be very difficult to win. Since factory farming is 99% and Christianity is 77% my own words proved there is no correlation between the two. Proving a correlation takes scholarly peer reviewed articles, I provided none, thus even if the resolution was correlation instead of causation I still would have lost even if my opponent conceded each round. This is because the affirmative statement has the burden of proof and I wouldn't have been able to meet the burden of proof.
Posted by ThinkBig 9 months ago
ThinkBig
Had the resolution been "There is a correlation between factory farming and Christianity," then your side would have been much better off as you just need to show a casual link between the two - regardless if they are connected or not.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
The main problem with this debate is I took on too much burden of proof in r1. I said cause, there is some argument that cigarettes don't cause cancer. This is because we can't force humans to smoke 100 packs of cigarettes a day that would be immoral.

So basically, all my opponent had to do was not concede and they would have won. They could have typed "hahahahahhaha I'm a troll each round" and still would have won. This is simply because the burden of proof is on Pro and I never got close to fulfilling the burden of proof. At best I proved a weak correlation.

Even if my opponent typed "I concede" each round they should have still won because of the extreme burden of proof I put on myself. I find the burden of proof easily the most important factor in most debates on this website. Often, neither party is able to meet the burden of proof, which means an auto loss for the affirmative position.

So, yes your vote is 100% correct with the burden of proof Warren42.
Posted by ThinkBig 9 months ago
ThinkBig
Thank you.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
I gave up when my opponent made the r1 argument about causation. I realized how much scientific evidence it takes to prove causation and that I couldn't possibly meet my burden of proof. Well played, Con you won in the first 1 round. The r2 and r3 arguments were bluffs, I knew I lost.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 9 months ago
warren42
StupidapeThinkBigTied
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: In the final round one of Pro's only concluding statements was that Con's major argument was that Pro did not fulfill his/her BoP. Pro did not then continue to state how he/she did fulfill his/her BoP, seemingly admitting that he/she did not. If one side is unable to fulfill their BoP, it is an automatic loss unless the other side also failed to do so, but Con was able to meet his through the following two arguments. Con wins causation-correlation and Christianity predating factory farming, and in turn the debate. The only argument Pro wins is that Kosher slaughter MAY be considered cruel, but this is defensive, merely suggesting Christians might not be against the concept of factory farming.