Debate Rounds (3)
In that grand scheme of things, the venture of alternatives to slaughter houses will usually end up in far more painful and enduring methods of killing animals for meat.
If meat were made illegal, it would be inevitable that a huge black market for it would open, one in which very low-funded criminal facilities would be used to raise and slaughter the animals in the most economically viable way possible. As least standardised slaughter houses must pass safety tests as well as compete for certification as the best slaughter house in the region or something along those lines.
They are a very good way of ensuring humane killings of animals, humane meaning relative to the alternative of not have any of them.
You are definitely entitled to think that eating meat should be criminalised, just as much as a meat eater has a right to think that to ban slaughter houses would be going against his right to farm animals who are barely conscious on the level that humans are.
The basis of your entire argument is the premise that eating meat is inherently immoral and unforgivable. No justification of this assumption has been supplied other than the fact that we'd hate if another species dominated, and ate, us. This is irrelevant since there is absolutely no evidence that any farm animal can realise what they really are or where they are ranked in the food-web of the world. they don't care that they are an inferior species to us, their only mental concerns appear to be directly related to basic bodily functions.
earthseasky57 forfeited this round.
TameHumanoid forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.