The Instigator
bestias
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Veganism

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 5 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 79160
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

bestias

Pro

Simply, why do some people kill animals for food?
tejretics

Con

I accept. I would like to note that I am playing Devil’s advocate, as I myself am a vegan, and tend to sympathize with Pro’s position.


== Clarifications ==


For the purpose of this debate, I will define ‘animal’ as a non-human species of the kingdom Animalia. The definition of a ‘veganism’ is up for debate, but I will define it as “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”, and, in expansion, “[a] philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.” [1]


Animals are not part of the ‘moral community’


A definition of ‘community’ is required. Essentially, a community is a group that requires you to have a certain status to merit the benefits of it. For instance, you need to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to be part of the Catholic community--you need to have the status of a Catholic.


Being part of the moral community does not necessitate that you gain *all* moral rights--or even any moral rights--as it is a question of your position within the community. A school president is more important than a janitor in the educational community; similarly, there is a moral hierarchy.


I argue that animals lack the moral status to merit moral rights. “The moral community is ... organized around something shared in common by all of its members. This common factor is none other than the capacity for rational agency. … [T]he capacity for rational agency is both necessary and sufficient for having moral status … rational agency is a necessary condition for having any sort of moral standing.” [2] Animals to not fit these requirements as they lack rational agency. Animals do not invoke moral reason, therefore lack any rationality.


A pragmatic case against veganism


This argument is, primarily, an argument from the direction that non-veganism maximizes overall benefit for society.


a) Animal Testing


Veganism is directly contrary to the process of animal testing. Since veganism is against *any* exploitation of animals, it is virtually synonymous with the concept of ‘animal rights’, which means it is also contrary to animal testing. Therefore, if I can prove animal testing is beneficial, I have directly negated. This is because, as the Humane Society argues, animal testing can be considered especially immoral. There have been cases of animals killed by “carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.” [3]


But, while the morality of animal testing can be disputed, it is not disputable that these tests save lives. Animals are essential for breakthrough research which has the capacity to save human lives. Our knowledge of HIV/AIDS bases itself on primate testing. Research of cancer in mice can give us ways to cure cancer via gene therapy. “[V]irtually every medical breakthrough in human and animal health has been the direct result of research using animals” [4]. Therefore, government recognition of animal rights hinders saving human and animal lives.


b) Sustenance


In society’s basic interest, research confirms that a non-vegan diet is healthy. For instance, Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are found only in small amounts in non-animal sources [5], and n-3 supplements are very dangerous [5]. A review of the research has shown that moderate red-meat consumption “positively influence[s] nutrient intakes and fatty acid profiles, thereby impacting positively on long-term health.” [6] Thus, consumption of animals can enhance human flourishing.


For all these reasons, judges can negate.


1. https://www.vegansociety.com...

2. http://www.academia.edu...

3. http://www.hsi.org...

4. http://ca-biomed.org...

5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...

6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Debate Round No. 1
bestias

Pro

bestias forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

It's a pity my opponent forfeited. I hope they are alright. For now, I will extend my arguments, and hope Pro turns up in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
bestias

Pro

bestias forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bestias

Pro

bestias forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
bestias

Pro

bestias forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Troy

(1) Ethics. I am a negative utilitarian when it comes to morality, and believe that reducing suffering is a moral imperative. That's simple enough. I also believe empathy has a crucial role in moral decision-making, and empathize with animals.

(2) I don't think I'll be able to stand meat, knowing that what I'd eat then would be an animal.
Posted by Troy_the_Destroyer 1 year ago
Troy_the_Destroyer
@Con, why are you a vegan?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
bestiastejreticsTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
bestiastejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to FF by Pro. Also, Args. to Con, as he was the only participant to present arguments -- Pro's only attempt at such was a question: "Simply, why do some people kill animals for food?" Con, on the other hand, provided a negating case against Veganism (i.e. showing how animals are not a part of the moral community, the positives of animal testing, etc.). Sources to Con as well, as he was the only one to use sources in the debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
bestiastejreticsTied
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: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con. Con was the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Le-vox-von-zhizn 1 year ago
Le-vox-von-zhizn
bestiastejreticsTied
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: FF and Con made arguments.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
bestiastejreticsTied
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: FF.