The Instigator
KatelynnChambers
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Moral Argument: Meat Eating

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 10 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,344 times Debate No: 13653
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (46)
Votes (10)

 

KatelynnChambers

Pro

The consumption of animal flesh by modern human beings is morally wrong.

Humans have moved beyond the necessity of killing and eating animals for food. We have socially evolved beyond eating other animals.

In ages gone by, humans have had to struggle against the wilderness. Every scrap of food was precious, and every hunt could mean life or death for the tribe or family. Eating animals was an absolute necessity for survival.

But today, modern humans living in developed countries aren't 'struggling against the wilderness' anymore. Modern humans have it easy. We walk into clean grocery stores, and select pre-made foods in shiny packages. Foods that we did not grow, produce, or hunt for ourselves. Just about everything we need is readily available to us, and is usually just a short drive away.

Socially, humans have evolved, and our pattern of life has transformed. We can create living spaces that suit our aesthetic preferences. (architecture) We can now travel faster and more efficiently than ever before. (modern transpiration) Most modern humans have outgrown barbaric religious practices. (such as human sacrifice)
And yet, we humans continue to cling to an outdated and unnecessary practice: killing other animals and eating their bodies.

*1. Animal flesh is NOT necessary to the human diet.
Studies have found that diets based on plant material provide everything that a meat based diet provides. PDF, American Dietetic Association: http://www.vrg.org...

2. Studies comparing vegetarians and meat eaters have found that eating less meat or no meat at all lowered the risks of certain diseases, including heart disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: http://www.ajcn.org...

3. Intense suffering is inflicted to reap this unnecessary product: ASPCA, "what is a factory farm?" http://www.aspca.org... Clips from the film "Death on a Factory Farm" http://www.vegansoapbox.com...
Such suffering CANNOT be morally justified when it is wholly unnecessary.

4. Whatever your view on the intellectual level of animals, what 'food animals' must endure while trapped in the modern meat system is barbaric and wrong. It has been documented that certain food animals, especially pigs, are exceptionally clever, and fully capable of perceiving pain and responding to suffering, much like ourselves. Dr. Donald Broom of Cambridge University: http://proquest.umi.com...

If a vegetarian diet provides everything a human needs to survive, how can we humans morally justify the suffering inflicted on the sentient animals we insist on eating?
Mirza

Con

Thank you and welcome to this site. I would like to make it apparent that the stance of Pro is that it is immoral to eat animal meat, despite what the resolution might indicate.

-- Arguments --

Is necessity the only thing which makes something moral? Nay. It is not necessary for humans to drive cars, but we do it. It is not necessary for humans to fly aircrafts, but we do it. It is not necessary for humans to do many things that we do regardless. Therefore, a moral permission does not require a necessity. Moving on, my opponent said that we do not struggle against wilderness anymore, because food is already packed for us. Without intending to hurt my opponent, I must say that this argument is weak. Just because not all of us "struggle against the wilderness" does not mean that eating animals is immoral. I personally have not struggled to produce my computer, but I do use it. In fact, right now I am using my friend's.

Next, my opponent says that after all what we have achieved, we still continue to kill animals and eat their bodies, which she believes is an unnecessary and outdated practice. I will come into this, but I will address her four numbered points first.

1. I agree that you can live without meat, but it depends on what you mean by the word "necessary." It is not necessary for survival, but it can be necessary for the sake of one's health. Fish, for instance, are good sources of vitamin D and omega-3 acids. There are many arguments to be made on this, but it does not matter; I do agree that one can survive without meat, although it can be beneficial to the health.

http://www.animalag.org...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://www.eurekalert.org...

2. I thank Pro for the link, which says, "Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined."

I want to make it clear that although vegetarians might be more healthy in general terms, it might not be merely because they refrain from eating meat. If someone wants to refrain from eating something as delicious as meat, he/she needs to do quite a lot to change his/her lifestyle, which is why vegetarians might have healthier lifestyles than meat eaters, simply because they have though a lot about that. Carnivores do not necessarily think of changing their lifestyles for health benefits, and might just continue eating too much meat as they got used to throughout their lives.

3. There are many schools in which the children "suffer" from lack of oxygen or due to bad hygiene. Does it mean that schools are bad? No. But since my opponent placed a distinction between necessary and unnecessary, I agree that my analogy is not the best, but neither is her argument. It is sad that animals are not always treated well, but that is no good argument against the morality of eating animals. You can treat animals well and eat them later on.

4. Once again, I agree that animals suffer and can experience emotions. However, I want to clarify that my opponent looks at modern studies of animal suffering. It was previously thought that animals could not experience emotions, but now, research suggests the contrary. All fine, but I want to see how Pro responds to modern studies which I will elaborate on.

Numerous new studies suggest that plants can feel pain. It was previously though that plants were neither alive nor able to experience pain. Some religions who say that nothing should be harmed are obviously erroneous, because plants do get harmed, and they do feel pain.

"Research scientists at Baylor Medical Center have proven that plants, including vegetables, feel pain when subjected to trauma such as being yanked out of the ground, peeled, cooked, and eaten." http://www.department13designs.com...

"Now with modern day equipment, plant physiologists are beginning to understand much more about plant movement. It has been confirmed that the impulses Burdon-Sanderson detected are indeed action potentials similar to those in animals, they are also now beginning to unravel the molecular and cellular reasons of the ability of plants to respond to touch." http://www.gardenseeker.com...

"In his research in plant stimuli, Bose showed, that plants responded to various stimuli as if they had nervous systems like that of animals. He therefore found a correlation between animal and plant tissues. His experiments showed that plants grow faster in pleasant music and their growth is retarded in noise or harsh sound. Bose came to the conclusion that plants can 'feel pain [and] understand affection.'" http://scienceray.com...

"Researchers from Michigan State University have discovered that plants have a rudimentary nerve structure, which allows them to feel pain. According to the peer-reviewed journal Plant Physiology, plants are capable of identifying danger, signaling that danger to other plants and marshaling defenses against perceived threats. According to botanist Bill Williams of the Helvetica Institute, 'plants not only seem to be aware and to feel pain, they can even communicate.'" http://www.collegian.psu.edu...

To conclude, there is no doubt that plants are alive, and they too feel pain. My opponent argues strongly by stating that animals feel pain, which is why it is wrong to harm them, but we never avoid harming anything if we refrain from eating animals. Only if we refrain from eating anything whatsoever, we will not "harm" the nature. It is not outdated to eat meat, but to say that plants do not feel pain. It is saddening, because they do feel pain, but are different to animals, which is why some people might not take the pain of plants seriously. Morally speaking, there is no difference between eating plants and eating animals. If my opponent is truly sympathetic, she will also refrain from eating plants - which I discourage, of course. My case stands clear; there is no need not to eat animals, because plants also have feelings.
Debate Round No. 1
KatelynnChambers

Pro

Hello, and thank you for the welcome! I hope this debate will be interesting and stimulating for us both!

1. First off, your argument that 'necessity is not the only thing that makes something moral' is very weak.

You used examples of inanimate objects (computers and airplanes) and compared them with 'using' (here meaning eating) animals.
Eating an animal is VERY different from driving a vehicle.

Sure, you may not 'need' to drive a car, but the car does not suffer or die if you drive it.

In contrast, if you eat a pig, NO MATTER how "humanely" you kill it, it WILL suffer to produce the meat product that you do not need. (and humanely is in quotations because it is always judged by a human's definition)

2. "Vegetarianism may not necessarily be healthier because of the exclusion of meat from the diet" True! Vegetarianism may NOT be healthier in all aspects when compared to meat based diets. However, my argument focuses on necessity. If vegetarians often come out on top in health studies, then REGARDLESS of whatever other health measures they take to better their wellbeing, then it probably follows that: a vegetarian diet alone, without added health benefits, is at LEAST equally healthy as a meat based diet, and thus can support and sustain a healthy human being.

(plus, most vegetarian/meat comparison studies take smoking, drinking, and exercise into account. A good example is the Seventh Day Adventist Health study, in which, after making allowances for said unhealthy habits, vegetarians still had the winning side.)

Also, you mentioned meat being a good source of certain nutrients. You used fish as an example , fish being rich in omega three fatty acids. But is that fish the ONLY source from which you could reap said nutrient? NO.
Nuts and seeds supply ample amounts of this nutrient. And you do not have to kill a sentient being in order to get them.
That is the main point: If you can get the nutrient WITHOUT killing, why kill? If you are killing just because ‘it tastes really good' you are being selfish, and causing other animals to suffer for mere taste preferences.

3. Your third point was a little difficult to make out, so if this is a correct response, tell me; I don't want to misunderstand your point! :)

The assumption that you can eat them (animals) and still treat them well is WRONG.
This is because, no matter how much love you bestowed on the animal while it lived, no matter how much you endeared yourself to the animal, and no matter how 'nice' the animal's living quarters were, you need to KILL it, end its life, to serve your own selfish purpose. (the selfish purpose being: eating the animal's flesh, even though you do not NEED it.)

Let me ask you a question.
I'm not sure if you own a dog or not,
but, saying you did. Lets' say you owned a yellow Labrador (to give you a mental picture)
You loved and cared for that dog for, let's say, 2 years.
2 years is long enough for the dog to reach his adult weight and build.
However, on his second birthday, you take him outside to the backyard and chain him up so that he can't escape. You deliver one quick, well aimed shot and he drops dead. You then take him inside and skin him, cook him, ect ect.
You kill your dog and you eat him, even though there's a perfectly good can of black beans sitting in the cabinet behind you, from which you could easily reap protein without killing your dog.

Would this situation be moral to you?

Secondly, People who eat animals are morally responsible for the state in which they live. Whether or not they are aware of how they live.

There would not BE factory farms, if meat did not need to be MASS PRODUCED to supply the equally massive demand. (hence the name 'factory farm')
Simple law of economics: where there is a demand, there MUST be a supply, otherwise, the product would not be made on the scale that it is produced.
Thus, when you stroll into the grocery store, and instead of selecting some lentils and breadcrumbs to make protein-packed veggie burgers, you instead choose a pack of raw ground beef, you are making an impact on how animals live. People often forget just how POWERFUL the consumer really is. If consumers slowly stopped eating meat, factory farms would start going out of business. Slowly, less and less animals would be mass produced. (here meaning genetically modified and aggressively bred through artificial insemination) Therefore, the entire meat system as we know it today would slowly die off as the demand dropped.
This is the relationship between corporation and consumer.
Even though the guy in the grocery store buying chicken legs for his weekend barbecue probably never struck or killed an animal in his life, he is morally responsible for the death of the animals he is eating, because his direct financial support of meat growers makes the meat (and, in conjunction, the cruelty and killing) possible.
Factory farms couldn't do it without us.

4. As for your fourth point, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the argument "you think it's wrong to eat animals, but plants have feelings too!"

Wrong!

Plants may have sensitivities which we humans may not yet fully comprehend, but do plants have a central nervous system? Do veggies have brains? Does celery scream when it is cut open? (sure, there may be a survival-mechanism reaction in the plant, but the plant does not have a brain! It does not have a spinal cord! It does not have nerves!) Does the said vegetable remember the pain of being sliced open, and reflect on it?
No.
Without a developed central nervous system (brain and spinal cord as the bare minimum) an organism CANNOT 'feel' the way an animal such as pigs, humans, dogs, chickens, cows, ect. ect. feels and responds to stimuli.

Thank you for responding to my debate, I look forward to more conversation with you!:)
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

-- Rebuttals --

1. Is my argument weak or is my example weak? They are different. My argument is that a necessity is not the only thing that makes something moral, and my example is that cars, for instance, are not essential, but we use them. Of course, I am not comparing cars to animals at all. I merely use an example to support and strengthen my argument. Moving on, even if animals have to suffer so that we can eat them, there is nothing wrong with it. Lions eat gazelles, anacondas eat birds, etcetera. It is natural, and we humans have every right to make use of this natural right, too.

2. If a person lives an unhealthy life, such as not sleeping enough, not being active, not eating healthy food, etcetera, then a great move toward vegetarianism does help that person a lot in choosing to live a healthier life in other aspects than food only. If one can give up meat for the sake of his health, then it usually takes other things into the whole process, too. Of course, there might be exceptions; it might be that studies suggest that vegetarians are healthier in general terms, but I do not see a conclusion yet whatsoever. Eating a lot of vegetables is not equivalent to eating a lot of meat, and a lot of meat is not very good. However, if people who eat meat do that in moderate amounts, then I think that we will not see significant differences between meat eaters and vegetarians. And there a lots of advices on how to eat meat in healthy ways:

http://archive.supermarketguru.com...
http://health.usnews.com...
http://www.meatami.com...

3. Excuse me, but my natural instincts tell me that I do need meat, despite your disagreement. Of course, I do not have an "essential" need for meat consumption, but some people actually do, especially those who need proteins due to protein deficiencies, for instance. Meat might be their only available medicine. Moving on, the dog example is weak. First and foremost, I do not eat dogs nor does my religion permit the meat of dog for consumption at all. However, if we replace dog with cow, then my answer to the question is 'yes.' I do think that it is moral to kill the cow and consume it, because I need to survive. There is no difference between killing a cow and killing a plant. I am sorry if that contradicts outdated science.

In regard to factory farms, I must say that my opponent wasted time and character space writing that. I know that demand is important, and my argument is clearly that demand of meat is moral and there should be no prohibition on it. I have no need of protesting against meat consumption. However, I am against mistreatment of animals, as long as it is possible to treat them well. But eating them is moral, because humans need to eat something to survive - and plants are alive, thank you.

4. "Wrong!"

Excuse me, but I am right.

My opponent, very unfortunately, makes a horribly immoral and improper implication that just because something does not scream, it is not wrong to kill it. It is mendacious. There is no excuse to such a claim. What if a person is born deafblind, and is paralyzed on his face? What if he suffers from several disorders which makes it hard to see how much the person suffers even if he does not show many signs of suffering? Is it moral to mistreat such an unfortunate person? Of course not. Then why do we need to hear plants cry in order to feel sympathy for them? Yes, we might not be used to new scientific facts, but such is reality. Plants to suffer, and just because you do not see them cry with the naked eye or do not want to acknowledge the fact that they cry is your own problem.

Also, plants do have a specific nervous system.

"Although plants are generally immobile and lack the most obvious brain activities of animals and humans, they are not only able to show all the attributes of intelligent behaviour but they are also equipped with neuronal molecules, especially synaptotagmins and glutamate/glycine-gated glutamate receptors. Recent advances in plant cell biology allowed identification of plant synapses transporting the plant-specific neurotransmitter-like molecule, auxin. This suggests that synaptic communication is not limited to animals and humans but seems to be widespread throughout plant tissues." http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de...

Further references:

Plants have feelings: http://www.collegian.psu.edu... and http://www.uncoveror.com...
Plants cry: http://www.canada.com... and http://www.livescience.com...

Unfortunately, my opponent dismisses very important scientific research, and makes a very immoral argument regarding the feelings of plants. I see no reason why we should kill plants and eat them, but treat animals perfectly well, such as by not consuming them. Plants have feelings and can even cry, then what more do we need to look for? Do we need to see them grow brains and tell us that they are alive, when modern scientific research shows that they are? Just because they are different makes it no less moral to consume them in preference to consuming animals. Yes, it is saddening when an animal is mistreated, but plants can also be mistreated. They are different, but reality does surprise us. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
KatelynnChambers

Pro

Hello again! Sorry for the later reply, the Holidays have me busy! 
1.Yes I did mean that your argument was weak. While your examples were easiest to point out for their lack of common ground with the subject (living animals vs. inanimate objects such as computers) your argument was a bit weak at its core.

I think it IS wrong to inflict suffering or take lives without NECESSITY.

I know that each person has a different perspective on morals- which is why debating morals is difficult: there are so many gray areas! However, generally, I think people would agree that killing WITHOUT a specific need is wrong. So that it where your argument is weak: it is difficult to support killing if there is no need for it.
Also, a comparison between lions eating gazelles and humans eating animals is very weak. This entire debate is about the morality of eating animals WITHOUT a need. Lions NEED to eat gazelles. If they did not, they would ultimately die. End of story. There are no Smart Dogs or Garden Burgers available for them. They must kill to get the nutrients they need to survive.

Humans, however, live on a different plane. Humans have shaped their own reality, and have, in most countries, conquered the struggle for survival to a point where the average human is well fed without hunting or growing anything of his own.

2.Yes, I concede to your point. On its own, vegetarianism may not be healthiER than a meat-based diet.
However, I think we can both agree that a vegetarian diet, well planned (not just eating pizza and bagels all day) provides everything a human being needs to live and be well. Thus, it supports one part of my thesis: we don't NEED meat to live.

3.As for the first part of your third point: Obviously, people who have some rare physiological disorder and HAVE to eat meat, or they will suffer for it fall under the category of NEEDING meat to survive, and thus they are not part of this debate.

This debate is about the average modernized human, who buys food at a grocery store, and does not have any rare diseases which prevent him for going vegetarian.

Moving on, my dog example was not weak at all. It was set up purposely to show you the inconsistencies of most people's views on animal welfare. WHY would the answer be "YES" if the animal was a cow, and "NO" if the animal was a dog?

Surely, a cow has every right to life that a dog has? Both have brains, both have spinal cords, and both have emotions and memories. Just because the dog is the one sitting underneath the table at his master's feet, and the cow is the unfortunate soul ON the table does not make the cow any less worthy of being spared.
Why is there such a moral inconsistency there? It's ok to kill and eat cows, but it's not ok to kill and eat dogs?
If you went to India, you would find people who eat dogs because it is socially acceptable to eat dogs in that country. But here in America, we eat cows instead.
If you told an Indian person that we Americans eat pounds and pounds of cow flesh, he/she would probably be appalled, as most Indians do not consume the flesh of a cow. (the cow is considered sacred in India)
You see? Just as we are appalled by Indians eating dogs, they might be equally put out by our eating cows. So, it is all about social perspective. There is NO moral difference between eating dog meat and eating cow meat, only the social taboos we as Americans attach to the former.
DOSCLAIMER*(This is not an argument to prove that eating puppies is ok, this example is only to illustrate the absurdity of such moral inconsistencies. All animals have a right to life, be it dog, cow, chicken, or human.)

4.Lastly, the plant argument. I did concede that plants have sensitivities and internal structures about which humans know little. However, without a brain, actual neurotransmitters, and emotions, I will not favor the plant's life over an animal's life.
It is not about whether "the plant is able to SHOW suffering or not" Of course I would respect the rights and feelings of a vegative person, because that person, however incapable of responding outwardly, has everything going on inside him that I have going on inside me. He has a brain, he has a spinal cord, he has neurotransmitters, and he has been proven to possess developed emotions and thought processes, whether I can tell by looking at him or not.
"plant-specific neurotransmitter-like molecule"

This shows that they are talking about a plant SPECIFIC, neurotransmitter-LIKE molecule. These are not fully developed neurotransmitters, like you would find in a bird.

So, when it comes right down to it,
Given a choice to eat soybeans, which have neurotransmitter-LIKE molecules, and "attributes of intelligent behavior" but no brain,
VS.
A pig with a fully developed brain, real neurotransmitters, and emotions (not "attributes of intelligent behavior")
I am going to eat the soybeans and spare the pig's life, hands down, no contest!

As a final point:
Basically, this is a comparison of a human's desire to eat meat, with the animal's suffering:
Human: Does not need meat to survive. Some meats can be a good source of certain nutrients, yet he can easily obtain the same nutrients from plant sources. However, he/she WANTS to eat the meat. Be it for convenience, familiarity, or taste, the only reason the average modern human has to eat meat today is selfish WANT.
Animal: However well he/she is treated before slaughter (and seeing as something like 90 percent of American meat is produced on a corporate level: FACTORY FARMED, you would be hard pressed to find well-treated meat animals. Farmforeword for stat: http://www.farmforward.com...) the animal must die when she/he reaches what humans deem 'market weight'. And for what? So a human can have bacon on their BLT sandwich instead of veggie bacon. Simple taste preference.
That's the gist of it.

In the beginning, humans had to kill in order to survive. It was kill and provide meat for the table, or STARVE.
Now, we have evolved (socially) to a point where we do not need to kill to live.
So, my question is,
Now that we have removed the need for killing, why continue to do it? Why inflict suffering, why end lives, when the only cause for it is:
"Well…It tastes good and. I've eaten it all my life, and…It…MAN DOES MEATLOAF TASTE GOOD."
(Making a little humor there, but you see my point, I'm sure. We are killing to satisfy our own selfish wants. )
Mirza

Con

Greetings. I have short time to respond, so if I missed some points, I apologize in advance.

-- Rebuttals --

1. My argument was not weak. It basically says that for something to be moral, it does not have to be necessary. It means that although cars are not necessary, they can be morally permissible for usage. Similarly, animals can be morally permissible even though they might not be essential (depends on who you ask). I am not comparing animals to cars, but moral permissibility of one case and another, although they are different, but are the same concerning moral permissibility.

2. Regarding need, some humans do need meat in order to function well, and I said that earlier, too.

3. My answer regarding a dog and a cow is basically the same, except that I wanted to replace dog with cow because I do not want to eat dogs for many reasons, but the argument regarding eating either is the same. My opponent's long argument about why it is not wrong to eat dogs if it is not wrong to eat cows has nothing to do with what I actually said. The principle is the same: eating animals. I merely said cow and not dog because I personally loathe dog-meat, and so does my religion.

4. "However, without a brain, actual neurotransmitters, and emotions, I will not favor the plant's life over an animal's life."

I am sorry, but this is a horrible argument. Plants do have emotions. Do you cry out of no reason? No. Plants have emotions, and they are different, but they still feel emotions, pain, fear, etc. Moving on, my opponent said, "This shows that they are talking about a plant SPECIFIC, neurotransmitter-LIKE molecule. These are not fully developed neurotransmitters, like you would find in a bird." Well, the argument for birds is the same, my friend. They have a human-"like" brain. They have a human-"like" blood. It means that although we are very different to birds, the fact that they use their brain in a similar way (hence "like" us), means that we need to give them certain rights, am I correct? Yes. That is what my opponent agrees with. Similarly, why ignore the feelings of plants because they have different ways of feeling emotions? That simply does not hold water.

5. "Given a choice to eat soybeans, which have neurotransmitter-LIKE molecules, and "attributes of intelligent behavior" but no brain,
VS.
A pig with a fully developed brain, real neurotransmitters, and emotions (not "attributes of intelligent behavior")
I am going to eat the soybeans and spare the pig's life, hands down, no contest!"

Fine. It means that I - according to my opponent - have the right to eat a starfish?

https://7salemanimalkingdom.wikispaces.com...

Does anyone see a brain? No. Does science tell us that this animal has a brain? No. Is it permissible to eat it according to my opponent? No. It is an animal. Is its way of feeling pain different to that of most other animals? Yes. Is it similar to how plants perceive pain and emotions? Yes. Does my opponent give the starfish and the plants equal rights of survival? Not at all. Is this moral? Is this what we call moral in such a scientifically prosperous world?

-- Conclusion --

I thank my opponent for an interesting debate, and for her proper way of conducting herself and making respectable arguments. Although the plants would not like her, I think that she deserves credit for the conduct, but I do not think that her arguments are strong. Plants have feelings, and plants can feel pain. Eating them is no worse than eating a cow. I am sorry, but that's how it is. I thank my opponent and the readers.

Good luck with your future debates!
Debate Round No. 3
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HEADPHONEGUY 3 years ago
HEADPHONEGUY
how do you know a bird is a sentient creature?
Posted by KatelynnChambers 3 years ago
KatelynnChambers
Hello! :)

For the purposes of this debate, "killing" does not refer to taking the lives of nonSENTIENT organisms.
As you may have seen, I spent quite a bit of time refuting the assertion that plants are equally sentient as animals.

So no, killing a plant to eat it would not be "killing" in the same sense as "killing" a bird, which is a sentient creature.

Keep in mind that this is a debate on ethics/morals, so your opinion may differ from mine. You may see killing a plant as being equal to killing a sentient creature, so it's really up to you and your own personal set of morals. :)

Thank you for commenting!
Posted by HEADPHONEGUY 3 years ago
HEADPHONEGUY
yea i did twice actually :D
Posted by HEADPHONEGUY 3 years ago
HEADPHONEGUY
Also, you mentioned meat being a good source of certain nutrients. You used fish as an example , fish being rich in omega three fatty acids. But is that fish the ONLY source from which you could reap said nutrient? NO.
Nuts and seeds supply ample amounts of this nutrient. And you do not have to kill a sentient being in order to get them.
That is the main point: If you can get the nutrient WITHOUT killing, why kill? If you are killing just because ‘it tastes really good' you are being selfish, and causing other animals to suffer for mere taste preferences.

you understand that this is contradictory a tree is still living even if it is not "sentient" so when you say "WITHOUT killing" it completely shuts down your argument. just saying.
Posted by KatelynnChambers 3 years ago
KatelynnChambers
did you even read the debate? ;)
Posted by HEADPHONEGUY 3 years ago
HEADPHONEGUY
so how is meat eating morally wrong?
Posted by KatelynnChambers 3 years ago
KatelynnChambers
Hello, Deku! :)

I. personally, would not have an issue with eating clams, or mussels, as they are on the same "level" as plants to me.

But that is only MY view!

When it comes right down to it, specific questions such as "Animals should be respected, but how high on the intellectual scale does it have to be for me to avoid eating it?" will probably receive a different answer from each person. Morals are different for everybody, so it is difficult to answer tricky questions like this with one, universal answer.

Thanks for commenting! :)
Posted by Deku 3 years ago
Deku
Clams lack central nervous system there okay to eat? So Pro isn't actually against consuming all animals?
Posted by KatelynnChambers 3 years ago
KatelynnChambers
*cared little, excuse my typos. :)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by HEADPHONEGUY 3 years ago
HEADPHONEGUY
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Deku 3 years ago
Deku
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 3 years ago
gavin.ogden
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
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:33 
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 3 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by losedotexe 3 years ago
losedotexe
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by HeXimei 3 years ago
HeXimei
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by innomen 3 years ago
innomen
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 3 years ago
Shestakov
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Woodycanuck 3 years ago
Woodycanuck
KatelynnChambersMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10