The Instigator
ThoughtsandThoughts
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Benefits of the Ethical Treatment of Livestock Outweigh the Disadvantages

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...
ThoughtsandThoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,272 times Debate No: 59112
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

ThoughtsandThoughts

Pro

I have selected Envisage as my opponent! =)

Definitions:
Ethical treatment of livestock: This includes, but is not limited to stunning & rendering animals unconscious before they are slaughtered, minimizing livestock's stress before slaughter, handling animals well, and providing them with healthy living conditions. For further details, see Humane Handling of Livestock standards as defined by the USDA. [1] In this debate, I will also apply ethical standards to all avian creatures, like chickens and turkeys.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments/rebuttals
Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 4: Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 5: Rebuttals/Conclusion only

72 hours per round, 10k character limit

[1] http://www.fsis.usda.gov...
Envisage

Con

I accept, may our meat be both delicious and tender.

http://img.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ThoughtsandThoughts

Pro

First, I want to say thank you to Envisage for accepting! =) I'm going to address this debate in parts, rather than present all of my major arguments in the first round.

I. Health Risks Involved in "Factory Farming"

1. The unhealthful conditions livestock live in compromise the success of medical treatments for people.

Many livestock animals live in their filth and feces in confined spaces with little to no lighting or fresh air. Living conditions like these can cause livestock a lot of stress, [1] and stressed animals are known to behave aggressively in response. They may harm other animals and even themselves. Animals have trampled one another because so many other animals are contained within the same space. [2] Because of this, these animals are at serious risk of infection and health issues. Consequently, use of antibiotics on livestock is a popular practice. According to PETA, factory animals are, "Fed drugs to... keep them alive in conditions that could otherwise kill them." [3]

"The Food and Drug Administration... put in place a major new policy to phase out the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in cows, pigs and chickens raised for meat, a practice that experts say has endangered human health by fueling the growing epidemic of antibiotic resistance... This is the agency's first serious attempt in decades to curb what experts have long regarded as the systematic overuse of antibiotics..." [4]

So why does it matter if livestock get antibiotics? Well, as my source pointed out, the overuse of antibiotics can endanger human health. As bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics, treatments for people will become less successful. This wouldn't just be detrimental to health outcomes for people with a sinus infection, but also for people with serious conditions like pneumonia, post-surgery infections, food poisoning, and Tuberculosis. In other words, a lot of people could die because of increased bacterial resistance through mistreatment of livestock. By providing livestock with better living conditions, the need for antibiotics would drop tremendously. In my fifth source, a speaker even discusses how bacteria could more easily combated through less antibiotic usage. [5]

2. Not minimizing stress experienced by livestock before slaughter increases risk of food contamination.

There's a neat little fictional book called "Toxin" that was written by a doctor who worked at Harvard Medical School. In it, he conveys how the rapid slaughter of cows - in an assembly like fashion - truly heightens the stress that cows experience. Upon hearing the loud noises of machinery, cows will defecate. Everywhere. [6] Increasing the risk for contamination via E. Coli and other bacteria. This is supported by a peer-reviewed study: "Contamination of beef products primarily occurs during slaughter when meat is contaminated by fecal material." [7]

Apparently, fecal matter contamination isn't just an issue for cows. "Potentially harmful bacteria was found on 97 percent of chicken breasts bought at stores across the United States and tested, according to a new study."

"And about half of the chicken samples had at least one type of bacteria that was resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics, the investigators found. The tests on the 316 raw chicken breasts also found that most had bacteria -- such as enterococcus and E. coli -- linked to fecal contamination." [8] Furthermore, "When animals, for example poultry, are slaughtered, the content of the intestines may contaminate the meat with salmonella microbes." [9] Couldn't caution and precision stop this, for the most part, from happening? This would likely require less reliance on factory methods.

Even a little further back before slaughter, the transportation livestock receive can have a huge impact on food contamination. The ride to slaughterhouses are often long. The animals are confined and sometimes they're mixed with ill animals. This is not a recipe for healthy animal products. "Barham and colleagues found the average prevalence of Salmonella within feces and on the hides of cattle was 18% and 6%, respectively, before transport. After the animals were loaded onto a vehicle and trucked for 30 to 40 minutes, the levels of Salmonella found in feces increased from 18% to 46%, and the number of animals with contaminated hides escalated from 6% to 89% upon arrival at the slaughter plant. Fecal pathogens on the hide may then end up in the meat supply. Similar results were found in pigs and chickens raised for meat." [10]

So is food contamination that serious? Let's take a look: "CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases." [11] Now, 42% of these illnesses and 44% of these deaths come from meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs - the industries of relevance to this debate. [12]

3. The careless handling and care of livestock allows for further food contamination.

Now, if the all of the fecal matter contamination mentioned above wasn't caused by stress before slaughter, then we can fairly assume it's a matter of cleanliness and health concern for the animals throughout the whole raising process. Aside from fecal matter contamination, here's why the handling and care of livestock is important:

-Unethically treated animals probably don't receive veterinary care. So sick and diseased livestock can easily be overlooked and mixed in with healthy livestock. They will in turn get passed on to the consumer. As I discussed in my first point, poor conditions already put livestock at risk for sickness and disease. Even for something as simple as egg products, we should be concerned... "Eggs from an infected chicken can also become contaminated." [9]

-Machinery and factory equipment can injure livestock, as well as increase the chance of letting sick livestock pass through onto consumers. Take a look at my 13th source to see how massive some factory farms are. [13] If we take a look at my next source, it can be seen how young turkeys get caught on equipment and expose their blood and internal organs to other livestock (WARNING: GRAPHIC FOR SOME VEIWERS). [14] Seeing both of these sources, it can be said that managing the unethically treated livestock can be an overwhelmingly difficult task. Furthermore, what about making sure no sick or diseased animal products get passed along onto the consumer? That might be impossible in some factory farms considering the vastness of the quantity of livestock.

[1] http://www.reed.edu...
[2] "Forks Over Knives" - film
[3] http://www.peta.org...
[4] http://www.nytimes.com...
[5] https://www.ted.com...
[6] "Toxin" by Robin Cook - book
[7] http://www.marlerblog.com...
[8] http://consumer.healthday.com...
[9] http://www.infonet-biovision.org...
[10] http://www.hsi.org...
[11] http://www.cdc.gov...
[12] http://www.cdc.gov...
[13] http://www.farmsanctuary.org...
[14] https://www.youtube.com... - video (MAY BE GRAPHIC FOR SOME PEOPLE)
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

Time to stop procrastinating and get this argument written". sh*t 37 minutes!!! Ack!

I. Preface

I will present my own arguments this round and save my rebuttals for the next two. The resolution is a rather vague one since is alludes to the "benefits" of moral treatment of livestock rather than whether or not the treatment must be moral on the face of it.

With that in hand I will argue that from the perspective of the human species, then immoral treatment is highly beneficial for our own species

II. Provides the necessary food quantity

It is a brute fact that the "immoral" treatment provides greater volume and profits for the industrial bodies that deal in livestock. By providing better living conditions, which consist of additional roaming space, quality of food and reduced selective breeding for the purpose of maximizing adult lifestock size, weaning time, meat yields etc. we effectively reduce the production costs "per kilo" of meat and hence puts more meat on the plates for more people than would otherwise.[1-3]

In chicken farming, for example, the turnover rate for egg laying has increased from just ~83 eggs/year up to ~300 eggs/year.[6] In cattle, breeding for larger cows has lead to 55% size increases in Jersey sired cross-bred female cattle,[7] with numbers across all breeds at ~18% over the past 20 years.[8]

III. More animals would otherwise be killed
If we assume that the same quantity of meat is going to be eaten regardless, then it clearly follows that more "moral" methods of farming would yield smaller livestock, since we would no longer be breeding them as aggressively for maximal size/maturity time. If we have smaller livestock then we will require more animals to be slaughtered to yield the same quantity of meat, and hence many more animals will have to die to meet our dietary requirements. [3]

IV. Just what is "immoral"?

I would like to know how Pro can possibly regard any action against mammals as immoral, by what justification? It seems from Pro"s opening round and I expect by the voter"s views that what is regarded as immoral is what we would perceive as immoral if applied to us. But this is problematic, since it doesn"t necessarily apply that human emotions, values, perceptions etc. are directly transferrable to other animals. We, after all are unique in that we are substantially more intelligent and much more capable of perceiving second-order suffering than animals are.[4]

It doesn"t automatically follow that an animal will feel what a human feels, especially when we discuss animals further from us on the evolutionary tree, such as poultry (which are distantly related via. reptilian ancestors). We have absolutely no reason to believe that their brains are wired up anything like how our own brains are.[5]

V. If we value life, then factory farming is good!

This is a rather blunt argument, if we consider a life that is lived is more valuable/worthwhile than a life never lived, then it clearly follows that even a short and rather painful existence is preferable to complete annihilation. If we reject this argument then the flipside can be presented, in that if life is not intrinsically valuable/worthwhile, then it simply doesn"t matter morally whether they are killed in inhumane conditions or not. They are bred and they die, they no longer suffer when they die, and in fact their past suffering is annihilated at death.

As such there is nothing ultimately "immoral" about killing animals in inhumane conditions since it is ultimately meaningless anyway, or a-moral.

VI. Conclusion:

I deeply apologise to Pro for this short round, and look forward to her arguments/rebuttals! Back to Pro!

References:
1.http://benefitof.net...
2.http://www.brighthub.com...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org...
5.http://www.sciencedirect.com...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://www.ukjerseys.com...
8. http://beefmagazine.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ThoughtsandThoughts

Pro

First, I'll present my new arguments and then move into rebuttals!

II. Economic impact

1. Factory-farming allows for the overly monopolistic control of animal products, thus negatively impacting the economy.

-A few companies control the majority of meat/livestock.
-These companies also have control over many stages of production.
-Thus, they wield the power to raise prices consumers pay and underpay those below the middlemen.

"Meat prices have been rising steadily since 2006 because of the power of a few companies, according to Christopher Leonard, author of the new book The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America's Food Business" Four companies produce 85% of all the beef in the United States... These companies have the "market power to depress what they pay farmers while at the same time keeping prices higher...for consumers..."" [1]

"Four companies make... 65 percent of its pork. Just three companies make almost half of all chicken... Companies like Tyson Foods have pioneered a new model of food production that gives them ownership and control over virtually every stage of the business." [2]

Not only that, but...! "When farms that provide animals to the big four producers go bankrupt -- which they often do, says Leonard, because producers like Tyson put the squeeze on them -- U.S. taxpayers pay that bill too. An "obscure loan program bails out banks for about 90% of the lost loan value," says Leonard." [1]

"Farmers are at the bottom of this food chain. This race to the bottom squeezes the life out of farms, particularly the smallest farms. And it hurts rural communities not just by lowering farm prices, but by forcing down wages for agricultural laborers, packing workers, and others in the food industry." [3] My third source even further details how one company's growing monopoly suppresses farmers: "In the Southeast, the merger left 2,500 independent hog producers with just one regional buyer."

Furthermore, if more small farms and slaughterhouses populated the country - uncontrolled by monopolies - I argue that it would be better the economy. Here's why:

-Livestock would require less transportation to slaughterhouses. Animal products would also require less transportation to retailers, packers, etc. This is rather important, as increasing gas prices often means passing along higher costs to the consumer.

-Competition. If there are more farms, then prices would be set more according to the market than the whims of producers. This is in favor of consumers. By making animal products more affordable for consumers, it will in turn be better for the economy.

REBUTTALS:

1. Con talked about the resolution being vague. I agree that at face value, "ethical treatment" itself is vague, but I addressed this in round one by defining it and citing a detailed document of ethical standards.

2. Con suggested that without relying on practices of unethical treatment of animals, we could not sustain enough meat/dairy/animal products for the masses. For the sake of simplicity, I will look to chickens as an example. Eight billion chickens are consumed each year in the US. [4] Could an amount of chicken as significant as this be produced without reliance on factory-farm methods? Let's take a look.

"Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population." [5] What if that was bumped up to 4 percent? That's 12,680,000 farmers. Now let's say half of these farmers each produced 1,000 chickens per year (compared to thousands of chickens passing through factory-farms a day).

That's 6,340,000,000 chickens. Over 6.3 billion. No, it's not 8 billion. There is about a 1.7 billion difference, and I will discuss in later rounds why that would okay - even beneficial. For now, I'd like to point out that these numbers could be higher. If 5% of the population made up farmers and half of them each produced 1,000 chickens per year... it would yield 7,925,000,000 chickens collectively. Which is rather close to 8 billion.

3. It isn't unrealistic to expect farms that uphold the ethical treatment of livestock to produce a lot of animal products. There are well established farms which adhere to highly ethical treatment of livestock. For instance, Springer Mountain Farms are American Humane Certified, while providing meat to several states in several stores (in Maine, Vermont, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and more). [6]

4. I should emphasize that this debate will focus on the benefits of the ethical treatment of livestock, as defined in my first round. Not whether the treatment is actually ethical. It would be the same as if the debate was titled, "The benefits of feeding livestock healthy food outweigh the disadvantages," and I had defined "healthy" with indifference to GMO foods. The debate wouldn't focus on whether GMO foods were healthy, but rather on whether my definition of healthy foods were beneficial.

However, since many people (including myself) would consider the ethical treatment of livestock a benefit, con's point does hold some weight. Though I would like to point out that his points need to outweigh mine, not just be valid. In addition to this, I will counter why it would be moral to consider the suffering of livestock significant.

First, con seems to suggest that since these animals are killed, they are released from their suffering and their inhumane treatment becomes meaningless. And because humans are different from animals emotionally, intellectually, and perception-wise, this is okay. However, I will argue that they aren't much different when compared to children. For instance, it's been show that pigs' intellect is quite comparable to three year olds' intellect. [7] Also, from con's own source, it states:

"In adults, the fear of the dentist can intensify innocuous sensations, but the belief that it is a price worth paying in order to avoid far greater suffering can also render the experience of the treatment less significant. The latter capacity is not usually found in children, which may suggest that beings with less developed rational capacities are not necessarily suffering less, but more, since they are not in a position to conceptualise the pain as a means to an end." [Con's 4th source from round 2] Like children, animals are not able to conceptualize pain this way. So they may suffer more than an adult human would in the same situation. This has to do with the perception of pain. Certain parts of brain are responsible for processing emotional response to pain, which can affect the perception of pain. [9] In other words, knowing why or for how long the pain persists can make pain seem more or less painful!

5. I will address this in rounds to come.

[1] http://finance.yahoo.com...
[2] http://www.slate.com...
[3] http://www.ase.tufts.edu...
[4] http://www.ansc.purdue.edu...
[5] http://www.fb.org...
[6]http://springermountainfarms.com...
[7] http://humansarehealthy.com...
[8] I stole con's source
[9] "Why Don't Zebras Get Ulcers?" (third edition) by Robert M. Sapolsky
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

I. Preface

I will build on my existing contentions before rebutting my opponent. Most my positive arguments are going to be economical, since that is the principle reason for treating animals ‘immorally’ in food production.

II. ‘Immoral’ Farms are more competitive

As it stands in the US, only four companies produce 81% of beef, 60% of pork, and 50% of chicken. Moreover, over 80% of the pork is produced in intensive animal settings. [1]



Further, the cost of products produced by such methods are significantly cheaper than those produced by more traditional methods. For example, organic meat producers themselves confirm that organic meat is substantially more expensive than ‘regular’ meat.[2] For example a $1.29 free range chicken from whole food compares to $0.99 chickens from Sainsbury’s, most margins are larger than this. Within Sainsbury’s itself, basic free range 500g packs of drumsticks & legs are £3.50 and £2.80 respectively, which compares with £3.11 and 2.36 respectively for >1kg of their factory farmed counterparts. [3]

Economies of scale clearly show that concentrated, dedicated large scale production leads to lower product costs and to fewer required staff.[4]

III. We have mouths to feed

Our population as it stands is 7 billion (below), with every indication that it will continue to expand at an exceptional rate. Studies indicate that the Earth’s ‘ideal’ population is less than 1 billion, clearly a sign we have expanded beyond naïve sustainability. Therefore, one of the limiting factors in human well-being is the availability of resources and hence the costs of their essentials.



With the population projected to continue growing, then it follows that intensive animal farming is going to become more and more necessary to keep our population fed (below). [5]



Specific Advantages

The intensive farming setting also reduces food turnaround times, poultry chickens which used to take several months to bring to rear now only take 5-6 weeks to be of age of slaughter. This reduces lag times in the pipeline, as well as less storage and more demand-adaptive production possible.

The use of antibiotics is used to increase the size of the cattle produced, and clearly shows a demonstrable increase in maximal growth size (since it kills bacteria in their guts) and hence production profits (below).[6,7]


The debeaking of chickens for example prevents in-flock fighting and cannibalism, and hence overall profits.[8]

Rebuttals

Pro spends a lot of time talking about antibiotic use. Yet it is unclear how exactly the use of them is 'immoral' in any sense, as they dont evidently cause much additional discomfort to the livestock. Moreover it is unclear how much of an impact it is having, as Pro provided no figures.

SImilarly the factory slaughter of chickens and cattle provides an unclear benefit, and it it is unclear now many of the cases of food poisoning are actually due to the manner in chick they were slaughtered.



References:
1. http://books.google.co.uk...
2. http://thebillfold.com...
3. http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. "State of the World 2006," Worldwatch Institute, p. 26
6. http://www.thebeefsite.com...
7. http://bovidiva.com...
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ThoughtsandThoughts

Pro

Thanks con! And... my final arguments!

III. Quality of Meat

While this is a small benefit, I will mention it anyway. It turns out that when livestock are stressed before slaughter, it negatively affects the quality and taste of their meat. As far as transporting animals goes: "Long journeys are undoubtedly stressful and if the animals are killed before they are recovered, they will have higher than normal ultimate pH values." Things like weather and amount of food livestock received before slaughter could also negatively affect the quality of the meat. [1]

IV. Effects of Animal-product Consumption

*Now* we're going to address why producing fewer (1-2 billion fewer) livestock animals would be okay.

1. Meat & Cancer

"When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters. In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat." [2]

Cause for concern? Yes. Cancer kills over 5.7 million people each year in the US. [3] It is the second leading cause of death in the US.

2. Heart Disease

Heart disease would be the first leading cause of death in the US. It kills nearly 6 million people each year. [3] Since Atherosclerosis is the most common cause of heart disease, [4] the amount of meat consumed should be taken seriously.

Atherosclerosis: "It occurs when fat, cholesterol, and other substances build up in the walls of arteries and form hard structures called plaques... We absorb cholesterol from meat, dairy products and other animal foods..." [5] I understand that consumption of animal products is only one risk factor, but it's still a huge part of many people's diet. One should consider how huge it should be.

For instance, "A recent infographic... found that Americans eat at least 12 ounces of meat per day, almost 50 percent more than the recommend daily amount." [6]

3. Economic impact

"Now, for the first time, we know how much our national meat habit is costing us: Roughly 414 billion dollars annually in external health, environmental, and animal welfare costs, according to a superbly researched new book, Meatonomics, by California attorney David Robinson Simon." [7]

Reviewing the first two leading causes of death, alone, in the US should explain why health costs would go up.

4. Environmental impact

The article I will cite says it best:

"A new report published in the journal Climatic Change compared greenhouse gas emissions attributable to more than 55,000 meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the U.K. The researchers found that meat-eaters' dietary greenhouse gas emissions were twice as high as vegans'.

The production, transportation and storage of food greatly contributes to emissions, the study points out. These emissions range from carbon dioxide related to fossil fuels used to power farm machinery, to the methane released by livestock. Animal-based products tend to release more emissions than plant-based products due to the methane animals can produce and the inefficiencies in growing livestock feed.

"Reducing the intake of meat and other animal based products can make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation," the report concluded.

Past research showed similar results. A study in April found that annual agricultural carbon emissions could be reduced up to 90 percent by 2030 with agriculture adjustments, including a reduction in global beef consumption." [8]

Rebuttals:

1. "For example, organic meat producers themselves confirm that organic meat is substantially more expensive than "regular" meat." - I don't disagree with this. However, it's irrelevant as the debate is about the ethical treatment of livestock, not about organic meat. Organic beef livestock, for example, has to be the following:

"-Never receive antibiotics
-Never receive growth-promoting hormones
-Are fed only certified organic grains (corn is a grain) and grasses
-Must have unrestricted outdoor access" [9]

The source I cited when I defined the ethical treatment of livestock does not say anything about livestock being fed only organic food. Organic food is more expensive (I feel this is common knowledge, so I won't cite it), so we should expect organic meat to be more expensive.

2. I agree that the population rate is overwhelming, but I'd also like to point out that according to a 2012 paper, as much as 40% of food is thrown out each year. Earlier, "In the United States, 31 percent-or 133 billion pounds-of the 430 billion pounds of the available food supply at the retail and consumer levels in 2010 went uneaten." [10]

If this much food is thrown out per year, I feel it's fair to assume that there's an overproduction of food at least in some parts of the world. Therefore, I will assume it's not necessary to produce as much animal products as are produced now. So much food is thrown out that it has demonstrated that we simply need to more effectively use/distribute our resources. Furthermore, if the population continues rising, animal products won't be the only limited resource. Reducing population size is an issue on its own that cannot simply be addressed by saying, "We need more."

I also found an interesting article that said, "Not only does meat cost a lot to produce (and even buy), it also hurts our environment. In fact, one 2011 study found eating less meat could double the world's food supply." [6] That's rather astounding.

3. "The intensive farming setting also reduces food turnaround times, poultry chickens which used to take several months to bring to rear now only take 5-6 weeks to be of age of slaughter."

I will refer to my previous argument. If small percentage more of the country took hand in farming, the amount of animal products will still be significant. e.g. Production of chickens can still easily be in the billions. A 1-2 billion difference can contribute to the benefits I made in my fourth main point.

4. I'm not arguing that antibiotic use in livestock is immoral, but that factory-farms overuse and abuse antibiotics to the point it becomes a danger for people.

"Yet another study has reinforced the idea that keeping animals in confinement and feeding them antibiotics prophylactically breeds varieties of bacteria that cause disease in humans, disease that may not readily be treated by antibiotics."

"Some of this resistance comes from overuse in humans, but there's increasing evidence that resistance is being bred in animals that are a) raised in confinement and b) given antibiotics routinely. We want to know, of course, whether these bacteria move from animals to humans. Of particular concern is one called MRSA ST398, or "livestock-associated MRSA." MRSA [2] is shorthand for Methicillin (a type of antibiotic)-resistant Staphylococcus aureus." [11]

[1] http://www.meatupdate.csiro.au...
[2] http://www.pcrm.org...
[3] http://www.cdc.gov...
[4] http://www.mayoclinic.org...
[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://endhunger.org...
[11] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
Envisage

Con

Envisage forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ThoughtsandThoughts

Pro

I urge the voters to to disregard con's FF in round 4. Please vote solely on whose points outweigh whose. On that note, I hope all is well with Envisage.

Summary/Conclusion:

The unethical treatment of livestock...

-Encourages and causes food contamination
-Weakens the treatments available for not just food borne illnesses, potentially all illnesses treated by antibiotics
-Pushes rising prices to consumers and unfair pay to farmers because of industries' monopolist market power
-Raises the quality of meat people consume
-May slightly reduce meat produced each year, with a good potential for indirectly decreasing the amount of animal products consumed by people. This may likely lower high rates of cancer and heart disease, the first two leading causes of death in America.
-Costs the country (US) roughly $414 billion dollars each year in health, environmental, and animal welfare expenses.
-Has a huge negative impact on the environment; meat-eaters produce about double the dietary greenhouse gas emissions than vegans do.

With the ethical treatment of animals, producing a significant of animal products each year is still possible. Lessening factory-farming, and therefore lessening monopolistic control, would be good news for farmers who are left with very little options in buyers. It would even be good news for the job market because it would be more viable as a competitive industry.

The ethical treatment of livestock does not threaten the food supply, nor do developed countries like America necessitate the need for such a significant amount of animal products. As I've pointed out, Americans throw away up to 40% of food each year, and a study suggests that the world's food supply could be doubled if people ate less meat. Which, if I say so myself, more than makes up for difference in meat produced ethically vs. unethically. Also, farms that uphold the ethical treatment of livestock do exist and can be very successful - like in the example I gave in round three.

I will acknowledge, however, that it could be catastrophic if the US enforced the ethical treatment of livestock at once. This sort of system would require gradual, yet strict change. Once people have moved over to it though, it will more beneficial than the current system, in which factory-farming controls costs and indirectly wreaks havoc on people's lives. And to boot, the ethical treatment of livestock will also please the many people who consider it the moral road to take.
Envisage

Con

Envisage forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 2 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
@ johnlubba: Will do! Thanks for the interest!
Posted by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
I would love to read through this debate and vote please remind me when it goes to the voting period.
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 2 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
Phew! Round 3 posted with 2 minutes to spare! :P But argh, I wish I hadn't worked so many days in a row - I would have had more time to add stuff XD
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 2 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
Well, good luck in that case! ;D
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Ugh.... This is going to be a painful ordeal, I can already tell....
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 2 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
Ahaha, minecraft chickens XD
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 2 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
Alright, it's ready whenever you're ready to accept. I'm in no hurry! To warn you though, I take my time to post my rounds xD
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Sure
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 2 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
Oooh! Awesome! It should be very challenging for me then :P Do you mind if I don't extend the challenge to you until tomorrow?
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
(I am interesting in accepting)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ThoughtsandThoughtsEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff... :(
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
ThoughtsandThoughtsEnvisageTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate by both but it is a shame Envisage forfeited, albeit I doubt he would have got my vote as Pro clearly showed that unethical treatment of animals has a huge disadvantage to the quality of meat and the diseases that can incur from such awful and foul mistreatments of living entities, I didn't buy into Envisages argument that we have mouths to feed so therefore we must continue at god speed to slaughter as many animals as we need to and further question what is immoral or moral towards animals because they shouldn't feel as humans feel, was a weak rebuttal IMHO. Pro did well in presenting a case for animal cruelty with a barrage of sources and information showing how harmful it can be to mistreat animals which can cause harm to humans at the end of it. and Con at least tried to argue back, but in all honesty you would need a heart of stone to defend such a topic something I would find terribly hard to do. But well done to both, great debate.