Factory farming causes Christianity.
Debate Rounds (3)
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. 
" 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.  The United States is 77% Christian. 
Worldwide there are over fifty billion chickens.  Considering Christianity is the largest religion in the world with over two billion followers, it is safe to conclude that factory farming causes Christianity. 
Thanks for the debate.
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.
This will hopefully teach my opponent why definitions are important.
Christianity - A religion founded by Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century C.E. 
Causes: A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. 
Factory farming - A system of rearing livestock using intensive methods, by which poultry, pigs, or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions. 
With that, let's begin.
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.
My argument is very simple: Christianity has been around a lot longer than factory farming has, only being on the scene since the 1920s . Therefore, the two do not cause each other. If anything, Christianity causes factory farming, not vice versa.
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.  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.
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.
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."
Pro has failed to prove that factory farming causes Christianity.
The resolution is negated.
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.
"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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.