The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Veganism and Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,227 times Debate No: 97587
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)




Lets get something straight. There is something seriously wrong with our society. We have actually turned animals, that think and feel, into sandwiches and coats. What is wrong with us.

Good people follow the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Animals qualify as others. They do because they feel like we do. Pain, fear, grief etc.

Meat, dairy and egg eaters don't care about animals. They don't care about what pain they cause on others. As long as they get their bacon, they are fine with animal abuse. They make the same excuses that Nazi's and slave owners made. They say that just because someone is different, they are inferior. That type of mentality is evil. pure evil. Nothing justifies the meat and dairy industry.

The people who do this are not evil at heart. They have just been raised in an evil society. Think about the life of a dairy cow for example.

Lets call her Jane. At birth, Jane is instantly taken from her mother, and imprisoned on a farm where she is fed a nutrition devoid diet.

Eventually, she is tortured via branding. (Yes, applying hot metal to a living being is torture). She also has her ear clipped without painkiller for the sake of identification.

Jane then lives an exhausting life. She is constantly milked for hours on end. She is also raped with bull semen to produce more calves that will be stolen from her. Stress takes a toll on her. After a few years, her productivity begins to decrease. She is then put on a cattle car and begins a miserable trip to a slaughterhouse.

At the slaughterhouse, Jane and her friends are so scared they won't get off the truck. They know what's coming. Their not stupid. the slaughterhouse workers then use cattle prods to force them into the facility where they will each wait for their turn on the killing floor.

Once there, Jane will receive a captive bolt to the head. It's supposed to render her nerves inert but almost always the cows are killed fully feeling and conscious.

She is then hung upside down on a large machine and a slaughterhouse worked slashes her throat and waits for her to bleed to death. After that, Jane is sent to be butchered packaged and shipped to a store or restaurant.

Jane experienced all of that so that we humans can enjoy the taste of cheese or steak. This is the worst holocaust that has ever happened. We slaughter 150 BILLION animals every year.

Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet. Forget the lies and propaganda from the meat and dairy industry. They want money. They don't care about the animals. There is no excuse for this.

Don't even get me started on the health and environmental damage from meat, dairy and eggs.

Feel free to explore that site.


I'd like to thank my opponent for allowing 10,000 characters, because I have a feeling I'm going to need them for this first round.

My goal for this round is to go over some facts:

Addressing logical fallacies.

The nature of most animals.

The nature of human dietary needs.

How the nature of animals applies to morality.

As you read, keep in mind that the proper debate is whether or not veganism is the most morally correct lifestyle. My opponent and I may be arguing on further grounds, but what really matters is the conclusion of these points.

1) Addressing Logical Fallacies:

My opponent is making a fairly convincing claim; however, in order to prove it we need proof, not a compelling story. The current fallacy is an appeal to emotion. If we imagine an animal that we're attached to, then of course, it seems wrong. If we anthropomorphise (attributing human characteristic to non-human things [1]) it's easy to take this view. However, we need an actual study of animals and morality in order to make a proper decision.

We should also avoid having an outcome bias. This is a logical fallacy where we disagree with something simply because we disagree with the outcome of that belief. If anything I say is distasteful, please keep in mind that does not make it wrong. My job is to prove that these animals are literally inferior to humans, and the emotional response to the consequences of those facts should not determine whether or not you agree wtih my argument.

2) Animal Nature and Emotions:

There's a few things I'll need to address concerning animal behavior. One is the nature of the brain (emotional side especially), and another is the predator/prey relationship.

a. Often times animals seem to exhibit human emotions. If you watch the video about the Gallapagos Albatross in my 2nd source [2] you will see behavior that looks to be almost romantic. They mate for life, they have a highly specific dance they do to find a partner, and they even caress. However, even the people who study these animals recognize that it's all in the interest of strong continuation of the species.

To be specific to the animals in question, I'm going to specifically analyze chickens and cows. Going forward, there are a few things that we need to clarify:

The amygdala is the part of your brain that processes "reflex" emtions, like fear and anxiety.

The cingulate gyrus is the part of the brain that processes conscious emotions.

Let's look at the chicken. A chicken's brain is practically incapable of complex thought. It's cerebrum is smooth, which means its processing complexity is minimal [3]. While they have a large amount of instincts stored in there that may seem behavioral, the chicken itself does not "feel" anything, nor does it associate something like pain or discomfort as an emotional state. The chicken just has the instinct to get to a different state.

A cow has a slightly more complex brain. However, I looked as much as I could and couldn't find evidence of a cingulate gyrus in a cow. I found an amygdala, but even the amygdala is signficiantly less complex than a rat's amygdala in certain ways [4]. The cow does not associate any fear or pain with a conscious emotion. The fear is as emotional to them as it is to us when we touch a hot surface and our hand pulls away immediately. If you can remember something like that, you may remember a small but distinct fear present, while your mind was otherwise devoid of emotion related to the incident.

b. While killing is something that tends to go against the natural moral compass, predator/prey relationships are quite healthy for the environment. Situations where a prey group like rabbits or deer become too populated in one area, their food source diminishes, and disease can wipe out a majority of the population. This is why something like bow hunting for deer in cities is an environmentally friendly practice.

This is especially important in cities where human population has driven away most of the natural predators. If the deer are not preyed on, they will die out naturally, and it won't take more than a couple years. This, to me, is the best way to get meat. Hunting is natural, and it truly upholds the balance of predator/prey relationships that the environment needs.

Unfortunately, the human population is incredible in number, and we need something like a factory to give us enough food to survive. We don't hurt the actual population of livestock that occur naturally. We simply breed an animal that we would naturally prey on for food.

3) The Nature of Human Dietary Needs:

While plants and vegetables are an important part of a human's diet, humans have nutritional needs that are difficult to meet without meat. Yes, it is possible to acquire all of the proper aminos in order to create a complete protein without using meat. However, it is neither efficient nor cheap.

Most things that a vegan or vegetarian eats do not contain the essential amino acids [5]. In this source (from the Harvard School of Public Health), we learn that eating foods like fish and chicken are an excellent way to get the complete amino acids needed for a full protein. They also recommend that certain beans and nuts can be added to help out.

Aside from that, meat carries high levels of iron, which a vegetarian would have to make up for with more spinach than usual or something of the sort. The meals would actually have to be quite large and expensive to keep up with the needs of the body.

However, while the article focuses on attacking red meat, it does recognize that vegetarians and vegans have to do their research. And remember that vegetables are often times more expensive than meat is, especially during the winter. Low-income families need to eat too, and the people my opponent would wish to put out of business are among the few who feed them.

4) How the Nature of Animals Applies to Morality:

Now we have to tie this back into moral obligation, because that seemed to be the intent of the debate. Do humans have a moral obligation to be vegans?

Most moral systems as of yet do not account for how humans and animals interact as moral creatures. Especially with animals who definitely do not possess an emotional or personal state. Rationally, we cannot assume that a cow would identify with a name or that a name would be something other than anthropomorphism by the owner.

I argue that these animals are incapable of personal identity as of now, and they will continue to be devoid of personhood. The facts don't let us assume much more than that. I've found plenty of blogs and such talking about how these animals "appear" to have emotions or friends, but keep in mind the actual brain chemistry of these animals. No matter what we project onto them, we cannot add things to their brains that do not exist there.

So a human relates to these animals in the same way that a human relates with other food sources. It is food, it is okay that it's food, and it doesn't care that it's food. Instinctive behavioral patterns do not identify an animal as a sentient, self-aware person.

Thank you for reading.




[3] Harley, J.P., & Miller, S.A. "Zoology." 7th Edition. 2007. McGraw-Hill Companies. Pages 414-415.

[4] (page 86)


Debate Round No. 1


I'm impressed. That was a well researched and executed argument.

Regardless of the complexity of the brain of any given animal, they still feel as much physical pain as we do. The truth is that cows do feel emotion [1]. They form bonds with their calves and other cows. Other farm animals such as pigs, have the same intelligence as chimpanzees. [2].

Why should compassion be based on intelligence anyway? Just because why are intellectually superior to a cow, pig or chicken does not give us the right to torture them before eating their murdered corpse.

In response to your argument in the comments section: Dairy cows are, in fact, used for beef. After they stop producing sufficient volumes of milk, they serve no economic purpose. They are then sent to a slaughterhouse [3]. Again, pure evil.

Any vegan who isn't getting what he or she needs to take care of their body, hasn't done their research. Every vitamin you need can be found in plant based foods. Meat, on the other hand, has a lot of negative side effects. It is fattening and contributes to high blood pressure and other diseases. Fruits and veggies don't do that.

Humans are also not omnivorous creatures. Just because we behave like omnivores does not mean that is what we are. We are herbivores! There is overwhelming evidence of this:

1. Our intestines are the right length in relation to our body to be herbivores. Herbivores have intestines 10-12x the length of their bodies, just like us. Carnivore's intestine's are 3-5x the length of the body.

2. We have no claws.

3. Our canines are no excuse. Gorillas have huge canines and only eat plants. Ours are meant to break nuts and bite apples. Men have nipples and don't breastfeed, humans have canines and shouldn't eat meat.

4. Our jaws move side to side in a grinding motion, like a cow. Dogs and other carnivores can't do that.

5. We have no carnivorous instincts. A lot of "meat eaters" can't stand the sight of blood. Babies have no desire to hunt, lion cubs do. many slaughterhouse workers get PTSD.

6. Humans sweat to cool themselves, carnivores pant like a dog.

7. Raw meat makes humans sick, not dogs, lions or any other carnivore/omnivore.

In short, we're herbivores [4] [5].

On to the ethics of meat.....

As demonstrated in my first source, cows and many other animals have identity. That isn't the point, just something to keep in mind.

Ask yourself: Is it still animal abuse, even if it tastes good?

There is no logic in the arguments made by meat eaters. Humans are animals, literally. If you put a human through a slaughterhouse, they would experience exactly the same thing that a cow does. No one likes to think that they economically abuse animals. This is evident in our society.

There are three reasons why it is morally wrong to kill a person. First, it ends a sentient being"s life. Second it causes physical pain. Third it causes emotional pain. All three of those factors are present when you kill an animal. Therefore, both are equally wrong. The people who say that life of an animal is less than that of a human are making the same excuses that Nazis and slave owners made.

The simple truth is that animals feel pain. Just as much as humans do. Why is their suffering not considered wrong? What is the difference between a suffering human and a suffering animal? They both want their suffering to end. They both want to live. They both want to be loved. They both don"t deserve the pain they are feeling. There is no difference.

People who love puppies don"t eat puppies. People who love cows don"t eat cows. It"s very simple. If you eat meat, you don"t care about animals.



Thanks for that round.

To start off, I'm going to say I'll actually concede pigs. Primarily because I'm too lazy to research their neuropsychology, and apparently there was some kind of study that paired pigs at the emotional and intellectual level of humans (even though pro's source said that pigs are not as intelligent as monkeys). However, conceding pigs doesn't mean coceding the debate.

Remember that my opponent must prove veganism. In order for my opponent to prove veganism, I have to lose every animal that I present (because it would be ridiculous to expect my opponent to prove why humans shouldn't eat every possible animal from dogs down to worms).

I'm going to go back over some of the same arguments addressed in the last round and remind the voters of some of the other issues. I'll go in order of subject, not necessarily point in the debate, so just keep that in mind while comparing the two arguments.

Logical Fallacies:

We are experiencing anthropomorphism with little evidence. For example, my opponent asserts that cows feel the exact same things humans do without any actual evidence of that. I'll address the "best friends" article later (my opponent's first source), but keep in mind that just because my opponent states it, does not make it true. I have already provided evidence that a cow cannot possibly feel what a human does based on its actual brain.

My opponent is still appealing to emotions. For example, my opponent asserts and emotional non sequitur fallacy: that if you eat meat then you do not love animals. First of all, the first part of the sentence and the second part of the sentence do not logically follow. For example, I can possibly have less emotional attachment to a house fly (which is an animal by definition) and my dog. To assert it's an all or nothing game is logically fallacious.

The second problem is that my love for an animal doesn't determine which side is right. Remember the outcome bias logical fallacy? If I spend time with a cow, I will get attached to it. Most people would. My attachment to that cow does not meant that the cow reciprocates or that the cow has become any more of a personal creature than its brain allows it to be.

This assertion bears no grounding in this argument.

Now to my next point:

My analysis on animal nature is essentially dropped:

a. Cows

In the last round, I presented an analysis of a cow's brain and what that brain is capable of. My opponent may have complimented it in word but not in action. After proving that a cow has no ability to think of anything emotionally, my opponent posts three sentences and an article that doesn't site any scientific evidence. The article can be interpreted the way that the people emotionally attached to the cow would like you to interpret it, or you could interpret it the way someone who studies animals for a living would interpret it.

Cows seem to develop bonds with other cows. Survival is the obvious reason for this. All animals seek to survive, and the way they do that often includes bonding with other animals. For example, the video I posted in my last round displayed seemingly emotional behavior, but the zoologist on-site concluded it was only in the interest of the continuation of species. With cows, the reason for bonding with other cows is to form a pack that they identify as safe. Having a safe-pack is immensely important for survival, and a cow knows that by instinct. Do not, however, mistake instinct for emotions or sentience.

Until my opponent proves with scientific evidence that cows are sentient, cows should be viewed as non-sentient beings, which means they do not inheret the rights of a sentient being.

b. Deer

This is something my opponent never addressed. In the last round I analyzed how a deer population can actually be protected by a natural predator/prey relationship between the humans and the deer. My opponent has not attacked this. This argument should be viewed as conceded (until my opponent attacks it), which means veganism cannot be upheld.

Human Diet:

"As much as I agree with veganism, distorting facts to make a point is not the way to go. In fact, it’s counterproductive," [1].

This is a quote from a vegan biologist. He that article I posted is his debunking of the myth that humans are herbivores. While humans have some qualities that seem herbivorous, such a view has to ignore other elements of human taxonomy and the agreement of biologists as a whole. Of course a human has a digestive system that can tackle the nutrition that comes from plants. Omnivores do have that digestive system.

a. Fermenting vat:

We lack a fermenting vat [2]. When you hear cows have four stomachs, it's because they have four sections of a stomach that are for extracting the most nutrition from a plant as possible. Rabbits have a unique one along their intestine, whereas after digesting something, the have a cecum that will pull back any feces that still has nutrition and ferment it until the nutrition has been completely abosrbed.

This is an essential part of an herbivore, because like I said, getting all of your body's nutrition from vegetation is extremely difficult. In fact, rabbits excrete these fermented poops, and they will consume them again. If the rabbit does not eat them, the rabbit will suffer from malnutrition [3]. Humans can't do this, because our body doesn't ferment digested product like an herbivore's does.

b. Intestines:

"Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem." In other words, my opponent has not proved anything by giving the length of the intestine. The main difference among the different kinds of eaters is, in fact, the number of "crypts and cell types" [2].

In other words, my opponent's point about intestines is not correct.

c. Chewing

"This behavior is clearly related to what type of food you are actually eating and not a fixed behavior that is a clear adaptation to specialization of food. Some foods needs to be chewed more to swallow" [1].

In other words, the ability to move a jaw side to side has nothing to do with specialization of food sources. In fact, snakes (carnivores) move their jaw side to side [4] in order to chew as much as they could bite. The movement of the jaw is not proof of a herbivorous creature.

d. Claws

The existance of claws is also irrelevant. Not all animals that are carnivorous have claws. Early on, humans adapted other ways of getting meat, like how an otter adapted to getting meat by banging a clam on a rock as opposed to tearing it apart with its claws. Because one of those two ways will actually work, for their needs. In order for a man to get enough meat for his family, he cannot attack an animal small enough to claw to death. It's just the way our bodies came to be.

e. Blood

This is a result of sociology not biology. We have grown up in a society where we don't do the killing or the hunting (unless you grew up in the south). In fact, most hunters have absolutely no problem with skinning and gutting an animal that they killed for food. Does this prove my opponent wrong? Probably, but the point is that this is a result of culture, not primal instinct.

f. Raw meat

For the past few thousand years humans have been intelligent enough to be able to cook meat. Given Darwinian evolution, it makes sense that our bodies would've adapted to this lifestyle as it became widespread in the ancient world. Again, this is not proof of an herbivorous lifestyle.

g. Sweat

The existence of sweat doesn't prove our eating style. And in fact, my opponent is comparing herbivores to carnivores when in fact the comparison should be between herbivores and omnivores. Because no one here is arguing that humans are carnivores.

I think that's all I really need to say on the matter. Humans are omnivores. No biologist is in disagreement with that.

Keep in mind that I am using a vegan and a non-profit vegetarian organization as my proof. I'm not using some corporate website of the meat foundation or something. My sources on human diet are completely unbiased. These are people who realize the complexity of a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, and they have a personal conviction to that lifestyle.

The Morality:

My opponent is pushing that the animals in question are sentient. Let's define sentience real quick:

"Capable of feeling things through physical senses" [6].

So I take back in the last round where I said animals are not sentient. Apparently, all of them are. But so is a nematode [7]. In other words, sentience in this case is meaningless. What really matters is whether or not an animal is a person. Does a cow have actual unique emotional traits and a complex thought process to relate memories and physical experiences to emotion? No. Does a cow contemplate its own existence? Evidence would say they do not.

Most animals are in no way persons. A cow has no capability of mind to do or process something emotionally. Different "personalities" may be conditioned by different instincts, but those do not go to emotions. They go to a conditioned response based on what their brain has learned through physical experiences. They are moderately intelligent in this way, but they are not people because of it. The ability to learn is fairly nonunique in animals, even the ones that are undisputably not people.

Again, I ask you vote in my favor do to the underwhelming proof from my opponent and the overwhelming proof that the animals in question so far are not people.

[4] Harley, J.P., & Miller, S.A. "Zoology." 7th Edition. 2007. McGraw-Hill Companies. Page 334
Debate Round No. 2


Actually, I don't have to prove veganism. Veganism is the lack of animal abuse. My opponent must prove animal abuse (meat eating) is more ethical than veganism. Common sense tells us it's not. Evidently, my opponent is arguing on behalf of animal abuse because she is against veganism. The two are polar opposites.

If I am required to prove veganism, my opponent must prove animal abuse.

When I said that meat eaters don't love animals, I am aware that they may care about their dogs or cats. But the problem is when they decide that any animal they don't have a personal connection with is worthless. So worthless that their taste is worth more than the entire life of the animal.

I have to disagree with my opponents argument to about human biology for the following reasons:

A. Fermenting Vat: A lack of a herbivorous feature is irrelevant. Not all herbivores are the same. My opponent must present omnivorous traits, not the lack of herbivorous traits.

B. Intestines: Let's observe the intestinal system of an omnivore such as the American Black Bear [1].
Take note of how the intestines are shorter than that of a herbivore. If we were omnivores, our intestines would also be shortened.

C. It is obvious that our jaws are designed to chew herbs. Carnivores rip and swallow meat whole. Snakes swallow their food whole. That is why we see boa constrictors and pythons with huge lumps in their bodies after a meal.

D. Find me a land carnivore without claws. (You won't find one).

E. My opponent's argument doesn't change the fact that we are born as physiological vegans. If you put a rabbit and an apple in front of a baby, which one will the baby eat? Now, imagine it with a bear cub.

The deer population problem is a man-made problem. We killed all the bears and wolves or drove them out of their habitat. No excuse for us humans.

Now to my favorite part.....


My opponent has spent a lot of time writing about the complexity of the brains of several animals. She is right when she says that they are intellectually inferior.

So what?

Does that mean they deserve to be oppressed and cut up into little pieces?! Whether or not an animal is a person is irrelevant and an arrogant way to think. You agreed that all animals are sentient, so there is no excuse to abuse them, any more than a Nazi had an excuse for the holocaust.

It doesn't matter if it involves a dog, cow, rat, ant, or whale. Animal abuse is animal abuse. Just because it involves bacon, doesn't change that.

Let me list off the things that we have done, and continue to do to animals. Then, it will be obvious about whether it is right or wrong.

1. We brand cows without painkiller.
2. We rape them with bull semen.
3. We clip their ears without painkiller.
4. We often keep them in horrible living conditions.
5. We milk them to exhaustion.
6. We hang them upside down and slash their throats till they bleed out in a slaughterhouse.
7. We cut the teeth off of baby pigs, so they don't bite each other.
8. We also rip off their testicles.
9. We kill pigs with a bolt gun. (yes, a fast death, but would you want that to happen to you?)
10. We cut the beaks off of chicks.
11. We shred the male chicks alive into dog food.
12. We decapitate chickens on a conveyor belt.
13. Other times we gas the animals we want to kill.
14. We go hunting, shoot innocent animals, and take pictures with their corpse as if it is something to be proud of.
15. Animals are handled with cattle prods.
16. Circus animals are slaves, as are dairy cows.
17. Minks are other animals have their necks snapped to be made into fur coats.
18. We test harmful products on animals.
19. We skin cows for leather.
20. We catch fish with painful hooks, drown them in the air and beat them against rocks.

My opponent cannot justify a single one of the above points. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is evil. We have an entire holiday dedicated to killing a turkey and shoving bread up its anus! Is that supposed to be a symbol of peace?! A tortured and murdered animal?! Really?!

Eating meat never has been and never will be ethical. It's evil. Pure evil.

You can vote for veganism or you can vote for animal abuse.

It's obvious which one is morally right.



An Analysis of the Claim:

"Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet."

Because the debate lacked a proper resolution on which we should focus our debate, I took my opponent's thesis statement to be the resolution.

Then in my first round I wrote in bolded text: "As you read, keep in mind that the proper debate is whether or not veganism is the most morally correct lifestyle."

It would be foolish to assume that up until now we've just been ambiguously debating about animals and things about them and human biology. My opponent must uphold this system. I don't have the duty of proving that eating meat is more morally correct than veganism. That wouldn't make sense.

My goal isn't to say veganism is bad. I admire someone who has the resolve to keep up a healthy lifestyle despite all of the hoops one has to jump through in order to grow a body without using meat. In fact, I personally eat vegetables more than I eat meat. When I eat meat, I try to go for the healthy stuff like fish.

My point is that my opponent expects something ridiculous of me. My opponent set the debate in the first round, and I intend to hold to that debate topic.

Now onto the rest of the debate:

All of My Evidence is Completely Dropped:

In fact, in the last round my opponent seems to concede that these animals are not people nor do they possess any elements of person hood or emotional traits. If I may take it a step further: I posit that they do not actually care if they're eaten as meat. Not in the way that we understand it. When we're about to die we would think of all of the things that we're never going to accomplish and all of the people who will miss us.

A cow would want to survive but only from the instinct to survive that brought them through thousands of years of survival of the fittest. Is this really what earns them the right to not be killed? An instinctual response?

What I mean to say is that these animals are more complex but of no more moral value than a venus fly trap.

I'm going to put a heading up so the skimmers can follow along:


Yes I conceded sentience, but it also doesn't matter. Under my definition, a venus fly trap is sentient, because it interacts with the world through physical touch when a insect lands in one of its mouths. Does that give it the right to not be trampled or swatted with a machete? No that's ridiculous. It's a plant.

A plant doesn't have person hood or emotions. If you give it a name it won't care. It just has an instinct to do the things it does.

That sounds strikingly similar to something I've been saying this entire debate.

Obviously a cow is more complex than a venus fly trap. Even a housefly is. However, according to my opponent, the question of intelligence is meaningless. Why does intelligence matter with these things? Intelligence isn't a metric for the possession of moral rights. So what is?

I would say that person hood is. Plants are alive. Plants are not people. Plants do not get rights because they are not people.

Cows are alive. My opponent and I both agree that cows are not people (do to that load of evidence I provided right off the bat). Cows do not get rights because they are not people.

Just because it's distasteful doesn't make it false. Don't get me wrong, I love animals, and I would easily be attached to an animal like a cow. But I'm also very attached to this blanket I like to put on when I'm watching TV. It's really warm and fuzzy, and it has a name.

That seems like a ridiculous comparison to draw, but it proves how easy it is to anthropomorphise. It's so easy to get caught up in a complex structure like a cow and admire it. Why wouldn't you? However, even some farmers who love their cows to death will nourish them until the end of their life, then slaughter them and use them to feed their family for a year. I know because I go to a school that's like 30% aggies.

On the Human Part:

I would like to point out that my opponent is ignoring the advice of a fellow vegan who actually studies biology and a vegetarian organization that devotes itself to being vegetarian. However, they agree with me. I'm still going to address the counter arguments, but I want you all to know that I came at my opponent with evidence, and my opponent responded with none.

A. Fermenting vats:

Actually, fermenting vats are quite essential to an herbivore. Especially one of our size. I presented evidence that even an animal as small as a rabbit needs them or they will go without the proper nutrition. My opponent needs to provide an example of an herbivore with significant comparisons to humans (and by this I don't mean a frugivore) before this counter argument can be taken seriously.

B. Intestines:

Like I said, the intestine length doesn't matter. My opponent didn't post a source that says that my source is wrong. He just posted a source that said how long an American Black Bear's intestine is. To remind you of the analysis, the real difference is in cell types and crypts (source in the last round).

In other words, my opponent has ignored my evidence and just thrown the same argument back at me. This is the argument I already disproved.

C. Jaws:

Again, my sources say that our jaw movement has nothing to do with a specialization towards certain types of foods. My opponent probably doesn't know this, but a human moves their jaw when they eat meat as well. It's just how the jaw chews.

D. Claws:

I do not have to find evidence that certain carnivores don't have claws. I have to find evidence that certain omnivores don't have claws. I found evidence that certain omnivores don't have claws [1]. In this article, you will also find evidence that humans are hunters, like our eyes being placed at the front of the head (like a carnivore) as opposed to the sides of our head (like an herbivore).

In fact, our sensory perception that leans mostly forward would point more to use being carnivores than anything else. I don't know why I forgot to bring that up. It was on my zoology test today.

E. The baby won't eat either one because the baby can't eat an apple, and the baby can't eat a rabbit. That's not a valid example.


Once again, my opponent has appealed to emotion to prove morality.

If my opponent wanted to run an emotive argument for morality, he should've presented an ethical system that is based on what we feel. However, he has not. I have given you a moral argument.

I'm going to go deeper into my argument of person hood.

Person hood:

Obviously intelligence has nothing to do with person hood. I've never said that because other animals are less intelligent, that we are morally superior. All I've said is that the other animals don't genuinely care.

My opponent wants you to think "How would you feel?"

I'm going to put in some more in-text headers for the skimmers.

The problem is a logical fallacy called a false analogy. Comparing our thoughts to the animal's thoughts is logically fallacious. It cannot be accepted as a valid reason for supporting veganism. It operates under false pretenses.

Again, the animals in question do not relate things to emotion. They don't care. As stated before, they have instincts that they follow. These instincts can sometimes cause them to look emotive. They're not. The animals in question so far do not feel: sad, happy, afraid (emotively like we do), worried (same as the last one, it's all about instinct), love, peace, or anger. My opponent has conceded this all the way through the debate, yet he keeps relying on arguments that assume these are all true.

My opponent admitted my analysis of the brain was correct. We cannot have a world where animals both don't feel any emotions and should be pitied because of their emotive state. It doesn't make sense. Con is the only side that makes sense throughout this debate.

So when it comes to morality, the question after all of this should be why does an animal deserve the rights my opponent wishes them to have? They're not people. They don't personally identify as unique individuals with a depth of personality. They're not emotional. The troubles of the world don't tear at their heart, and the instincts they have are agreed to be just a conditioned response from millions of years of evolution. They don't ponder morality or their self-worth or rights or anything that we may think they do.

They don't actually care.

And if an animal doesn't care, isn't a person, and doesn't have emotions, then why should we starve low-income households and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs? I don't see a reason. I think the morally correct choice is obvious: do the thing that is natural.

Let's look at it another way, since I doubt my opponent will find that sufficient.

What moral obligation does a lion have to an antelope? Well, the lion has to eat, and an antelope is its natural predator. But if they're both animals that both deserve equal rights, then the lion should just figure out how to justify itself as an herbivore right? Of course not, it's natural for the lion to kill the antelope and eat it.

A lion has no moral obligation to that antelope. But my opponent, who still believes that all of these animals are equal in right, should not be able to agree with that. We can't assign a moral right to all animals then allow them to breach it literally their entire lives, but humans have to uphold it.

Humans are omnivores. All of the evidence in the debate points to that. I've presented that with completely unbiased, informed evidence. My opponent has refuted it with his own words. So when a human needs to get the proper amino acids to complete proteins, especially during the growing years, why shouldn't a human do the natural thing and eat some meat?

Given everything that's been said. Humans are omnivores. Animals aren't people. We don't have a proper way to establish a moral right to that animal. There is nothing wrong with eating meat.



Debate Round No. 3


"However, according to my opponent, the question of intelligence is meaningless. Why does intelligence matter with these things?"

I have said this before, it doesn't matter how intelligent the animal is. You don't have the right to enslave, torture and oppress it. Person or not.

Your implication that because you are a person you deserve rights is arrogant and biased. That's like saying because you are white or black you should have rights.

My opponent said that she loves animals. She lies. People who love kids, don't eat kids. People who love dogs don't eat dogs. People who love animals don't eat animals. Because she eats animals, she does not love them.

We can go back and forth on biology all day long. Humans are herbivores. I'll concede that we may have evolved to tolerate the consumption of meat. [1].


My opponent has failed to tell us how carrying out the points on the list in my last argument is more moral than not doing that to innocent animals.

"What moral obligation does a lion have to an antelope? Well, the lion has to eat, and an antelope is its natural predator. But if they're both animals that both deserve equal rights, then the lion should just figure out how to justify itself as an herbivore right? Of course not, it's natural for the lion to kill the antelope and eat it."

Lions also greet each other by sniffing each others anuses. Should we also do that?

Lions do not know right from wrong. They eat the antelope to survive, not because it tastes good, like we do. They have no other food option. Their bodies are suited to meat and only meat. They are not natural vegans. We are.

When my opponent says that there is nothing wrong with eating meat, she implies that there's nothing wrong with enslaving, torturing and slaughtering innocent animals. You can't get meat without those three things. They all go hand in hand.

They have done nothing to deserve the pain and torture we inflict on them. YES, ANIMALS CARE ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH! That's why cattle prods are used to force them into the slaughterhouses. I can't believe that my opponent really thinks that it is more more morally right to torture animals, than to not torture them.

To each voter I say:

Veganism and animal abuse are polar opposites. It isn't very hard to determine which is right. Forget the lies of the meat industry. Think for yourselves.

Vote for veganism, not animal abuse.


Thank you for keeping up that debate with me.

I'm going to use my summary round to analyze the most important things in the debate at this point:

1) Conceded points.
2) Logical fallacies.
3) Morality.

Conceded Points:

My opponent conceded several signficant points throughout the debate. Keep in mind that a conceded point may be conceded explicitly or implicitly. If my opponent made no point to disprove or argue against one of my points, it's considered implicitly conceded.

1) The animals in question are non-person, non-emotional living beings.

2) Sentience is not important. My opponent conceded the definition of sentience, and he never explained why having sensory receptors endows certain animals with human rights so this is to be on my side.

3) Cows have the same moral ability as a venus fly trap. My opponent and I agree that level of intelligence does not dictate morality. I asserted that a venus fly trap is a sentient, non-person living being, which can also be said of cows. Because my opponent never stated a metric for moral ability, we cannot make a differentiate between the two since intelligence and complexity have nothing to do with morality, and nothing else about either one of those two are contesters for giving them moral right as well. Since we can't give human rights to plants, we have to treat the equals as equals and restrict human rights to humans.

4) Deer hunting is a natural way to protect deer populations in suburban areas. My opponent's only response to this is that it's only necessary because of humans. Naturally, that leads us to believe that humans should fix it. Humans hunting deer fixes the problems caused by deer overpopulation.

5) Humans are omnivores. My opponent conceded our bodies have adapted to eat meat. The originl intent of humanity is a religious argument not a scientific argument, but the current status of our bodies is a scientific argument. My opponent has been attempting to stick to science, so we must assume the latter argument.

6) My opponent must prove that veganism is the only morally correct way to live. We may assume this because my opponent never contested this after my bringing it up in round one and round three. This is significant, because a few of these conceded arguments are not compatible with that statement.

7) My opponent has been making significant logical fallacies throughout the debate. My opponent never explained why his arguments made sense; he simply restated them. Any of these arguments labeled as logically fallacious cannot be accepted as true, because they lack logical backing. This dovetails quite nicely to the next segment.

Logical Fallacies:

I'm going to just kind of quote them and explain why they're logical fallacies. These are all from this round. Other logical fallacies have been pointed out.

-- "Your implication that because you are a person you deserve rights is arrogant and biased. That's like saying because you are white or black you should have rights." --

This is the logical fallacy known as the false analogy. The reason this is a false analogy is because the relation to the two groups is not the same. The relation between them is person to nonperson versus person to person. Unless my opponent means to assume that either white or black people are not, in fact, people, then this analogy holds no ground.

-- "My opponent said that she loves animals. She lies. People who love kids, don't eat kids. People who love dogs don't eat dogs. People who love animals don't eat animals. Because she eats animals, she does not love them." --

This one is often referred to as the hasty generalization. My opponent assumes that because I eat some animals that I don't love any of them. In fact, my opponent assumed that my using the example that I am capable of being attached to something is equal with the idea of loving something.

It's also an ad hominem logical fallacy. He's ignored most of my case during his rounds, but he made a point in his argument to attack me as a person. Not very ethical debating for someone who's living the most compassionate life possible. Either way, it has nothing to do with who won the debate.

-- "Lions also greet each other by sniffing each others anuses. Should we also do that?" --

This is a red herring. Behaviors such as that have nothing to do with the debate, and bringing it up is just silly.

-- "When my opponent says that there is nothing wrong with eating meat, she implies that there's nothing wrong with enslaving, torturing and slaughtering innocent animals. You can't get meat without those three things. They all go hand in hand." --

My opponent makes several mistakes here. First of all, it's an appeal to emotion. The words my opponent chooses are typically used when talking about people, and they have a lot of meaning when talking about people. However, my opponent has not connected how nonpersons deserve the same level of sympathy.

The second problem is the word innocent. My opponent is ignoring hunting as a method of getting food. hunting neither involves enslaving, torturing, nor slaughtering. You kill the animal quickly after shooting it. There's nothing in there about enslaving it or torturing it, and the killing it is usually a knive or bullet to the back of the head, which kills immediately. No bleeding them out.

The entire statement is false.

-- "They have done nothing to deserve the pain and torture we inflict on them. YES, ANIMALS CARE ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH! That's why cattle prods are used to force them into the slaughterhouses." --

My opponent here is using a logical fallacy called ignoring the facts (not a proper logical fallacy). My opponent never addressed how animals care. I addressed how they don't care. I presented facts. In order for my opponent to dispute those facts, he must also present facts. using caps lock does not make you more right.

-- " I can't believe that my opponent really thinks that it is more more morally right to torture animals, than to not torture them." --

This is a straw man (attacking something I never said). I never said that it's more morally correct to eat meat. I simply said that it's not immoral to eat meat. That's all I have to prove (refer to conceded point number 6).

So almost all of what my opponent said in the last round is a logical fallacy.


Here's a summary of the two sides:

Pro: Animals deserve human rights. We're not sure why, because they're not people, they're not emotional. We're supposed to believe that they are, but evidence doesn't seem to point that way. They care about dying because they resist death (con will contend that's just good Darwinism), and that's the main reason really. People who eat meat don't care about any animals because you don't eat something from a group of things you care about. Vote pro to be not evil.

Con: Animals do not deserve human rights. Their rights are ambiguous, because conversation on the source of rights never happened in this debate. All we know is that nonpersons and persons are not the same, so their rights cannot be assumed to be the same. Animals don't care if they die or experiene fear nearly the same way we do, so linking our emotions to theirs doesn't work.

We can't assign rights on any other grounds because that would mean giving too many rights to certain plants or taking away rights from other creatures of the same right. We have no way to agree that animals have human rights or that anything we do to them is necessarily wrong. No conversation on moral right or moral ability happened from pro, so we cannot assume pro is right.

Given that pro's arguments were primarily emotional and revolved around very little facts or logical reasoning, he has no grounds in this debate. I would like to respectfully ask for a con vote.

Thank you for reading.

Kudos to you if you made it all this way.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
I have tried vegan substitutes for a few things. They taste like garbage when compared to the real McCoy. I will continue hunting my deer, raising my chickens, shooting random rabbits and enjoying how they taste no matter what anyone says.

I do have an actual problem. Vegans try to spread their ideas like a religion. They tend to focus on feelings and combine that with humanizing animals. A rabbit does not have the emotions people have. They have instincts and that is the end of it. Stop humanizing animals and please stop trying to spread your religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses used to come to where I live. They quit about 15 years ago. They got tired of being greeted at the door by a hairy man with a gun in his hand.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
I just caught a mistake XD I was originally going to go after the word innocent, then I was like "yeah, that's not really arguable from your side, Jonelle," so I switched to hunting and forgot to change the word innocent :P
Posted by stuntman.k 1 year ago
Ha ha. I understand TheBenC. I like the taste of steak, but after six months of being vegan, I don't crave it any more. They have vegan substitutes for every food you want. It's worth it when you consider the animals.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
As a steak lover, I consider veganism as human abuse!
Posted by stuntman.k 1 year ago
Source for my last argument:
Posted by stuntman.k 1 year ago
To Jonbonbon:

Thanks for the debate and good luck.
Posted by stuntman.k 1 year ago
Yes, animals are harmed in the production of eggs. Male chicks are shredded alive because they don't lay eggs. The hens will end up in a slaughterhouse eventually.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
I have to ask the does eating eggs cause an animal pain?
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Wow, that time I actually did use all of the characters XD I was afraid I was going to have to switch to using tiny urls for my sources.
No votes have been placed for this debate.