The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SyAmbrosio
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
SyAmbrosio
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 81859
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I pro will argue for the topic.
Con will argue against the topic.
SyAmbrosio

Con

I will argue against the argument that purchasing a burger endorses animal cruelty. I thank Stupidape for creating this debate.

I believe it is inaccurate to jump to "endorsing cruelty" when one purchases a burger, or to a greater extent any animal product. The first problem is with the word cruelty. Animals around the world are mistreated on farms and in factory-style environments. Animals around the world are treated with care and compassion throughout the harvesting process of their needed parts. One cannot automatically assume that the product they have purchased was a result of mistreatment.

I believe buying a burger is no more endorsing cruelty than stepping on a bug is endorsing genocide of ants. One can counterbalance their unnecessary consumption of animal products by doing so infrequently and minimizing their carbon footprint in other areas of their life. By using less energy, the world economy has surplus energy that can be directed towards synthetic animal products that remove the element of cruelty. One who currently studies synthetic animal products may already be subjecting themselves to cruelty, debt, poor sleep etc and may therefore occasionally indulge in animal products.

It is too assuming to posit that the purchase of animal products is accompanied by the desire for animals to be harmed. One cannot know the situation or motivation of the consumer based on their purchase choice alone. One cannot know the frequency of the purchases, nor the quantity, nor the necessity involved.

It may, in many cases, perhaps even most, be fair to say that one endorses animal cruelty (or the mechanisms that purport such things) by way of their purchases. However, it is not a given.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

"I believe it is inaccurate to jump to "endorsing cruelty" when one purchases a burger, or to a greater extent any animal product. The first problem is with the word cruelty. Animals around the world are mistreated on farms and in factory-style environments. Animals around the world are treated with care and compassion throughout the harvesting process of their needed parts. One cannot automatically assume that the product they have purchased was a result of mistreatment." Con

Hmmm, what Con is stating is that animals on most small local farms are not mistreated. I beg to differ. I think this qualifies as animal cruelty "All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow"s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a "rape rack."" humanemyth.org

"Many male calves are not considered "useful" since they cannot produce milk, and are immediately slaughtered, even with their umbilical cords still attached." Jennie Richards humanedecisions.com

Based on the evidence above, one can automatically assume that the product they have purchased was a result of mistreatment.

"One can counterbalance their unnecessary consumption of animal products by doing so infrequently and minimizing their carbon footprint in other areas of their life. " Con

The topic is about animal cruelty, the environmental is off-topic.

"It is too assuming to posit that the purchase of animal products is accompanied by the desire for animals to be harmed. One cannot know the situation or motivation of the consumer based on their purchase choice alone. One cannot know the frequency of the purchases, nor the quantity, nor the necessity involved." Con

I would assume that most people like animals and the intent is the opposite. The purchaser does not want the animal to be harmed. Yet, how is intent relevant? The money the purchaser is the same regardless of intent.

If you buy 1/4 pound of hamburger of one hundred pounds you are supporting the meat market thus endorsing the meat market, therefore endorsing the practices of the meat market, which means you are endorsing animal cruelty. Ultimately the results of the purchase means more cows will be mistreated and slaughtered.

As for necessity, there is none. Hamburgers are expensive, plenty of people live happy and healthful vegan lives. If you were really in dire straits say on a desert island there would be nobody to purchase the hamburger from. If you were poor, there is cheaper alternatives.

About the only situation that makes any sense would be a diabetic who desperately needed sugar, and a hamburger was the only choice. Then the diabetic would be acting out of self-survival. That would be the only exception.

"It may, in many cases, perhaps even most, be fair to say that one endorses animal cruelty (or the mechanisms that purport such things) by way of their purchases. However, it is not a given." Con

Yes, it is. A cow has to be slaughtered for that burger to be created. By buying a burger you are endorsing the meat industry which in turn is endorsing animal cruelty. If nobody buys any burgers less cows will be slaughtered. If nobody bought any cow meat the industry would turn belly-up due to no demand.

http://www.humanemyth.org...
http://www.humanedecisions.com...
SyAmbrosio

Con

I think we are stuck on the implication that one is endorsing the meat industry by purchasing a burger.

Let me use just one example to prove this is incorrect. If I am a researcher and I'm working on creating synthetic meat, I'm going to need real meat to study alongside it. To assume my purchase is just for consumption is wrong. There is no way to know intent based on purchase alone.

"what Con is stating is that animals on most small local farms are not mistreated."

I never said anything about small local farms. What I said is that it is not true that every single animal to have ever been bred, fed and slaughtered were mistreated or abused. Cows can be impregnated, well fed, given free room to graze and slaughtered humanely and quickly. It is certainly a very rare occurrence and the treatment standards will raise the price of the end product, but it is not a given that every burger ever made was the product of cruelty.

Another scenario: I'm a meat inspector. I buy a burger because I dislike the meat industry and I'm convinced a certain company has infected meat. I inspect the meat and get proof, leading to a full shut down of a factory farming company. Is my purchase of the burger ultimately encouraging animal cruelty? Of course not. Quite literally the opposite in this scenario.

My problem with your statement is not that it is unlikely. I agree that it is very likely that purchasing a hamburger will stimulate the meat industries that abuse animals the most. My problem is that you leave no room at all for doubt and assume that every purchase of meat is meant by the consumer to grow the meat industry. Many consumers buy guns but hate the arms industry. You cannot know the intent of a customer just by their purchases. You are adding your own interpretation of why every purchase of hamburgers takes place.

"how is intent relevant?"

Because the definition of endorse is to publicly declare support. If I buy meat and don't tell anyone about it, then I'm not endorsing animal cruelty. You are making a jump in logic here. I might be indirectly endorsing meat, in the economic sense of voting with my dollar, but this still does not automatically lead to my approval of animal cruelty. You are making a universal assumption without any facts to support your case.

"About the only situation that makes any sense would be"

By admitting there are exceptions, you yourself are providing a contrary argument to your entire premise. You did not argue that one is "probably" or "most of the time" endorsing animal cruelty. You argued that purchasing a burger is endorsing animal cruelty, period. It seems quite obvious that you've already contradicted your argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Endorse "to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something)" merriam-webster

"Let me use just one example to prove this is incorrect. If I am a researcher and I'm working on creating synthetic meat, I'm going to need real meat to study alongside it. To assume my purchase is just for consumption is wrong. There is no way to know intent based on purchase alone" Con

It doesn't matter what the meat is used for, its still fueling the economy of the meat industry thus endorsing animal cruelty. Also other people will notice you buying meat and may follow suit.

"I never said anything about small local farms. What I said is that it is not true that every single animal to have ever been bred, fed and slaughtered were mistreated or abused." Con

"Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." wikipedia.

For the hamburger to end up on the table a cow must be slaughtered. Slaughtering a cow counts as a human inflicting harm upon the cow.

"Cows can be impregnated, well fed, given free room to graze and slaughtered humanely and quickly." Con

This seems more like a theoretical situation than reality. Since the profit motive is at work. I also question the premise of slaughtering an animal for meat humanely. I don't think it can be done. Think of the death penalty. The lethal injection is considered the least painful way of death. Yet, a prisoner acted like he felt pain.

"lethal injection can cause excruciating pain. Since the first lethal injection on December 7, 1982, over 1,000 prisoners in the USA have been executed by this method and it has all but replaced other methods of execution." amnestyusa.org

We haven't found a humane way to execute humans despite putting a higher value on human life than animal life. Then, we have not found a humane way to slaughter a cow.

"Another scenario: I'm a meat inspector. I buy a burger because I dislike the meat industry and I'm convinced a certain company has infected meat. I inspect the meat and get proof, leading to a full shut down of a factory farming company. Is my purchase of the burger ultimately encouraging animal cruelty? Of course not. Quite literally the opposite in this scenario." Con

You seem to be nitpicking. You already admitted that most of the time a person is fueling the economy of the meat industry by purchasing meat. Just as easily the meat could have passed inspection. Now that I think of it the meat inspector is endorsing animal cruelty more than most with this action. If there was no meat inspector, the meat wouldn't pass inspection and the meat industry would take a major publicity hit when people got sick.

"By admitting there are exceptions, you yourself are providing a contrary argument to your entire premise. You did not argue that one is "probably" or "most of the time" endorsing animal cruelty. You argued that purchasing a burger is endorsing animal cruelty, period. It seems quite obvious that you've already contradicted your argument." Con

One exception that in this case the diabetic is acting within self-survival does not disprove the rule. In fact if anything the exception helps prove the rule. "Exception that proves the rule" Wikipedia

I conclude that there is only one scenario that doesn't endorse animal cruelty when purchasing a hamburger. That is the diabetic who's about to fall into a diabetic coma from lack of sugar, and this scenario only helps prove the rule. Remember non-verbal communication is powerful. By purchasing a hamburger you are non-verbally communicating "I approve of animal cruelty."

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.amnestyusa.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
SyAmbrosio

Con

I don't think providing concrete definitions and sources is needed to argue against your motion. You provided an exception to the motion that "Purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty." The next time you propose a debate, I strongly encourage you include the parameters, conditions and exceptions beforehand. I think this was a poorly prepared stance that was casting too wide a net to be argued sensibly. I maintain that there is no way you can prove that purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty 100% of the time as your title implies. We are not arguing over technicalities or various degrees of interpretation, we are arguing over the literal message in your title based on the limited information it provides.

Thank you for participating in this debate with me. It was interesting and informative and I value the time you gave.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SyAmbrosio 1 year ago
SyAmbrosio
So no offense but I had a look at some of your other debates and you make some... very strange prompts.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
StupidapeSyAmbrosioTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Because of the ill defined parameters the subject of endorsing animal cruelty by purchasing a burger did not hold up.
Vote Placed by sherlockholmesfan2798 1 year ago
sherlockholmesfan2798
StupidapeSyAmbrosioTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was very odd, in that the operative word, endorse, stopped being argued in the 2nd round. Con is correct in that intent, motivation and actions that follow the purchase are important factors into discerning whether or not the purchase endorses animal cruelty. Pro could not prove that the intent, motivation and actions following the purchase always lean towards the endorsement of animal cruelty. In fact, he even provided an example in which this is not the case. However, even without these extraordinary circumstances of a diabetic in need of sugar, the purchase of a hamburger does not always endorse animal cruelty as the factors that determine this do not always lean towards the endorsement of animal cruelty. For future debates, I suggest a clear set of definitions in the first round that is agreed by both parties.