The Instigator
debateforfate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Craighawley215
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Humans killing and eating animals

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 2 votes the winner is...
Craighawley215
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 504 times Debate No: 56926
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

debateforfate

Con

Craighawley215: I'd like to challenge you to a debate on whether humans should slaughter and eat animals. As a vegetarian, I support animal rights and the con/against side that humans should not kill animals and eat them. Okay, good luck!
Craighawley215

Pro

I accept the challenge and wish you good luck!

I will be arguing the stance that killing animals for the purpose of meat production is acceptable or, at least, excusable.

I will not be arguing on the basis of ethics, as I will concede and agree that ethically, the slaughter of animals can be construed as inhumane in most cases. I will also publicly admit that I believe factory farming practices as a whole are inhumane and cruel to the animals.
I will, however be attempting to explain and defend the concept that humans need the essential nutrients that can be found in animal proteins, and that humans have adapted to eat meat, so our bodies are accustomed to eating animal proteins. I will also be discussing the economic and agricultural reasoning for the meat industry.
Finally, I will propose a reasonable argument regarding the repercussions of ceasing all meat production, and provide a theoretical scenario of what will happen to the agricultural industry, as well as the human population, if meat production were ended.

I will attempt to provide as many sources as possible, but much of my experience is of the firsthand nature, involving friends and family, and coworkers.

I look forward to a spirited and highly informative debate!
Debate Round No. 1
debateforfate

Con

debateforfate forfeited this round.
Craighawley215

Pro

Since Con has forfeited Round 2, I will refrain from posting an argument, so that Con is not at a disadvantage. Should Con forfeit Round three as well, I will be forced to post the entirety of my argument and suggest that Con shows poor conduct. I hope to continue our debate in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
debateforfate

Con

debateforfate forfeited this round.
Craighawley215

Pro

Since Con has forfeited Round 3, I will proceed to justify the killing and consumption of animals as a source of protein.

Biologically speaking, humans have evolved/adapted to be omnivorous creatures. Our bodies require the nutrients, specifically the fatty acids and proteins, that are found abundantly in animal meat. This is a valuable source of nutrition that contributes to our growth and insulation, both from injury and disease. The proteins and fats that come from meat are necessary to our growth, and sustenance. Without meat, the human race would not be the dominant species that it is today.

Economically, the meat industry allows proteins to be produced far cheaper, and more naturally than the produce industry. Meat can be produced organically, while produce crops are often exposed to genetic engineering as early as the seed stage, as well as pesticides and chemicals which can provide a synthesized version of vegetables, rather than a natural version. This manipulation can also lead to the breeding of diseases, which are then exposed directly into whichever market. One specific example is soy. Soybeans have been monopolized to a point where one organization owns approximately 90% of all soybean production, and has a patented, genetically altered seed. This is arguably the largest non-meat source of protein in the agricultural market, and it is a synthesized product, opening the door for many issues. Meat is also cheaper. Animals can be slaughtered throughout most of the year, providing a consistent and low price. Alternatively, most produce is subject to the restrictions of climate and geography, unless you take further measures to preserve them, driving up costs and opening up lanes for more risk.

Hypothetically speaking: What would happen if the meat industry were to cease production tomorrow?
Well, the first thing would be that at least half a million people would lose their jobs, and over 150 billion dollars in sales would be subtracted from the agricultural markets. Then there would undoubtedly be a chain reaction of lost jobs and profits while the economy and grocery markets struggled to balance themselves out. It would probably be at least a few years before any of this were stabilized, and millions of people's livelihoods would be at stake.

In addition to this economic imbalance, we would observe a direct correlation in the massive overdrive of produce production. The already monopolized soy industry would exponentially raise prices, as this would be the largest protein source after the meat industry ceases production. We would be forced to further alter many species of plants, so that we could pack as many unnatural nutrients into synthesized seeds. In the end, this would also take years of perfecting before it could be considered completely successful.

Finally, the meat industry consists of billions of animals, to a point of near overpopulation. Were the meat industry to cease, what would become of these animals? Where would they be housed? The risk of overpopulation would become a very real reality, and then what would happen to these animals as they died? Cattle-produced methane would pollute the atmosphere even more, and would farmers have to pay taxes on it?

Beyond the economic, agricultural, and ecological troubles, you have the realistic possibility that many people would not be capable of making this drastic change in lifestyle. Elders, certainly would struggle with the absence of animal proteins. Then there would be issues that would undoubtedly arise from the minimized synthetic proteins and fatty acids. It wouldn't be natural, and could potentially turn hazardous.

Once again, I will openly state that I believe factory farming is a terrible practice. However, it is not without purpose. People have every reason to eat meat, but I highly recommend that you do your research and know where your food comes from.
Since Con has forfeited this debate, I argue that they are displaying poor conduct, and failing to provide any argument worthy of winning the debate. I will be re-challenging the debate back to Con on another page. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gorant 2 years ago
gorant
I agree with Con though con couldn't debate as much as Pro. But Con has great positive intention towards animal rights. When it is not a selfish thing towards animal rights. Why can't we support to animal rights and Con.

Ex: usually we pray at god for our sake/good right! This is called selfishness. but praying for others is a great thing.

animals kills animals. because they don't know which is correct and which is not. If we also kills animals for our sake! what is it called? where is the difference between humans and animals !!!

What all I am saying is we should not debate on good things. because that thought itself good and correct. Being as a human let everyone live on this earth. equal to us :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
debateforfateCraighawley215Tied
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.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
debateforfateCraighawley215Tied
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 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: Forfeiture.