The Instigator
JamesDaMan
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
shmackies
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

This House Believes In Banning Factory Farming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,232 times Debate No: 15380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

JamesDaMan

Con

My first main point on Fartory Farming is that we will have to slaughter animals for meat, one way or another. Being the dominate species of the animal kingdom, human beings have always somehow gathered or hunted animals for their meat. Now we are living in the modern ages, factory farming is a convenient, partical method of distributing meat for low income families on a regular basis. Meat was and always will be apart of our diet so why ban something that would get the meat at a more affordable and convenient way than free-ranged farming? Factory Farming will be that answer!
shmackies

Pro

I thank my opponent for the challenge and wish to all a great debate!

First, the argument of my opponent:


"My first main point on Fartory Farming is that we will have to slaughter animals for meat, one way or another."

Although animals will have to be killed, factory farming gives animals a poor quality of life and encourages inhumane treatment of animals.

"Being the dominate species of the animal kingdom, human beings have always somehow gathered or hunted animals for their meat."


Humans have always gathered animals for meat, but that is not the issue here. The central issues are environmental impact of large scale farming, impact of methods used to maintain large scale farming, and economic impact of factory farms on the meat industry.

"Now we are living in the modern ages, factory farming is a convenient, partical method of distributing meat for low income families on a regular basis."


Factory farming is inconvenient by principle. With centralized production areas, meat must be shipped across the nation to get to customers. Factory farms produce artificially low costs of food and drive out competition of organic and ethically produced food. Lots of local organic farming would not only create jobs, but also reduce the price of organic, ethically produced food.

"Meat was and always will be apart of our diet so why ban something that would get the meat at a more affordable and convenient way than free-ranged farming? Factory Farming will be that answer!"

Factory farm prices are artificially low to gain a monopoly on the way that meat is produced. Free-range organic farming is demonstrably more ethical and healthy.

Opposition:

Health Issues for Animals

http://www.pmac.net...

As you can explore on your own from links from the EPA's website, there are many reports of indiscriminate anti-bacterial use. The unnatural massive collection of animals forced into cramped environments substantially increases likelihood of disease. Farmers then are forced to give constant amounts of antibacterials to animals.

All evidence is cited and linked from journals collected by the EPA.

"The antibiotics have been put in U.S. animal feed for decades to speed growth and prevent illness; this practice, controversial in America and elsewhere, has been severely limited in the European Union. In accordance with the EU's position, the American Medical Association recently began a sorely needed campaign to encourage the federal government to restrict the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in livestock. The AMA fears that the inappropriate use of these drugs in animals and humans is contributing to the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria." - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel October 19, 2001

"Antibiotics are an integral part of swine production being used in all production phases, by all sizes of groups, through various routes for various reasons, according to initial conclusions of a soon-to-be-published study… The researchers reported that the most common antibiotic used was procaine-penicillin (30.2% of sites with grower/finishers). Others commonly used, they said, were oxytetracycline (16.1%), ceftiofur (14.5%), tylosin (13.8%) and penicillin benzathine (15.5%), which is not approved for use in swine… Antibiotics included in the feed only for disease prevention or treatment, the researchers said, were CSP, tiamulin, tylosin and sulfamethazine. The number of days antibiotics were included in the feed varied for each antibiotic and also depended on the primary intent for including that antibiotic in feed, the researchers said. In general, they explained, an antibiotic was in the feed longer for growth promotion and shorter for disease treatment…Antibiotics are an integral part of swine production." - Antibiotic, feed additive use in swine examined, December 3, 2001

"Gaseous emissions from swine manure storage systems represent a concern to
air quality due to the potential impacts of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia,
methane, and volatile organic compounds on environmental quality, human
health, and wellbeing." –USDA study, Air Pollution From Swine Production Facilities

Clearly, the scale of operations greatly intensifies problems that are minimal on smaller scaled operations. As the USDA study goes on to describe, the sheer intensity of emissions centralized into one facility is the main source of the problem. Antibiotics are needed on large scale operations, which are detrimental to human and pig health.

Unethical Treatment of Animals

(Watch video at the top)


"The majority of the world's farm animals currently live in miserable factory conditions, raised using 'production line' methods. High output is achieved by subjecting the animals to intense and prolonged suffering. They live short, barren lives, spent in cages, crates, overcrowded sheds and narrow stalls. There is no guarantee of a humane death." –WSPA

The cruelty on factory farms in clear. Animals are taken out of their natural environment to be put into an assembly line to maximize production. Animals are often confined in cages that do not allow them to move, and are force fed large amounts of food with growth hormones and antibiotics. Free range animals are allowed to roam free, and are ethically killed by hand.

http://www.wspa-international.org...
http://www.farmsanctuary.org...

Economic Issues


"Cheap industrial food, the organic movement has argued, only seems cheap, because the real costs are charged to the environment (in the form of water and air pollution and depletion of the soil); to the public purse (in the form of subsidies to conventional commodity producers); and to the public health (in the cost of diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease), not to mention to the welfare of the farm- and food-factory workers and the well-being of the animals." –Michael Pollan, New York Times

Food produced by factory farms is artificially cheap, and cuts costs by harming the environment, the animals it kills, and the people that eat them.

Environmental Impact

EPA list of environmental issues from factory farming:
http://cfpub.epa.gov...

-Air and water pollution from manure
-Pesticides and other industrial chemicals killing the surrounding environment
-Breeding of highly resistant bacteria
-Unsustainability of land and water use
Many others included

Health Issues for Humans

"Farms on which animals are intensively reared can cause adverse health reactions in farm workers. Workers may develop acute and chronic lung disease, musculoskeletal injuries, and may catch infections that transmit from animals to human beings (such as tuberculosis).

Chemical, bacterial, and viral compounds from animal waste may travel in the soil and water. Residents near such farms report problems such as unpleasant smell, flies and adverse health effects.

A number of pollutants have been found that are associated with the discharge of animal waste into rivers and lakes, and into the air. The use of antibiotics may create antibiotic-resistant pathogens; parasites, bacteria, and viruses may be spread; ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus can reduce oxygen in surface waters and contaminate drinking water; pesticides and hormones may cause hormone-related changes in fish; animal feed and feathers may stunt the growth of desirable plants in surface waters and provide nutrients to disease-causing micro-organisms; trace elements such as arsenic and copper, which are harmful to human health, may contaminate surface waters." -Source from CDC, through Wikipedia, www.cdc.gov

Conclusion
The facts are clear. Factory farming is unnecessary, and is detrimental to animal rights, the environment, and human health.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 1
JamesDaMan

Con

......Wow.... hahah obvisiously ur way better than me lol but i'll try my best to win!

(i couldnt rebute all the info shmackies made czuse that would take ages...)
He rebuted my 'we will have to slaughter animals for meat, one way or another' saying
"Although animals will have to be killed, factory farming gives animals a poor quality of life and encourages inhumane treatment of animals"
This doesnt relate to my point as even if the act of factory farming is not morally right,
we cant do anything about that. even if factory farming gives animals a poor quality life we would still
to slaughter meat anyway. even free ranges farming is the same, "feed,fatten and kill!"

He also said "Gaseous emissions from swine manure storage systems represent a concern to
air quality due to the potential impacts of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia,
methane, and volatile organic compounds on environmental quality, human
health, and wellbeing"
Come on – a pig fart joke is one thing, but you can't seriously argue this! Are we really supposed to believe that pig-produced methane is even in the same league as pollution from big business and industry? A better alternative for this will be requiring the upkeep and replacement of turf, not for banning a whole industry.

On the Unethical part, as agian i will repeat, no matter how cruel and inhumane YOU think factory farming is, we will
still have to KILL anmials one way or another. killing is unethical but its a beast eat beast world out there and its the survival of the fittest. Many of these animals exist because we eat them, anyway – pigs, cows, sheep, chickens – all animals that are bred in their millions because we want to eat them. Man should treat man with respect and dignity – but animals are not our equals, don't have any capacity for higher thought, and can be used for our benefit without any moral problem. Furthermore, the large firms responsible for ‘factory' farming are more easily monitored by law so the animals often fare better than they would have done in normal farming – so it's not true that factory farming is particularly cruel.

Factory farming is less cruel than you think. What is true is that activists have ensured the few isolated incidents of cruelty or bad practice have received publicity well out of proportion with their significance.

Another point i think you said something about factory farmers feeding growth pills that speeds up growth. well farming has always been the imposition of artificial, man-made patterns on nature so we're doing what farming is meant to do.

I'll just include only one major point and then i'll finish (thank goodness ^.^')
Impratical.
to ban factory farming, you would have to get rid of all factory farms, demolish them, fire and re-hire staff, train staff, provide massive amout of land needs for free ranged farming and rasie the prices on all meat industries. thats Ridiculous!! not only will that be impossibe to provide as much meat provided by factory farms, people in low-income communties would go insane! due to the recent raise in GST it is getting harder to put food on the table. by getting rid of factory farms, meat prices would sky-rocket!!

Vote CON!!
shmackies

Pro

“This doesnt relate to my point as even if the act of factory farming is not morally right, we cant do anything about that. even if factory farming gives animals a poor quality life we would still to slaughter meat anyway. even free ranges farming is the same, ‘feed,fatten and kill!’”

I have previously conceded that animals will probably have to be killed in some manner to produce food for our society. That is also not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the benefits of factory farming outweigh the costs. The benefits are cheap, plentiful animal products that come from very efficient factories. The costs are serious environmental damage, health risks for humans, economic problems, and providing the animals with an incredibly poor quality of life. On the point of quality of life, my opponent says that “even if [they have] a poor quality life we would still to slaughter meat anyway”. What my opponent is trying to say is that the quality of life of animals has no value. I would like to respond to this with two analyses.

1. Religious Perspective: By analyzing moral codes of major religions, they see all life as having value. Humans are stewards of the earth, and should treat all life with respect and dignity. Humans can kill animals for food, but should do so respectfully.

2. Secular Perspective: No objective basis is given to distinguish humans from animals. There is no evidence given to acknowledge intellectual capacity as a brightline. Animals still have the capacity to feel pain. Unless my opponent can give a moral framework that recognizes human moral dignity and completely disregards animal moral dignity, then my opponent has no point here.


“Come on – a pig fart joke is one thing, but you can't seriously argue this! Are we really supposed to believe that pig-produced methane is even in the same league as pollution from big business and industry”

As previously cited in evidence, the massive scale of factory farming manure disposal releases immense amounts of bacteria and gases into the environment. This was cited in previous evidence. Here is some more evidence:

“Livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide according to the U.N. – more than all the planes, trains, and automobiles on the planet.” -The Los Angeles Times 2006


“On the Unethical part, as agian i will repeat, no matter how cruel and inhumane YOU think factory farming is, we will still have to KILL anmials one way or another. killing is unethical but its a beast eat beast world out there and its the survival of the fittest.”

XA- No moral framework

XA- Non-responsive

“Many of these animals exist because we eat them, anyway – pigs, cows, sheep, chickens – all animals that are bred in their millions because we want to eat them.”

XA- No moral framework



“Man should treat man with respect and dignity – but animals are not our equals, don't have any capacity for higher thought, and can be used for our benefit without any moral problem.”



XA- No moral framework

No warrant



“Furthermore, the large firms responsible for ‘factory' farming are more easily monitored by law so the animals often fare better than they would have done in normal farming – so it's not true that factory farming is particularly cruel.”



No warrant, see previous evidence



“Factory farming is less cruel than you think. What is true is that activists have ensured the few isolated incidents of cruelty or bad practice have received publicity well out of proportion with their significance.”

No warrant

My previous evidence shows standard procedure of factory farm hatcheries




“Another point i think you said something about factory farmers feeding growth pills that speeds up growth. well farming has always been the imposition of artificial, man-made patterns on nature so we're doing what farming is meant to do.”

There is a difference between manipulating nature to benefit humans (farming) and synthesizing chemicals to inject into animals.

XA- Health issues


“Impratical. to ban factory farming, you would have to get rid of all factory farms, demolish them, fire and re-hire staff, train staff, provide massive amout of land needs for free ranged farming and rasie the prices on all meat industries. thats Ridiculous!! not only will that be impossibe to provide as much meat provided by factory farms, people in low-income communties would go insane! due to the recent raise in GST it is getting harder to put food on the table. by getting rid of factory farms, meat prices would sky-rocket!!”


My opponent proposes a false dichotomy between current factory farming policy and immediate ban of factory farming. XA- Economic harms. The artificially low prices are created by shifting costs to damage to the environment, human health, and ethical treatment of animals. Since my opponent mentioned practicality, any type of alternative would require weighing between maintaining economic balance and promoting non-factory farms. All claims by my opponent are unwarranted.

All of my opponent’s points elucidate the fact that we are going to eat animals. I have conceded that we will eat animals. My opponent fails to recognize any of my previous points. Extend all drops. My opponent has not challenged any of my evidence or arguments and has only made unwarranted claims.

Debate Round No. 2
JamesDaMan

Con

now i'll make this short and simple... most of ur rebute on my points were XA no moral framework...
well can u give me a list or any examples of morally right slauthger? as u did say "Humans can kill animals for food, but should do so respectfully..."
shmackies

Pro

"well can u give me a list or any examples of morally right slauthger?"

Animals have been historically slaughtered for human consumption since the dawn of man. Morality is only one of the issues that I have raised. Although animals will be slaughtered, the quality of their life and circumstances of their killing still have value to people.

Besides this point, my opponent has failed to answer any of my arguments. He has only made unwarranted claims and assertions. The economic impacts, health issues, and severe ethics violations call for immediate reform. Extend all previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JamesDaMan 6 years ago
JamesDaMan
just a side note, its my first time debating and first time using this site so have some mercy lo~l ^.^
Posted by JamesDaMan 6 years ago
JamesDaMan
so what happened?....
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
Ah. My mistake, the resolution you state in the text is different from the one stated in the title. Looks like you are just BOP dodging.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
You've made yourself con when you are pro
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 6 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
JamesDaManshmackiesTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's grasp of the concepts in this debate exceeded those of the Con's. Pro also made better arguments and answered Con's appropriately
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
JamesDaManshmackiesTied
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: Lopsided.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
JamesDaManshmackiesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Absolutely no warrants provided in the con case. So I cant even grant the affordability argument. Also, all pros arguments were cleanly extended with weighable (even though not explicitly mentioned) impacts
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
JamesDaManshmackiesTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes a good point, factory farming makes meat consumption affordable
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
JamesDaManshmackiesTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's points went unanswered during the entire debate.