The Instigator
kbub
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EndarkenedRationalist
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The practice of humans' purchasing and then eating meat is unethical (Copy #2)

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...
EndarkenedRationalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,193 times Debate No: 41842
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

kbub

Pro

Greetings! I hope to engage in a debate about whether buying meat and then eating that meat is unethical. I wish this debate to include primarily arguments surrounding veganism/vegetarianism, so I have given definitions in order that we might focus on "generic" meat-eating cases.

This debate is only open to persons who have equal or higher ranking than me. Sorry!

1. Pro must defend that the general practice of purchasing and then eating meat (but not necessarily every example) is unethical.
2. "Eating meat" will mean the common and continued practice of eating nonhuman flesh by adult humans who are reasonably economically self-sufficient.
3. The round will be specifically be aimed at the purchasing and then eating of (the same) meat in America from grocery stores (and not, for example, road kill).

To clarify, the ethics I am talking about does not refer to some "inherent" morality, but a morality in the context of the contemporary American society.

(This does not necessarily mean that the morality is an American morality, but that the debate is focusing on being moral in America.)

First round is acceptance, and a chance to contend or ask about any of the conditions of the debate, if you would like to do so.

I'm looking forward to a great debate!
--kbub
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

I accept the debate! I would like to thank my opponent for offering such an interesting topic, and I hope that we may have a thoughtful discussion on the matter.

Purely for the sake clarity, I shall offer some definitions as provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary [1].

Vegetarianism - "the theory or practice of living on a vegetarian diet."
Vegetarian - "a person who does not eat meat."
Vegan - "a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also: one who abstains from using animal products."

I accept my opponent's first two points. I question the third because grocery stores are not the only places where meat can be purchased, if we separate famers markets and other similar locations from them. I plan to use these in my arguments as well.

I thank my opponent again, and I am also anticipating a great debate!

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
kbub

Pro

Thanks to EndarkenedRationalist for accepting the debate! I'm really looking forward to it.

That's a big exception, but I'll allow it. Remember 99% meat comes from factory farms.

If my opponent will indulge me, I'd like to tell a personal experience that I think help us rethink what it means to be "human."
As a resident of the United States of America, I have read about and even seen firsthand the effects of dehumanization within my homeland. I am white, and live with a mostly-white family, but I also have a black sibling. Once my family visited a restaurant we've been to previously without my sibling.
Because my sibling was black, we were kicked out of the restaurant.
The members of the restaurant had no patience for a racially-mixed family. It was an allusion to a time not long ago to when persons of color were considered mentally and spiritually inferior to white persons. There was a widespread belief among persons who had power that "Negroes" were not fully human--they were spiritually-depraved persons who could not be trusted with their own autonomy. They were often associated with apes, were given a culture of mistrust, and given only partial voting rights. Even earlier, black persons were so dehumanized that they became the economic property of white persons. They were forced into extraordinarily small crates and shipped to America where they would be raped and tortured and made to live at the pleasure of the white master.
The culture believed that the person of color was so inhuman that her only value came from her master, and not from herself. The only difference between the white "human" and the black "animal" is one's body: because one had light skin and the other had dark skin, American politicians were allowed to believe that a black person's value based based on white authority.
Recently America celebrated Thanksgiving, so I think it appropriate to briefly remind the judge of the travesty that transpired in America that inspired the hypocritical holiday. What Americans celebrate during Thanksgiving is the "settling" (or rather invading) of Europeans into land that was already occupied. The vast and powerful tribes of America were killed, raped, and relocated until they became a fraction of their original stature. What justified the violation and destruction of the American tribal nations? Europeans called them "savages." They were not humans, but instead shadows of humans--some pre-human race capable of only basic and barbarous social interactions. For this reason they did not truly "occupy" space, or have the right to "human" dignities. For this reason they were massacred and moved across the nation: The Trail of Tears occurred because they were in the way.

Moral of story:
We often use the word "dehumanization" to refer to the solidifying of "out-groups," the compete lack of empathy and self-identification toward the same, and the absurd hierarchies that occur through this framework. In almost all cases, we use the word "dehumanization" to refer to some horrendous series of policies. Please notice, however, that these policies are for the most part uncontested within the culture that supports them. Jews were "justifiably" exterminated in Nazi Germany until many years after WWII. Native Americans were "justifiably" slaughtered until they were almost extinct. Racism wasn't a bad thing until around 50 years ago. LGBTIQQA persons are only just gaining mainstream acceptance. It is often very hard to halt systematic injustice in the midst of systematic injustice. For this reason one must oppose them at every opportunity.

Link:
The problem with "dehumanization" however is the fact that it relies on the presence of a human for its validity. In the cultural status quo, one needs to be of a particular biological species to be considered worthwhile. This requirement for value is ridiculous to the same degree as having a particular skin color, a particular culture, a particular gender, or a particular sexual orientation. A human who lives closely with a dog, cat, or horse should intuitively recognize that these creatures do have value independent of their human price tag. And yet, this belief in the value of non-human life is not extended to the "farm animals," who undergo extreme cruelties solely for the pleasure of the human who is subsequently placed at the peak of the hierarchy of value.

Concerning meat-eating in America:
Ninety-nine percent of meat comes from factory farms, so if we are talking about meat-eating in general, it seems only natural that we focus on factory farming. In addition to that, 99% of all slaughtered animals are raised and slaughtered in the United States, so it would seem that factory farms in the United States are most relevant to our discussion.

In America, chickens are not given even the legal status of "animal." This means that literally any cruel action may be taken against the chicken, and it would be legal. They have been bred to be too fat to walk, and live their entire existence in extreme pain. Turkeys are also bred to be too fat to walk or even breed. That's right: humans have made turkey's so fat that they cannot even have sex. The solution? Humans spread the turkey's legs and gives them artificial insemination. This problem of turkey breeding is across factory -style farms and non-factory-style farms. Both chickens and turkey's are crushed to death under their own weight. Chickens, turkeys, and sows are born and die in an unnatural cycle of pregnancy, birth, and slaughter where they never get to see the outside world. Here's a really sick fact: because there is no federal protection for chickens, "almost all chickens are conscious when their throats are cut, and many are literally scalded to death in feather-removal tanks after missing the throat-cutter."

Pigs literally live in their own waste for virtually their entire lives. They are so bored by being in captivity for so long that they exhibit neurotic, self harming behavior. I don't think I need to mention the extraordinary cruelties of veal. Cows are slaughtered when they are very young. When a male cow is born, rather than be given to a live of imprisonment as a dairy cow, he is slaughtered to produce veal, which is prized for its tenderness. The diary cows have strong attachments to their children, and yet their children are stolen away hours after they are born. We drink their stolen milk.
As an aside, the unnaturally large number of animals produced and slaughtered in factory farms are a significant contributor to global warming and soil erosion.
All of these practices represent horrid cruelties and tortures toward creatures who have committed no crime. There is no justice here. By eating meat, one not only symbolically places humankind above the other creatures that she/he determines (in prejudice) is morally and intellectually inferior, but also engages in and funds a system of torture that would be horrible for any creature, regardless of its label or epidemiological status. And yet, we continue to ignore these problems. Approximately 9 billion animals are slaughtered in factory farms in America alone. One's enjoyment of animal flesh comes at the cost of agony, and yet many say that it is morally acceptable because humans are omnivores, not recognizing the cultural parallel in which "boys will be boys" is a culturally-acceptable justification for rape. The treatment of animals in factory farms is much like what the treatment of slaves would be in contemporary times, if we could eat slaves.
Animals are alive, and have their own value independent of the economic value we assign them. Factory farms also cause environmental problems, and even health problems.

Link to vegetarianism veganism:
1. By purchasing and eating meat one is engaging in a kind of slave trade, in which one purchases the life-long imprisonment of those whose only crime is to have a "different" exterior.
2. By purchasing and eating meat one is commodifing the life of a living creature.
3. By purchasing and eating meat, one is funding the factory farms
4. By purchasing and eating meat, one is showing others that you support the practice of eating meat
5. By purchasing and eating meat, one is supporting a culture of eating meat.
6. By purchasing and eating meat, one is paying for the assassinations and torture of hundreds of persons.
7. By purchasing and eating meat, one is drawing attention away from the 9 billion animals killed in factory farms each year.
8. By purchasing and eating meat, one is treating animals as being valuable only for the pleasure it brings to humans
9. By purchasing and eating meat, one is funding the maltreatment of the earth and causing global warming.
10. By purchasing and eating meat, one is funding the processes that bring about E. Coli and Salmanila. That's right, factory farms are the reasons for this outbreak. Poop flows from factory farms into other food products. Factory farms are the #1 source of food-related safety problems in America.
11. By not eating meat you solve for the above problems. One vegetarians can save hundreds of animals. You also bring light to this issue, and show that you truly care about life.
America is engaging in slavery and genocide and rape for billions of creatures every year. This must end now.
By defending this position, I am taking steps to bring this change about. Voters, you have the opportunity to support this change too: I encourage voters to help change this system by supporting my arguments.
http://www.farmforward.com..., http://www.animallaw.info...
http://www.peta.org...
http://www.aspca.org...
http://gulfnews.com...
http://www.wired.com...
http://www.farmsanctuary.org...
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

I thank my opponent for permitting my exception.

I am not 100% certain about the etiquette of this, but my opponent simply copied and pasted his argument from an earlier debate [1]. I just thought this was worth noticing.

My opponent opens with a tragic anecdote highlighting the darker aspects of American history. I agree that these actions were terrible atrocities. However, my opponent commits the logical fallacy of false analogy. I think most people would agree that, though humans are animals, animals are not humans. My opponent's comparison is invalid. Oddly enough, my opponent even notes this, realizing that in order to dehumanize something, it must first be human. Animals have never been considered humans and thus have never been dehumanized. There have always been recognized differences between humans and animals. Back in Ancient Greece, Aristotle viewed the difference between man and animal as the ability to perceive the difference between "good and evil, just and unjust, and the like" (Politics, 1.2) [2]. Another key difference between man and animal is the capacity for faith. Animals cannot recognize a concept of God or an afterlife - religion, for better or worse, is a characteristic of humans.

Now, the immediate response to this is that some animals can discern right from wrong. A dog, for example, can be trained not to pee in the house. However, the operative word here is trained. Animals can be taught, but humans already are capable of perceiving those differences even before instruction.

Regarding the value of animals - in the United States (and elsewhere), these values are culturally determined. Most Americans value a dog more than a cow whereas in India, the opposite might hold true. Animals gain the value humans prescribe to them.

Essentially, all comparisons made between humans and animals in the previous round (up to this point anyway) commit the logical fallacy of faulty analogy because a human and an animal are not comparable things. A human has more worth than an animal does.

My opponent has made one critical error in this debate, and though it at first seems like a tiny error, it is the one I can center my argument around. The concern of this debate is with the practice of humans buying and eating meat being unethical. Thus, in order to win this debate, I only have to counter this position. And my basic point is this: while a significant amount of meat comes from factories, by the time consumers purchase the meat, it has already been slaughtered and prepared. The ethical issue arises before the point of purchase with the mistreatment some animals experience, as my opponent demonstrates with the chickens and turkeys. But because this mistreatment occurs before the point of purchase and consumption, it is irrelevant to the resolution. Remember, the resolution is not "vegetarianism is superior to meat consumption" nor is it "animals in factory farms are mistreated." The resolution deals with the purchase and consumption of meat after its preparation, and thus the shocking ethics involved in that preparation are not a part of the resolution. In fact, since the meat has already been prepared, it would almost be more a disservice not to eat it. If ignored, the animal's entire existence will have been in vain, and the meat industry will lose a significant amount of money.

Now, my opponent might argue that we encourage the continuance of this unethical system by buying meat. However, there are alternative methods of buying meat. Again, my opponent's resolution is not limited to the purchase of factory meats but any meat. If I can provide alternative instances where purchasing and consuming meat is more ethical, then I have successfully disproven the resolution.

In the future, I ask that my opponent link his sources with his arguments so that I can better locate which is associated with which.

The United States Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation Service have been working to maximize production for farmers and hospitality for animals. Additionally, both note the important role of both livestock in the American diet and the products made from animals [3]. This represent a large-scale, national effort to promote a system of obtaining meat without using unsavoury methods. Also associated with the US Department of Agriculture is the National Organic Program, which places high standards upon the raising of livestock for public consumption and ensures that the animals are treated well [4]. Businesses also have the option of providing better meats. The Environmental Stewardship Program has paired up with various cattle ranches to promote environmental conservation and sustainability [5], part of which includes better treatment for the animals. Whole Foods is paired with the Global Animal Partnership to offer organic meats on a welfare rating system. This rating is based upon how the animals were treated, including outdoor access, as well as preventing the usage of growth hormones and other such chemicals [6, 7]. Grassland Beef is another example of local market situation where people purchasing their meat can rest assured that it was treated comfortably and naturally [8]. Home Grown Cow is another example of this [9]. The Institute for Self-Reliant Agriculture promotes self and sustainable farming done naturally and without torturing the animals to sustain families with food and income [10]. Unless the purchase and consumption of all these meats is just as unethical as that of factory meats, then I have successfully disproved the resolution.

Again, my opponent's points regarding the mistreatment of pigs and cows is irrelevant to the purchase and consumption of them. Furthermore, I have demonstrated several other avenues through which they are protected and provided for consumption in a natural manner. Remember, the resolution concerns the purchase and consumption of meat, not the raising of it. Even if it did, I have listed several alternatives to factory based production.

"One symbolically places humankind above the other creatures..." humankind is above the other creatures. Humans have the capacity for faith. Humans have the capacity for complex reason and thought. Humans have the ability to distinguish just from unjust.

That factory farms may cause environmental and health problems is irrelevant to the resolution.

I will now respond to my opponent's links to vegetarianism/veganism.

1 and 2 place animals on the same level as humans. I have proven why this is false.
3-5 are valid, but I have demonstrated sufficient alternatives to factory-produced meat. Again, this debate is not centered on the ethics of factory farming but of purchasing and consuming meat in general.
6. commits the same fallacy as the first two.
7. How does buying more meat draw attention away from a large source of that meat?
8. Humans do not solely eat meat for pleasure. Humans eat meat because of biology, because it satisfies their hunger. Humans are at the top of the animal food chain, and as other animals in that chain eat other animals, so too do humans.
9. Irrelevant to the resolution.
10. This needs more explanation and backing. I won't pretend that the Food and Drug Administration is the most effective agency in human history, but it does exist. Even if I grant you this point, the diseases stem not from the production of meat but from the unsanitary state of the factories and their willingness to cut corners rather than follow federal regulations.

11. Meat is a necessary aspect of the human diet. In fact, without meat, humans would never have evolved the brain capacity we have today [11]. Meat is incredibly nutritious and provides us with needed vitamins, such as vitamin B-12 which is impossible to obtain from plants [11]. Meat also provides us with Creatine, something vegetarians are deficient in, and there are no proven health benefits to avoiding meat [11]. Even Medical Daily recommends eating meat because it is rich in protein, iron, zinc, and selenium, all of which help your body function [12].

While I'm thinking about it, can we still call PETA a reputable source after they attacked Pok"mon for animal cruelty [13]? I think not.

Let the voters note that my opponent placed some sources in the comments section.

Meat is a necessary aspect of the human diet, and the purchase and consumption of it has not sufficiently been proven unethical. I remind the voters that this is not a debate about the preparation of the meat nor the ethical conditions of factory farming. My opponent is attempting to force me into a straw-man argument against the resolution whereas I am negating the resolution as written. Even if this were not the case, I have listed several viable alternatives to factory farming where consumers may purchase meat products from well-raised animals. For all these reasons, I ask the voters to vote CON!

I anticipate my opponent's response in the final round!

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://classics.mit.edu...
[3] http://www.nrcs.usda.gov...
[4] http://www.ams.usda.gov...
[5] http://www.environmentalstewardship.org...
[6] http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com...
[7] http://www.globalanimalpartnership.org...
[8] http://www.grasslandbeef.com...
[9] http://www.homegrowncow.com...
[10] http://feedtheworld.org...
[11] http://authoritynutrition.com...
[12] http://www.medicaldaily.com...
[13] http://www.mcvuk.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kbub

Pro

Why do we murder?

We murder because we are afraid; we murder because we are angry; we murder who harbor great hatred and we who shoulder great pain. And yet, when I see great anger I am unafraid. When I hear of great hatred my heart is unshaken. When I am told of great pain my soul is not robbed of its tranquility. Though my knees quake and my chest pounds and my mouth cries "O god what horror is this!" my soul would yet remain steadfast; for even while I tremble before suffering, even then I am secure in my hope, and in my hope I am uplifted.

And yet one kind of murder sends terror to my very core. It is the most terrible of murders whose presence alone threatens my hope. It is the Murder of Ignorance that alone makes me truly afraid.

In the Murder of Ignorance, one may not have even realized the misdeed. In the Murder of Ignorance, all rationality is abandoned. In the Murder of Ignorance, one does business with the Devil, trading her souls for economy. In the Murder of Ignorance, compassion and empathy are packed in dusty brown boxes to be taken out on Christmas. In the Murder of Ignorance, one mistakes an leg for a stick and then snaps the stick, a lung for a balloon and then punctures the balloon, a throat for a rope and then cuts the rope, a body for bread and then breaks the bread.

In our most shameful acts in our most shameful histories, the Murder of Ignorance is at the core. It was the Murder of Ignorance that slew the American Indians who were "uncivilized" and "un-Christian" ; it was the Murder of Ignorance that enslaved and killed persons of color because they were morally and spiritually "depraved"; it was the Murder of Ignorance that executed the developmentally-challenged during the Holocaust because they were "inferior," "irrational," and "unintelligent;" it was the Murder of Ignorance the massacred the Jews because they were "less valuable."

My opponent claims that the slavery, torture, and execution of 9 billion innocent animal souls each year is justified because non-human animals are "different from" and "worth less than" humans [quotes edited slightly]. My opponent claims that I made a "false analogy" in linking past atrocities to the oppression of non-human animals, and yet my opponent uses the same arguments that were used to justify slavery, the Holocaust, and the colonization of the Americas to justify why animals may be freely massacred.

My opponent claims that my analogy between historical instances of dehumanization and the oppression of animals is "false" because "animals are not humans." However, in doing so my opponent unwittingly proves the validity of my argument. The reason I gave a history of "dehumanization" was to point out that what counted at "human" has evolved. It used to be that American Indians, persons of color, women, persons with certain religious ties, and queer persons were all at some time "inhuman." My opponent drops this argument. Furthermore, I point out that claiming that one group is human and one is inhuman is the reason why such horrible crimes, such objectification, such "Murder of Ignorance" if you will, was possible. My opponent drops this argument. Then, by claiming that "animals are not human," Con actually uses this same false justification to allow the massacre of animals based on a ridiculous species-distinction that was used to justify that massacre of others that society now considers "human."

It is telling that my opponent used Aristotle's _Politics_ to "prove" that animals are different from and worth less than humans. Aristotle's _Politics_ also points out that slavery is natural and good, and that men have the natural right to lord over the naturally-inferior women [1]. My opponent's use of the _Politics_ further solidifies the analogy between slavery and our species-wide oppression.

My opponent argues that one must be able to believe in God in order to be human. Not only is this obviously wrong, but it was the same arguments that Europeans used to justify their oppressive colonization of "savages" [2]. My opponent says that humans know right and wrong and animals do not. My opponent does not give any reason or examples for why this is the case. Animals are certainly capable of good. In many species, animals have a natural compassion for one another [3, 4].

My opponent suggests that the value of animals are different cross-culturally. However, I point out that humans do not have the right to choose animals' value. (My opponent drops this argument). This is an example of my opponent putting a price tag on the souls of others, which was seen during slavery and is a component of the Murder of Innocence. My opponent's argument is therefore an RVI, demonstrating that my opponent's position is unethical and that meat eating is founded on unethical, ignorant, and potentially evil justifications.

Important: My opponent claims that this is a debate about eating meat, and not about the mistreatment of animals. There are lots of thing I can say about this claim, but most importantly my opponent CONCEDES that VEGETARIANISM is DETRIMENTAL to FACTORY FARMS. In my opponent's words: "if ignored [if meats is not eaten or purchased]...the meat industry will lose a significant amount of money." My opponent admits that factory farms rely on consumers to purchase their meat. If their meat is not purchased, factory farms will not be able to operate, and the animals will no longer be tortured, enslaved, and killed by the factory farms. So yes, this debate is about factory farms.

Additionally, the fact that my opponent thinks that purchasing meat has nothing to do with animals shows just how deceived we can be. My opponent is the victim of a culture that is ignorantly convinced of its innocence. By eating meat, one is purchasing the assassination of an animal, and is also helping the meat industry purchase slaves. The inability of my opponent to see this connection that is so obvious is evidence of a self-deception that allows the continued massacre.

My opponent claims that there are alternative, ethical methods of buying meat. In response:
A) we are talking about the general practice of eating meat. 99% comes from factory farms [3] (my opponent dropped this argument).
B) Even non-factory farms still use poultry whose very weight commits them to a live of torture (my opponent dropped this argument).
C) Even in the "best" animals farms, animals are still enslaved and killed. My opponent simply advocates that an extraordinarily small fraction of farms don't torture their innocent slaves before killing them. Because we are not talking about naturally dead animals or roadkill, 100% of the meat purchasing we are talking about is proven to be unethical. I don't need to defend 100% of purchases (only general practice), but I have done so anyway just to make sure that voters are very clear.

My opponent's sources:
My opponent says some farmers are trying to make factory farms better, and Americans eat livestock. The link does not show improved conditions for animals, but is only concerned with minimizing poop runoff. And simply trying to improve conditions is not enough, because obviously conditions are terrible. My opponent gives no reason to think conditions have improved.

My opponent says that organic shows that animals are treated well. This is a myth. See my arguments about the "free range" myth. [5, 6]. Besides that, even the most "ethical" instances of murdering and enslaving animals are still very unethical. I am proposing an end to slavery, not better treatment of slave. I am proposing an end to massacre, not less painful executions. Again, please realize also that these instances of animals not being tortured before death is far less than 1%, so even if all my opponent's arguments flow through I still win that the general practice of purchasing and eating meat is unethical.
------
My opponent thinks that while animals can't distinguish between justice and injustice, humans can. See my opponent's and my entire arguments as evidence for why that's just not true.

My opponent says that humans are allowed to live because they are smart. This is what the Nazi's said when they killed the mentally-handicapped.

My opponent thinks that global warming and health issues due to factory farming is "irrelevant" to funding factory farms. That's obviously untrue. Paying the people who are one of the main sources of global warming is obviously a bad thing. Paying people who single-handedly cause nearly all outbreaks of Salmanila and E Coli is obviously problematic and unethical.
(I should point out that my opponent drops these arguments).

My opponent does not oppose (DROPS, and therefore CONCEDES, since this is the last round) my statistics demonstrating the suffering of animals. My opponent does criticize my use of PETA as a source, but does not contend with any specific statistic from PETA; therefore, all of my statistics are uncontested.

My links. I have already demonstrated and my opponent conceded that not buying meat destroys factory farms. I need not defend these other links, but I will.
1, 2, and 6 hold true, even if humans are near the same value. My opponent concedes 3-5. 8: not eating meat is good for you [7, 8]. 9 is conceded. 10 is conceded, because meat is indeed messy. 11: not eating meat is healthier [7, 8].

Conclusion: Buying then eating meat participates in the Murder of Innocence.
Obviously round 1 was a copy. My title says copy #2

1 http://www.iep.utm.edu...
2 http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 http://www.amazon.com...
4 https://www.youtube.com...,
5 http://www.peacefulprairie.org...,
6. http://www.peta.org...
7. http://www.nursingdegree.net..., 8. http://www.health.harvard.edu...
EndarkenedRationalist

Con

My opponent begins with strong emotional appeal - so strong, in fact, that it is a fallacy of appealing to emotion.

Many murders are not pre-meditated, but legal definitions of murder are not what we are talking about.

My opponent continues his faulty comparisons. I did not drop these points, as he falsely claims, because I argued that they were a logical fallacy. I listed 3 criteria that people have used to disguise humans from animals. I will repeat myself here: humans are animals but animals are not humans. This argument is similar to those used by people who then committed terrible atrocities, but it is not the same, because animals have never been considered humans. When animals can distinguish right from wrong without prior training, reveal the capacity to have faith, use reasoned speech, or even have the ability to buy a house, settle inside, and start paying taxes, then I may consider an animal human. When animals are biologically like humans, then I may consider them human. Does this justify their mistreatment in factory farms? No. But I am not arguing in support of factory farms - I am arguing in support of purchasing and eating meat. Again, the treatment the animals went through prior to this is irrelevant to the resolution as written, and my opponent never really responds to this point, so he drops it.

Again, I do not drop any of the arguments in my opponent's comparison. The entire concept is still a logical fallacy. Given a choice between shooting a squirrel and shooting a best friend, pretty much everybody would shoot the squirrel. The lives of the two are not equivalent.

My opponent condemns my use of Aristotle because Aristotle also supported slavery by nature. Should we also condemn Thomas Jefferson's arguments because he had slaves? Should we condemn Vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian?

I never said people had to believe in God to be human. This is a vicious straw man fallacy. What I said was, " another key difference between man and animal is the capacity for faith." The ability to believe is not the same as believing. My argument is not the same as the Europeans, making his source 2 invalid.

Again, I did not drop the price tag argument. I argued that man does determine the worth of an animal cross-culturally. The owner of something certainly has the right to determine its value. My opponent cannot realistically argue that people do not own animals - the entire concept of pets and farms, for example, disprove that idea. Again, the reason putting a price tag on slaves was unethical was because slaves are still humans. This is not an argument I make out of some sense of discrimination or species-ism. I have listed several criteria differentiating humans - all humans - from animals. Even biology does this. It was wrong to equalize animals and humans, and there is no logic in doing so. Many of my opponent's points are just fallacies appealing to pathos, or emotion, and are thus not useful tools in a debate.

I do concede that vegetarianism is detrimental to factory farms. So is buying meat from other sources. I listed several other methods, including Whole Foods, a well-established store. Again, I am not defending factory farms. They are not the only source of meat, and they are vastly overstated by my opponent. Organic farming is spreading throughout the states and is certified by tons of sources, only a handful of which I listed above, including the US Department of Agriculture, which is more credible than my opponent asserting that the benefits of these places are myths.

By eating meat, one is not purchasing the assassination of an animal. The animal is already dead. Not eating it would be wasteful and inefficient, and there are plenty of other ways to buy meat without funding factory farms.

I thought I posted a counter-source to my opponent's 99% claim. It would be unfair for me to post a new source here, so I will just point out that the 99% is misleading. Aside from the margin of error all percentages come with, that number refers only to chicken. Other types of meat have lower percentages in factory farming.

I do not drop the argument regarding poultry on free-range and non-factory farming. My opponent accuses me entirely too many times of dropping arguments I never did. This leads me to believe my opponent did not pay much attention to my debate. I mentioned how the Welfare Rating System and the US Dept. of Agriculture do not permit growth hormones and other such chemicals. Thus the weight of the animals is normal and natural, not enhanced.

Non-factory farms are not as small as my opponent would believe. They are growing more and more, especially as both large businesses like Whole Foods and the government itself take notice of them and take steps to encourage their continued development.

I have proven how much better animals live on non-factory farms for human consumption. My opponent's entire argument for the treatment of animals being unethical is not only irrelevant to the resolution - the purchase and consumption of meat, not the treatment of it - but it also centers around the idea that animals are equivalent to humans. I have used logic to prove this false while my opponent can only respond in passionate fallacies of emotion.

My opponent then switches from saying non-factory farming is not any better to admitting that it treats animals more compassionately. I urge the voters to note this.

Again, non-factory farming is growing and being encouraged, thus providing a more ethical manner to purchase and consume meat.

I never said humans are allowed to live because they are smart. I do not even know where my opponent got this idea. My opponent continually misrepresents my arguments and attacks ideas I never purported, and I urge the voters to notice this.

Calling an argument irrelevant is not dropping it. That is my refutation of your argument. Global warming has nothing to do with a debate about the ethics of buying and eating meat. I remind the voters that all this entails is: walking into a grocery store/non-factory farm, handing over some money, walking home with dinner, and cooking it. I cannot specify enough that, based on the way my opponent phrased the resolution, the treatment of animals is not a central aspect of this debate - only the purchase and consumption is. To cover my bases, I have provided alternatives as well.

Sickness also has nothing to do with the ethics of buying and consuming meat. Especially when I have continually demonstrated the wide range of alternative options. I reassert: dismissing an argument as invalid is not the same as dropping it. If I had written "I like ice cream" in the prior round and you ignored it, or called it irrelevant, that would not be you dropping that statement.

By the way, my opponent actually does drop an argument in conceding that the animal is already dead and thus would have lived in vain if not eaten.

I counter my opponent's statistics; thus I do not drop them. It was also against conduct for my opponent to use sources in his final round when I am not permitted to. I move that all sources in round 3 should be disregarded.

If I attack PETA as a source, I attack everything about it.

I responded to every one of my opponent's 11 points - not a single one was dropped. My opponent has said this so many times incorrectly that I again have to wonder how much of my argument he bothered to read.

My opponent drops my arguments proving the benefits of eating meat, including those citing the detriments of vegetarianism. He simply asserts that "not eating meat is good for you." I have used sources and demonstrated otherwise, and my opponent does not contest these. We must conclude he concedes them.

My opponent also concedes my second response to 8 regarding the place of humans on the food chain.

Again, on 9, saying something is irrelevant is not a concession.

I asked my opponent for clarification on point 10, and he said I conceded it without clarification. I find this incredibly rude and misrepresentative of my arguments.

I have demonstrated many alternatives to factory-farming where I have proven the animals are treated with compassion and permitted to live naturally. I have demonstrated sufficient ethical alternatives to factory-farms. I have demonstrated how the resolution applies only to the purchase and consumption of meat, not the treatment of animals, and my opponent has only refuted this through logical fallacies. I have demonstrated the health benefits of eating meat, and these have gone uncontested, save for the equivalent of "nuh-huh!" This is not a sufficient rebuttal. I have demonstrated (and do not have to prove, as it is the status quo) that animals are not equivalent to humans. Additionally, my opponent has straw-manned and misrepresented many of my arguments. He has furthermore falsely accused me of conceding many of his and unfairly utilised new sources in the final round where I cannot well respond to them because I cannot use new sources of my own.

Debates are about logic and reasoned discourse, not fallaciously appealing to emotions.

For all of the above reasons (and what the heck, for bacon), I urge the voters to vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Thanks for voting so carefully! Due to certain reasons I am still convinced that I won the debate, but that doesn't really matter. If I wasn't clear, that was my own fault. Anyway, lovely debate; hope I can do it again soon!
Posted by ndedo 2 years ago
ndedo
This was a great debate with strong arguments from both sides. S&G and sources were even on both sides. I am slightly inclined to give conduct to Con for Pro's misrepresentation of Con's rebuttals (saying that he dropped arguments when he did not) but it's not strong enough justification for the point.

Ultimately, I feel that Con won the arguments for the following reasons. The resolution only involved the purchase and consumption of meat; Pro based his arguments on irrelevant points, and Con pointed this out well. Pro relied too heavily on pathos, especially in the final round. Pathos is valid for effective public speaking and the like, but not in a logical debate. He also heavily misused terms such as slavery and assassination in context where they do not apply. Pro's arguments begged the question of whether animals were equal to humans; just because they aren't currently considered human and the definition has changed over time to include more humans does not prove anything. Con gave reasons for why humans are logically considered separate from animals and Pro did not adequately refute them.

Finally, I would like to mention that since the premise is whether or not it is ethical, Con has has a much easier position to start. As Pro said in round 1, this is "morality in the context of the contemporary American society." Ethics are determined by contemporary society, which accepts the consumption of meat as the norm; vegans and vegetarians are a minority group. Thus, consumption of meat is ethical.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
NOT if it's logical! The only analysis that you give that its not torture and slavery and murder is that they aren't human! I spend most of my debate demonstrating that "human" has changed, and the distinction leads to genocide!
So, when I am talking about the slavery, torture, and murder of billions, I reserve the right to make an emotional argument, because emotion in this case is absolutely justified.

Anyway, I did google it: "without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas." What they are talking about is purely emotional arguments. Good rhetoric is emotional.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
I recommend you do a Google search. The appeal to emotion is indeed a logical fallacy, especially when you invoke it with such strong language. Now, it can be a powerful persuasive device, but it is still a logical fallacy.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
You realize there's no such thing as a "fallacy of emotion," right? They call that "pathos," and its fundamental part of rhetoric. If my arguments are good, then effective pathos only helps.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
It was an example for modernised society. It was the idea of doing more so than what exactly was being done.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
When you're talking about animals not being able to pay taxes and write laws and build large buildings, you do realize that these same remarks were make about American Indians, right?
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
I ran out of space for some citations:
http://www.farmsanctuary.org...
http://ecowatch.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ndedo 2 years ago
ndedo
kbubEndarkenedRationalistTied
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: See comments
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
kbubEndarkenedRationalistTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: In this debate I have to side with Con, as Pro made an appeal to emotion using highly charged words like slavery and murder which were inappropriate, as they have standard definitions which are different to what was described. Also Conduct points go to Con, as Pro made out that Con was not addressing point and dropping them when Con did no such thing. For these false accusations Pro loses conduct. Sources are tied as both debaters supplied sources. Grammar points are tied as well. Interesting debate, but it required more rational arguments and not appeals to emotion.