Is it okay to raise and slaughter animals?
Debate Rounds (4)
"Is it okay to raise and slaughter animals?"
I will be arguing that it is moral and okay to raise and slaughter animals, so long as it is natural.
Con will argue the opposite.
I take the position that it is perfectly morally acceptable to raise say, cattle, for the express purpose of chopping it up for food. The same goes for chicken. It is estimated that Americans eat around a 1 ton of food (1,996 lbs) every year. Of that 1,996 lbs of food, some 186 lbs are made up of meats" first place goes to Dairy Products, at 632 lbs, another animal product.
A chicken, for example, has almost no brain. The majority of its brain functions happen at the brainstem. Mike the Headless Chicken is a prime example of this. Those who say, "chickens are inquisitive and interesting animals" are fools. Humans are "inquisitive and interesting animals". My Aunt once kept chickens in her backyard farm, and they were so stupid they would occasionally become hypnotized by sticks. We would go out and trick them into staring at long bright things, and they would literally just lay there, staring brainlessly at the brightly colored object.
Acclaimed Director Werner Herzog on Chickens:
I have no qualms about seeing an animal that stupid instantaneously killed and served as food. Chickens are so important to the entirety of the human appetite that any attempts at moral argument are laughable. When it comes to the idea of mass farming, we must realize that as a whole, our population size and societal appetite for meat has left farmers with few choices but to mass farm. It"s not really a decision, so much as it is a necessity.
I'm not sure how to respond to that...
I meant farmers, not the average Joe.
That leaves me with a large space to write in, so, I'll fill it with a poem, because screw it:
I have eaten
that were in
you were probably
they were delicious
and so cold
- William Carlos Williams
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gtcmoulder 2 years 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro's stance that raising animals to eat and use for clothing is normal and necessary. Pro had much better spelling and grammar. Pro actually had something to say, while Con had almost nothing to say and came across as stupid and uninformed, and not sure what the topic was, although Pro stated the topic very clearly.
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.