The Instigator
Caploxion
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
braffle
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It should be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat

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...
Caploxion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 42935
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Caploxion

Pro

Should it be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat?

Firstly, before I even go into the stipulations of this debate, I would like to set the definition of sentience:

Awareness; feelings

A cow is sentient because it can become aware of you stroking it gently, and perhaps feel good as a result. A cockroach is not sentient as it may or may not be aware that you’re standing over it (it can sense you, yes), but it certainly would not, as far as we know, feel good when you stop standing over it (i.e. insects are animals, but not sentient animals).

I would like to make the reasonable assumption that animals do suffer, and not have to get into lengthy discussion as to whether a dog yelps when struck on the head with a shovel because it is suffering, or whether a cow might not suffer when being skinned alive (without the external influence of drugs). I think it is generally accepted that animals suffer (at least the sentient ones), so I am going to make this part of the assumed information for this debate, especially so we don’t waste time.


First round for acceptance
Second and third for arguments and counter-arguments as you see fit
Last round for summary and counter-arguments (no new arguments)


Any questions about changing the rules for this debate should be asked in the comments section prior to debate, or else you are bound by the rules set.

I wish for my opponent to be challenging so that we will both enjoy this debate.
braffle

Con

I accept your debate. Good luck and happy holidays!
Debate Round No. 1
Caploxion

Pro

I thank my opponent, Braffle, for accepting this debate, and I recirpocate the season's sentiments to him and anyone reading this.


Suffering is bad

Suffering, in itself, is a bad thing. This can be determined by simply asking any sentient, rational being the question: "in a world where there is only suffering and non-suffering, which would you prefer?" Some may argue that suffering can be good if it means to strengthen character, or if to suffer less in the long-run. However, without any kind of context, with this dichotomy, we can determine that no rational being would ever pick suffering over non-suffering. Thus, suffering is bad (unless there is reason to suffer).

Animal suffering is bad

Animals that have meat, like humans, have feelings. If it is bad that a human is suffering to an extent, than it is equally that if another animal is suffering to that same extent. It is irrelevant how intelligent the animal is, whether it did something silly to make itself suffer, or how much ‘better’ humans are than other animals (humans are animals too). It is the suffering that is bad, and as to whom or what is suffering is of no consequence.

I will now argue that the suffering simply isn’t required. So, specifically, let’s look at Hilal meat were it is a requirement that the animal suffer before death (the slicing of the throat, followed by a draining of blood etc.). Clearly, the suffering inflicted of zero benefit (religious benefit, to be precise) and could be avoided by putting the animal to sleep beforehand. Thus, when it comes to the mass consumption of animal meat, suffering should never be a requirement in terms of both morality and practicality.

Killing animals is morally wrong

Let’s say that there was a woman sleeping, and that you found yourself hungry. So, you inject her with a poison that causes her no suffering, but kills her. You then begin to eat her, which was the reason for you killing her. It this moral? Clearly, it is not, because of the imposition on another sentient creature’s life for personal gain. If the woman was killed so that she may suffer less, and that she gave consent in a stable state-of-mind, then that killing could be considered moral, but such was far from the case. Similarly, putting a cow to sleep before killing it is not moral, as it is imposing on its life for personal gain and without consent.

Therefore, killing animals for their meat, under any circumstance, is immoral and should be considered as such.


Non-human animals do not have rights

This seems to be a favourite counter-argument of my opponents, and it is in fact a straw-man of my position. I will now demonstrate it to be a straw-man.

Animals not having rights means that animals do not have basic human liberties (the right to vote, freedom of speech etc.). However, it is not from having a right that a non-human animal should not receive suffering, rather, it is by experiencing suffering and having humans recognise that it is suffering do we, as humans, have a moral obligation to prevent suffering wherever we see. Suffering, by itself, is always bad, regardless of what or whom is experiencing it. Furthermore, if the non-human animal were put to sleep and killed, then the imposition on life would be immoral as the non-human animal would surely resist death should it have been awake and understanding of the impending death, meaning that it has not consented.

With the context of being required to be eaten in order to sustain human life, humans still understand the burdens of suffering and imposition on life they could inflict, therefore it remains immoral to kill a non-human animal for personal gain.



Conclusion

Killing animals for their meat can bring suffering to the animal, which makes the act wrong. It is also wrong to impose death upon another sentient creature without consent and for personal gain, which should make it immoral even if the animal is asleep (i.e. a lack of pain does not mean that an animal is consenting or that taking advantage of it is justified). It is from human capacity to understand suffering and imposition that we are morally obliged to act in accordance; non-human animals do not have 'rights' per say, but they do have sentience which should be respected.
braffle

Con

I will first state my information and use the next round to refute my opponents information.

I regret to inform you that you have stumbled into a debate with an agriculturists. I have grown up around agriculture throughout my entire life. I have encountered cattle first hand multiple times.

To begin, I will state what will happen to cattle if released into the wild (If you are implying that agriculturists in the area give up the land that has been in their families for tens of generations, or the alternative, mass transporting them to another country with rural land that has not been claimed. Or the alternative, to keep them and raise them for no gain. (I will get to that later.)

Let's simply say that all agriculturists gave up their pastures (for cattle) and the meadows (for growing hay and feeding the cattle). Let's just forget the millions of dollars invested in the land and the hundreds of thousands of hours all of the family has invested in putting up fences, moving cattle, branding. They also just so happen to give away all their cattle in which a single calf, which happens to be selling point for many agriculturists in the area is around $1.5 per lb. An average calf weighs around 400-600 lb., depending on the age of the calf. Also, agriculturists in the area have around 10,000 head of cattle. If you do the math the total amount of livestock that will simply be sent out into the unknown is $4,000,000-$6,000,000 dollars not counting the full grown cattle that weigh around up to 1,500 lbs. Which totals up to a whopping $15,000,000 dollars. Now since you so intent on comparing individuals to animal I will compare your salary to roughly which on average for most Americans is $2,820,300 in an entire lifetime! Doesn't compare to the quantities of livestock you suggest to just give away! We are just scratching the tip of the iceberg though.

Let's examine this silly little scenario, we'll start with if all the agriculturists just got up and gave up all the land they owned. These animals are now wild. American people want meat. People living in rural areas would no doubt grab their firearms and possibly fire multiple times on the cow (depending on their aim) which will undoubtedly cause much more pain than any 'lethal injection' which would absolutely never happen especially while an animal is sleeping to be more humane. The alternative to the situation is wild animals in the area: snakes, coyotes and other carnivorous animals tear the cows and bulls limb from limb and eating them alive. Causing PAIN AND SUFFERING, in fact much more pain and suffering than any low caliber round to the head (this is how they kill the livestock in order to butcher them) ever could.

Now we'll examine if an animal were shipped off to a completely remote area. Not including the price to the organization transporting them by boat, train or other means of transportation. No, I'm not up for seeing the new hit blockbuster Cows on planes. lets randomly select two continents and say that's where they were exported. No help from humans whatsoever.

Okay, so I placed all seven continents into a randomizer and the results were Africa and Australia. Let's begin with Australia.

Before I begin this silly little part of our journey I'd like to name a few fun facts about the continent Australia!
  1. Some spiders are larger enough to shrug off a bullet!
  2. The barrier reef contains more digested surfer remains than any other continent's or country's coast.
  3. There are 619 venomous deadly 'sentient' animals to one Australian.

If, all the livestock were placed in a rural area they would no doubt die within a month, tops. Never being exposed to the wild the livestock would be mortared with neurotoxins, toxins, poisons, venoms, etc. That's all I have to state on this topic. They would die.

Now Africa, there are multiple regions for these animals to be shipped to but let's narrow down even more into the safari. Where humans, as well as deadly animals, insects and arachnids would no without hesitation feast on such an animal. And what do we have now, we have cows on the endangered species list. So we capture them and place them in a zoo so the agriculturists who just shipped them off a month or two ago, go visit them in a zoo, where they are in a much more confined spaces reproducing so they are populous again and can be released back into their natural habitat? What natural habitat? I always thought a cow's natural habitat was inside a fence. Since we can't do that let's ship back out to some uninhabited country again to die out. So we can repeat the process. Yes?


Silly idea in the first place.

This equation is probable with all domesticated livestock. All you have to do is plug in a different animal.

Now let's go into what would happen if we just continued to hand out more money to feed cattle and move them for no reason to different pastures so they don't overgraze and kill themselves by starving. The cattle would become so populous after all the effort to keep them alive with absolutely no gain, that they would literally be eating more pasture than we have. They would become mad with starvation, tear down their barriers and eventually overgraze those areas and again become over populous and kill themselves off again. What can we do though, we can't kill them for their own good. I believe that if you could ask a livestock animal if it would rather starve to death, get shot multiple times, get torn in half by predators or actually die peacefully, that would be it's choice. Wouldn't it be yours?

Now I will begin my statements as to why the human body needs the valuable protein found in meat. We get from livestock everyday.

Behind water, protein is the most commonly found substance in your body. When you consume food it is broken down and converted into amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids and they all have the purpose of keeping your muscles strong. So eating meat is encouraged unless you like sitting down at the table with a big plate of celery and ensure on the side. Most bodily functions are dependant on protein that is consumed.

Without protein, you will find yourself feeling ill and experiencing an extreme case of muscle atrophy. Muscle Atrophy is defined as the decrease of muscle in the body. If you are not aware, muscle is quite important to how you move and do everyday tasks. It is evident that protein is needed in the body. Here is a graph of My plate, which recommends meat in your daily diet. It is highly recommended by nutrition experts and doctors to follow this graph.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net...

and an even more realistic form.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net...

In conclusion,

No agriculturist would give up the land they have invested so much money and time in. They definitely would not give up their cattle to a completely foreign environment. In the event that this did happen they would die very quickly. I also went over the obvious problem of overpopulation of livestock. I slightly touched on how protein is needed and how it is highly recommended among doctors and nutrition experts to eat protein in your diet. And to reiterate I believe that if you could ask a livestock animal if it would rather starve to death, get shot multiple times, get torn in half by predators or actually die peacefully, that would be it's choice. Wouldn't it be yours?

Thanks to all, and to all a big juicy steak!

Sources
http://www.cracked.com...
http://www.cracked.com...
http://wiki.answers.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.bing.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Caploxion

Pro

Counter-arguments

“To begin, I will state what will happen to cattle if released into the wild”

This is a non-sequitor if we regard what I have argued. It is wrong to assume that if we are not to eat cattle, that they would automatically be released into the wild, as instances where it would not follow are possible. Furthermore, I would argue that this would be the wrong thing to do (which is, ironically, what you are implying), as the cattle would, most likely, be torn apart in the wild and suffer greatly as a result. To put it simply, I have not argued for this.


“If you are implying that agriculturists in the area give up the land that has been in their families for tens of generations, or the alternative, mass transporting them to another country with rural land that has not been claimed”

My argument is that you don’t kill them to eat them because it should be considered morally wrong. Families that have been harvesting cattle for ages don’t have to give up their land, they just have to not kill animals in order to eat them.


“Let's just forget the millions of dollars invested in the land and the hundreds of thousands of hours all of the family has invested in putting up fences, moving cattle, branding.”

In the past, people have been used as slaves for business. Would you honestly say that it would be wrong to stop slavery? No, because slavery is morally wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s a tradition or if a great amount of money is being generated, the business should be considered immoral. It doesn’t even matter if the solution is highly costly or somewhat impractical, killing animals so that you can eat them still should be considered morally incorrect.


“Let's examine this silly little scenario, we'll start with if all the agriculturists just got up and gave up all the land they owned. These animals are now wild. American people want meat…”

This and the argument that follows are both void because:

1) Agriculturalists do not have to give up their land

2) The animals do not have to be released into the wild

3) Regardless of whether people want meat, it should be considered wrong to kill animals for their meat



“Now we'll examine if an animal were shipped off to a completely remote area. Not including the price to the organization transporting them by boat, train or other means of transportation.”

Look, if the costs are such big problem, then perhaps the government help out so that the last cattle on the planet (assuming that no-one wants to breed them) are treated morally. But again, this is not an argument against the moral position I have argued for, it is simply a ‘well, this isn’t really cost-efficient for the farmers’.

“…If, all the livestock were placed in a rural area they would no doubt die within a month, tops…”

We, as humans, are morally obliged to take care of them, according to my argument. Once again, this counter-argument follows as a non-sequitor from my argument, and therefore, does not contradict my argument.



“Now let's go into what would happen if we just continued to hand out more money to feed cattle and move them for no reason to different pastures so they don't overgraze and kill themselves by starving. The cattle would become so populous after all the effort to keep them alive with absolutely no gain, that they would literally be eating more pasture than we have.”


The government of the country could help subsidies the cattle’s existence, and the cattle can be stopped from reproducing so that the problem does not become permanent.


“I believe that if you could ask a livestock animal if it would rather starve to death, get shot multiple times, get torn in half by predators or actually die peacefully, that would be it's choice. Wouldn't it be yours?”


You let them die of natural causes, or kill them if they are suffering greatly. Clearly, putting a cow, say on top of a volcano for it to die relatively quickly, is not to allow it to live its life, and it is certainly not its choice. It can still die peacefully without having to be killed for your hungry stomach.





“Behind water, protein is the most commonly found substance in your body. When you consume food it is broken down and converted into amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids and they all have the purpose of keeping your muscles strong … to how you move and do everyday tasks. It is evident that protein is needed in the body. Here is a graph of My plate, which recommends meat in your daily diet. It is highly recommended by nutrition experts and doctors to follow this graph.”

While there are certainly benefits to eating meat (practicality, nutritional value etc.), the moral harm of imposing suffering and or death upon an animal still remains. Besides, ‘In vitro meat’ is an alternative to animal harvesting that provides most of the benefits of meat without having to harvest animals. It involves producing meat through test-tube means. As to the cost involving production, government subsidisation could help overcome the costs. Regardless, killing animals for their meat should be considered immoral based on the moral framework I have provided, which, again, has NOT been addressed.

Conclusion

My opponent has committed the non-sequitor that if it should be considered to kill animals for their meat, that the farmers will lose their land and that they have to get rid of their cows. The farmers can keep both, it’s just that they cannot morally kill the cattle for their meat. My opponent, in fact, has only argued that it would be costly, annoying, contrary to tradition etc. to stop killing animals for their meat; he has not argued that it is moral or provided counter-arguments to mine. He has continued to argue that the problem is that the animals would die if they were left to run in the wild, when my argument EXPLICITLY states that we have a moral obligation to prevent suffering, thus his counter-argument is negated – his counter-argument is an extension that cannot follow from mine.

Furthermore, my opponent has failed to address the framework of my moral argument, since he merely argues the impracticality of farmers and the necessity for humans to eat. Even if these two things are true, it still should be considered morally wrong to kill animals for their meat. Therefore, my moral framework remains uncontested.

braffle

Con

As I spoke before, "I will first state my information and use the next round to refute my opponents information." My opponent has failed to recognize this single sentence stating, "he has not argued that it is moral or provided counter-arguments to mine." Therefore, I will use this round to provide counter-arguments that I specifically said I would use this round to do. Implying that my opponent may have simply skimmed through my information.

Let's begin with round two and refute round three afterwards.

"
Suffering is bad


Suffering, in itself, is a bad thing. This can be determined by simply asking any sentient, rational being the question: "in a world where there is only suffering and non-suffering, which would you prefer?" Some may argue that suffering can be good if it means to strengthen character, or if to suffer less in the long-run. However, without any kind of context, with this dichotomy, we can determine that no rational being would ever pick suffering over non-suffering. Thus, suffering is bad (unless there is reason to suffer).

Animal suffering is bad

Animals that have meat, like humans, have feelings. If it is bad that a human is suffering to an extent, than it is equally that if another animal is suffering to that same extent. It is irrelevant how intelligent the animal is, whether it did something silly to make itself suffer, or how much ‘better’ humans are than other animals (humans are animals too). It is the suffering that is bad, and as to whom or what is suffering is of no consequence.

I will now argue that the suffering simply isn’t required. So, specifically, let’s look at Hilal meat were it is a requirement that the animal suffer before death (the slicing of the throat, followed by a draining of blood etc.). Clearly, the suffering inflicted of zero benefit (religious benefit, to be precise) and could be avoided by putting the animal to sleep beforehand. Thus, when it comes to the mass consumption of animal meat, suffering should never be a requirement in terms of both morality and practicality."

My opponent has clearly established that suffering is bad. He seems to stray form the topic though, I would like to focus on those sentences as to where he explicitly stated in Round 3. "My opponent has committed the non-sequitor that if it should be considered to kill animals for their meat, that the farmers will lose their land and that they have to get rid of their cows." When my opponent speaks of committing a non-sequitor he has clearly done the same thing for an entire two paragraphs in which he states that suffering as well as animal suffering is "bad". I have experienced first-hand with my personal exposure to agriculture, that cattle do no suffer when they die. They are shot and instantly killed with no pain.

"Therefore, killing animals for their meat, under any circumstance, is immoral and should be considered as such."

My opponent has stated that killing an animal for their meat is wrong under ANY circumstance. I would like to take advantage of that bold claim. I know that a carnivorous, starving sentient animal would without a doubt kill a human. So what is stopping us from doing the same? Did we give that wild dog permission to kill us and eat us? I would assume not.

Also, since my opponent has failed to specify I would like to focus on another topic. You say it is wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat. I would find it extremely immoral if we killed sentient animals and not utilized as many body parts as we could like we do so today.

Now I will examine Round three.

"My argument is that you don’t kill them to eat them because it should be considered morally wrong. Families that have been harvesting cattle for ages don’t have to give up their land, they just have to not kill animals in order to eat them."

Like I stated earlier cattle would
1.Become overpopulated.
2.Overgraze and die

You seem to have a solution for that and I will examine it now. You stated, "The government of the country could help subsidies the cattle’s existence, and the cattle can be stopped from reproducing so that the problem does not become permanent." This sounds extremely immoral from my stance. Not being from a rural area you do not understand that a mass operation such as this would be extremely difficult. A cow is not going to stand still while it is made sterile. Take it from personal experience.

My favorite part of the refutation to my statements is comparing raising cattle to slavery. It is stated here

"In the past, people have been used as slaves for business. Would you honestly say that it would be wrong to stop slavery? No, because slavery is morally wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s a tradition or if a great amount of money is being generated, the business should be considered immoral. It doesn’t even matter if the solution is highly costly or somewhat impractical, killing animals so that you can eat them still should be considered morally incorrect."

This is how slavery and raising cattle is different. We do not make cattle do work, we feed them regularly and keep them healthy, move them to different areas so they do not overgraze. Cattle are not abused and they die peacefully. Where as in slavery, slaves were forced to do work, fed very little and were unhealthy. Therefore, we are comparing an apple to an orange.

My opponent has constantly my statements do not support the moral part of this argument. I do not see how they have not. I have pointed out how it is immoral to take away what an entire family's life has revolved around for hundreds of years. I have also pointed out that it is immoral to simply keep cattle from reproducing. My opponent has failed to specify on many parts of my argument that I will quote now. These statements were otherwise ignore, unread or avoided.

1. That I gave all possible scenarios not just for animals being shipped into the wild, I also gave examples of what would happen if they were taken care of.

2. My opponent has also failed to address the face that even will government funding no amount of money will keep these cattle from overgrazing. Even if this would happen isn't our government in enough debt where as they shouldn't have to keep cattle alive with no benefit whatsoever to the American people or themselves. It sounds immoral to fund a cause with no return profit.

3.My opponent has again failed to address how it is morally right to let an animal die painfully by natural causes instead of being kept in a safe environment and being peacefully killed when it reaches it's mature age.

My opponent has also spoke of an alternative method to get protein called "In vitro meat." He has failed to cite any sources for this so called vitro meat so I will cite. This method also is extremely costly to produce and we won't see it for another decade. So how do we get our protein for an entire ten years while we raise cattle for no reason and get lacking funds from the government to sustain them. Although it is inevitable they will overgraze and have nothing left to eat. Which no amount of government funding can prevent. Cattle that starves to death sounds completely immoral. Also, if an animal dies we should harvest it's meat not let it rot on the ground. Also, cattle usually do not die of old age. When they die of natural causes often they are diseased. Making their meat unhealthy for consumers.

Conclusion

I have address my opponents arguments in this round and will extend my refutations to the next round. I have addressed the immoral part of the subject in which I have addressed how it is immoral to let cattle be killed by: starvation, predators and disease. Where they may be killed humanely without suffering. Where as my opponent's only argument is it doesn't matter about money or people's entire lifestyle. All that matters is suffering is bad. Even though livestock is killed peacefully.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Caploxion

Pro

“"My opponent has committed the non-sequitor that if it should be considered to kill animals for their meat, that the farmers will lose their land and that they have to get rid of their cows." When my opponent speaks of committing a non-sequitor he has clearly done the same thing for an entire two paragraphs in which he states that suffering as well as animal suffering is "bad". I have experienced first-hand with my personal exposure to agriculture, that cattle do no suffer when they die. They are shot and instantly killed with no pain.”

Before I address the latter part of my opponent’s argument here, I would like to highlight that he has not addressed the criticism here, rather using the logical fallacy of ‘tu quoque’ to say that I have also committed the non-sequitor. This does not excuse his own logical fallacy, even if I have committed one.

Furthermore, my opponent has straw-manned my argument in that he suggests my argument said that suffering was bad, therefore animals shouldn’t be killed for their meat. Clearly, I made an argument against the imposition of killing animals, which is a required part of my argument – it is the combined suffering and imposition that make it immoral.



“I know that a carnivorous, starving sentient animal would without a doubt kill a human. So what is stopping us from doing the same? Did we give that wild dog permission to kill us and eat us?”

This is not moral philosophy. This is simply: ‘he did it to me first! I should have every right to do it to him!’



“I would find it extremely immoral if we killed sentient animals and not utilized as many body parts as we could like we do so today.”

Obviously, you would have to kill them in the first place in order to make use of their body parts. However, if you killed them to save them the burden of having to live in agonising pain, and then made use of their body parts, this would be moral. It’s simply that you can’t kill them for their body parts – the intention makes it immoral.

From round 3…


“1.Become overpopulated.”

How will they become over-populated if they are not allowed to breed?


“"The government of the country could help subsidies the cattle’s existence, and the cattle can be stopped from reproducing so that the problem does not become permanent." This sounds extremely immoral from my stance. Not being from a rural area you do not understand that a mass operation such as this would be extremely difficult. A cow is not going to stand still while it is made sterile. Take it from personal experience.”

Extremely difficult =/= immoral. You consistently argue differing levels to which my argument is difficult to enact, when this isn’t all that relevant to a moral debate.

“This is how slavery and raising cattle is different. We do not make cattle do work, we feed them regularly and keep them healthy, move them to different areas so they do not overgraze…”

You missed the point. The point is that both were considered ethical at one point, but this doesn’t make either of them moral. You appealed to popularity, so I showed why the popular thing isn’t always the moral thing.



“I have pointed out how it is immoral to take away what an entire family's life has revolved around for hundreds of years.”

They are doing the wrong thing in the first place. If someone had a black-market industry of selling pre-teen prostitutes and super-hardcore drugs, that had existed for more than 100 years, it would obviously be the right thing to abolish the awful business, despite the livelihood being generated from it and whatnot.


“I have also pointed out that it is immoral to simply keep cattle from reproducing.”

I would like to borrow David Benatar’s Asymmetry for a quick response.

(1) If a person exists, then his/her pain is a bad thing.
(2) If a person exists, then his/her pleasure is a good thing.
(3) What does not exist cannot suffer (therefore this non-existing pain is a good thing).
(4) What does not exist cannot be deprived of any pleasure (therefore this non-existing pleasure is not a bad thing).

Therefore, it is immoral to reproduce, given that not bringing sentient animals into existence should be preferred; therefore, it is not immoral to stop cattle from reproducing. Besides, my opponent no convincing reasoning as to why it is immoral to stop animals from reproducing.



“1. That I gave all possible scenarios not just for animals being shipped into the wild, I also gave examples of what would happen if they were taken care of.”

You continue to address the difficulty of stopping the mass slaughtering of cattle, when the moral aspect is far more relevant in a debate on morals. Even if it would be very difficult to deal with the cattle, it would still be the moral thing to cease slaughtering them for their meat, let alone preventing it on a mass scale.



“2. My opponent has also failed to address the face that even will government funding no amount of money will keep these cattle from overgrazing. Even if this would happen isn't our government in enough debt where as they shouldn't have to keep cattle alive with no benefit whatsoever to the American people or themselves. It sounds immoral to fund a cause with no return profit.”

Again, this is another argument against the difficulty of it, and you wonder why I didn’t bother addressing either of these. If you want to argue against the difficulty of implementing something moral, go do so away from a debate about the morality of harming animals.



“3.My opponent has again failed to address how it is morally right to let an animal die painfully by natural causes instead of being kept in a safe environment and being peacefully killed when it reaches it's mature age.”


From what you suggested, the imposition on life would be immoral (i.e. breeding cattle so that we can eat them). It wouldn’t be moral to knowingly let an animal die painfully; when did I ever argue the opposite? I haven’t yet addressed these arguments because they are either an appeal to difficulty (rather than morality), or a straw-man of my position.


“My opponent has also spoke of an alternative method to get protein called "In vitro meat." He has failed to cite any sources for this so called vitro meat so I will cite. This method also is extremely costly to produce and we won't see it for another decade. So how do we get our protein for an entire ten years…”

I couldn’t find any credible sources on In Vitro Meat (and nor has my opponent in quoting Wikipedia), so I will drop this argument . However, my opponent assumes that protein can only come from meat products. This is simply not true. Tofu is extremely rich in protein.



Conclusion

My opponent continues to centre his argument on the difficulty of stopping the slaughtering of animals for their meat, rather than the moral aspect. As this is the case, a lot of his argument has seriously diminished value in a debate about the morality of killing animals for their meat. Again: difficult =/= immoral. In the few places that he does address my moral framework, he either straw-mans it or misses the point.

For example, he concludes that [according to me], “All that matters is suffering is bad. Even though livestock is killed peacefully.” There is a section I wrote that is headed with the title: Killing animals is morally wrong,which involves explaining how killing animals for their meat is morally wrong, even if they don’t suffer. This is, once again, an example of another straw-man.

braffle

Con

braffle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by N0yer 3 years ago
N0yer
We (as humans) have harvested cows for so long that if we release all the cows now, they would die out in the wild because they really do not know what to do anymore. I am not saying im a pro or a con here, just seeing how this debate will turn out.
Posted by Caploxion 3 years ago
Caploxion
Thank you, Skepticalone.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
But what is feeling? What is emotion? Is emotion not a result of chemicals in your head being released as a response to certain external stimuli? By that logic, a right to life is determined by whether or not your body produces certain chemicals.
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Skepticalone
Good luck, Cap!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
CaploxionbraffleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and excellent debate. Obvious win for Pro, and excellent debate.