The Instigator
Tommy.leadbetter
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jake3844
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Vegans are better than meat-eaters

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  
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: 8/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 609 times Debate No: 59845
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

ignorance - 'lack of knowledge or understanding'. I argue that eating meat is more selfish and less ethical than not eating meat. I also argue that in order to eat meat, one must be either more ignorant to life and nature than somebody who doesn't eat meat. PLEASE NOTE - This statement only refers to those in the developed world, not tribes, primitive cultures or underdeveloped countries.
Jake3844

Con

First, I would like to say that I rarely eat meat. However, I have to disagree with your position.

You didn't outline any rules for this debate so I will post my first argument here.

--------------"I argue that eating meat is more selfish and less ethical than not eating meat."

Let me take this argument piece by piece. First the "eating meat is more selfish" part. The term selfish means, in short, lacking consideration for other things, concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

I disagree with the assertion that all meat eaters are selfish. I personally know several people that love animals and also eat meat. It is not impossible to show consideration for animals and eat meat. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

"eating meat is less ethical"

Ethics relates to "right and wrong" and is subjective. This act being more or less "ethical" is just not something we can effectively debate. This part of your argument is merely a matter of your view of right and wrong. If you are going to argue that killing animals is wrong, I would agree with you. However, other people do not agree with you. Your feelings are not enough to provide substantial evidence for an absolute rule.

"I also argue that in order to eat meat, one must be either more ignorant to life and nature than somebody who doesn't eat meat."

I would love for you to expand on this. How is a meat eater ignorant to life and nature? I think this may relate to your argument based on ethical views of reality. Again, this is merely your subjective analysis of things.

Should we also stop wild animals from eating meat?

A vegetarian diet can be difficult for some to maintain, and athletes tend to have even bigger problems making a switch.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Thank you for you response

You say:
""Let me take this argument piece by piece. First the "eating meat is more selfish" part. The term selfish means, in short, lacking consideration for other things, concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
I disagree with the assertion that all meat eaters are selfish. I personally know several people that love animals and also eat meat. It is not impossible to show consideration for animals and eat meat. These two things are not mutually exclusive.""

No your right it's not impossible to show consideration and eat meat, but showing consideration and actually acting upon that consideration are two very different things. And it's certainly more considerate to not eat meat.

I did not say that all meat eaters are selfish, for we are all selfish to some degree. I argue that eating meat is MORE selfish than not eating meat. This claim only refers to this act alone. Would you not agree that it is less selfish to consider the feelings of others in your dietary habits? As in this case, the vegan chooses to give up their pleasures because of his/hers consideration for others. Is this not even in your definition of selfishness? You say: ("The term selfishness in short, lacking consideration for other things, concerned chiefly with ones own.....pleasure").

This is not particually relevent to the debate. But you say you know several people who love animals and eat meat. I have several issues with this statement. Firstly: Does this love not extend to all animals, i.e. the ones they slaughter? And if it does, what kind of 'love' is that? (Not rhetorical)
Secondly: If your friends support the meat market, and they truly believe they love animals, they must be ignorant to animals lives or they wouldn't support it. Would you not agree? Unless they mean that they love SOME animals, but not others. Or indeed, are to selfish to give up meat.

You say:
""Ethics relates to "right and wrong" and is subjective. This act being more or less "ethical" is just not something we can effectively debate. This part of your argument is merely a matter of your view of right and wrong. If you are going to argue that killing animals is wrong, I would agree with you. However, other people do not agree with you. Your feelings are not enough to provide substantial evidence for an absolute rule.""

I don't expect an absolute rule. I used the word 'ethics' in full knowledge of its subjective meaning. This is a debate about ethics, and debate is the only way we can understand any truth to it. This is my perspective: Ethics is about 'right' and 'wrong'-like you say. All the definitions of 'righteousness', that can be found in the world, are rooted in the idea of compassion, kindness and selfless actions. To say an action is 'ethical' means that it leans more to the 'right' than the 'wrong' side of the definition that you gave ("ethics is about right and wrong"). So surly showing compassion and kindness to animals is more ethical (in the universal understanding of the word) than showing less kindness or compassion to them. Or do you understand ethics differently? Please don't just say everybody's idea of ethics is different, because I know that, I am trying to debate with you and your understanding of ethics.

I forgot to make clear that I don't believe all meat eaters are ignorant, less ethical AND more selfish. But they must be at least one of the three. Sorry for that.

Well, by 'life and nature' I mean all those earthlings who aren't humans. One could be not ignorant to these things and eat meat, but they must then be less caring or more selfish, because if they are aware of the life of the animals then they know what horror they are supporting purely for their own pleasure. And as we said, this is the definition of selfishness.

But you where saying "how are they less ignorant to life?" Well, by not being aware of the plight of other life forms on earth. The billions of us that are slaughtered every week are crying for help, and are just as aware as us humans of their suffering. You must be somewhat ignorant to not be moved by this. Either ignorant to the feelings of animals (not knowing they suffer) or ignorant to the wishes of anyone but themselves-thus being ignorant to the lives of other creatures. I don't believe my choice of the word 'life' is inaccurate.

No we should not stop animals eating meat. Animals eat meat in a sustainable, natural and fair way. We don't.

Vegetarian and vegan diets are more healthy than meat diets, this is popularly believed amongst the scientific community. So there is no reason to think that there are health losses at steak in giving up meat, there are not. Indeed it's healthier to not eat meat.

I must explain this last point a little further, because I know that to some people this may be a shock. I am not a dietary expert, indeed nobody truly is. But this is what is generally accepted by the scientists (not governments or organisations) Meat is not that bad for your health, it contains many substances that we need in plentiful supply. But, all these substances are available in plant and fungi, and in higher quantities (Almonds have more protein gram for gram than chicken for example). Meat we cannot eat or it would make us ill, unless it is heated to very high temperatures. Meat is also responsible for numerous cancers, heart problems, and many more problems that I have not looked into. I will do if you would like them.
Meat has good things in it, but is is not present in the optimum human diet. I am just trying to get across that there are at least no health losses in not eating meat, so we cannot use that argument. Also, this debate is about ethics and selfishness, arguing that a meat eaters cares more for his/her health than the plight of animals is saying that they are more selfish than the vegans who do care more for the plight of animals. Would you not agree?
Jake3844

Con

Jake3844 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

I will forfeit this round also to make things equal.
Jake3844

Con

Jake3844 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
Jake3844

Con

Jake3844 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Message me when it's time to vote.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I think we can safely say that heydenkaynlee2003 falls into the 'more ignorant' category haha
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
I believe this debate is focused on ethics more than sexiness haydenkanelee2003 :p
Posted by haydenkanelee2003 2 years ago
haydenkanelee2003
Meat eaters are better as vegans turn out like skinny asses sometimes cause I was one but then I ate lots of gammon and other meats then I became a lot more sexier than I was before. I have 7 girls that like me xxxxxx
No votes have been placed for this debate.