The Instigator
fesuj
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
quarterexchange
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Vegetariaism is Wrong

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 6/1/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,544 times Debate No: 16812
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

fesuj

Pro

I am trying to say in this that if you don't eat animals because you are allergic, t makes you feel physically sick, you don't like the taste etc. that doen't matter. I would even go as far as to say If you really want to be a vegetarian I would be happy just contentiously disagreeing with you but I find this debate worthy because I disagree with the people who think that I should be a vegetarian because of the moral issue of eating meat and that I am wrong to enjoy and eat a lot of meat with no guilt. Please if you have those views that I should be a vegetarian then please accept this debate. I am a first time debator in this website and would like to add that I would love to have someone accept this request soon and I may not write much, personally I don't have much experience but I doubt I will run out of space. Soo.... what do you think. Oh, and please try to remove as much biases when voting.

Oh, and finally, I wrote vegetarianism is wrong as the subject because I do think it's wrong and it is about it. I just hope I didn't confuse anyone into thinking differently from what's written above.
quarterexchange

Con

Thank you Pro, for creating a worthwhile topic.

I'd just like to announce that I agree with my opponent and I also disagree with vegetarianism.

My opponent has not specified whether or not he wanted to make the opening arguments or have me start with my opening arguments so I'm simply going to assume he wants to make them so I'll leave the ball in my opponent's court.

Good luck
Debate Round No. 1
fesuj

Pro

OK, thankyou for letting me go first. I have a few main points I'd like to adress:

1. Animals eat each other and the idea that we should care for animals by removing a big chunk in our diet is quite a strange concept.

2. I am not talking about eating endangered species like whales, or intelligent animals like dolphins and dog. Cows for example are a great way of supplimenting iron and protein and has 4 stomachs to process it's healthy grass diet taking 24 hours to do so. In that way it is a very clean food that helps your health and is plentiful in numbers.

3. Also, a cow is not the same as a human. We are intelligent and articulate creatures with so much to give unlike cows which help sustain us, reproduce and eat.

4. As long as the animals are killed humanely what is the moral problem, we don't intend for them to suffer and some species are even kept from being extinct by us breeding them to eat them.

I believe in caring for the environment, animals and nature in general. It is no moral dilemma to eat an animal and I await for your responce.
quarterexchange

Con

I thank my opponent for a swift response.


Rebuttals




Rebuttal 1: Why should the actions of animals be mimicked by humans?

My opponent brings up the point that animals eat other animals so I have to assume he's claiming that since it's normal for animals to eat other animals, then it is therefore okay for humans to eat other animals.

I claim that that is not a legitimate analogy as he gives no reason why we should stoop to the behavior of animals.
Many animal species have been observed to eat their offspring.[1] Surely my opponent doesn't think this behavior is appropriate for humans to commit. So I ask him where does he draw the line?

Rebuttal 2: Why should intelligent animals be spared from consumption?

My opponent claims that intelligent animals such as dolphins and dogs should not be consumed for meat based on their intelligence level.

Brain dead human beings are very low on the intelligence level due to the fact that they have an unresponsive brain making them unable to eat, think, respond, etc.[2] These actions can certainly not be considered those of an intelligent being so therefore I ask whether it should be morally permissable to consume the brain dead.

Rebuttal 3: Again why should intelligence be the basis of whether or not a living being should be consumed?

See Rebuttal 3


Rebuttal 4: Prove that being killed humanely is a legitimate reason not to oppose the consumption of the flesh of a living being

The notion that animals are killed humanely, therefore eating the flesh of animals is okay is very sound logic. It can be applied to just about anything.

ex "If humans are killed humanely, then what is the moral issue with eating other humans?"



Conclusion

My opponent has yet to prove that

1: Simply because animals eat other animals it should therefore be okay for humans to eat other animals.

2: There should be an intelligence limit on what we consume and where should the boundaries be.

3: Simply because a living being is killed humanely in the process of being domesticated for food, it is morally permissable for we as humans to continue to domesticate animals and eat them simply because the process isn't painful.


Sources

[1] http://www.livescience.com...
(Animals reported to consume their own offspring)

[2] http://health.howstuffworks.com...
(Symptoms of being brain dead)
Debate Round No. 2
fesuj

Pro

Thankyou for your reply.

Ok...

Firstly,

You said why should we stoop down to their level. I would like to point out that it is not my oppinion that it is to lower yourself to eat animals and consider it the same as eating any plant or other kind of food. I understand your point though and I am not trying to say that just because an animal does something it makes it OK, but that when people defend animals they rarely touch on the fact that they see no problem in eating other animals as long as it is in their diet. Furthermore, I would not stoop to the level animals stoop to in regards of eating their offspring but by you mentioning that it has actually helped my arguement by showing that animals are not worried about sparing creatures but we fight so hard to remove them from our diet. This was just a point I brought forward and not the main focus of my arguement so I'll move on to the seciond rebuttle you made.


Secondly,

You said that I would by my logic see no problem in eating a braindead human. As a human being like myself you know as well as I do that there is something inherently wrong in that statement. However, before I continue with my arguement I would like to say that you have raised a very interesting, moreover difficult, point.

My response is that as humans we bond together, fall in love, become friends and have blood and family relations with each other. For that reason alone it would be an immoral and overall disgusting crime to commit cannabalism. Also, human's have very strong empathy and so it makes it seem especially sickening to imagine something like that. Animals like some monkey's that also have very high intelligence and are able to create their own relationships and bond even with humans are off - limits mainly because of said empathy.

Therefore as a community of humans we can show compassion, and eat animals mutually with no hypocrasy within reason (as in what I have just written).

Also, of the intelligent animals such as dogs and dolphins which creatures eat their offspring?

Thirdly,

You said how does how humanely they're killed help? Well, if you care about animals you don't want them to suffer for you to eat them. You can get free range eggs from chickens if you care and free range chickens themselves, knowing they lived in good conditions and didn't have a prolonged and painful death.

If the animal is killed humanely and quickly it means that they have not suffered for you to eat them which I would have thought you'd prefer. I am argueing from the side that eats animals but it doesn't mean I want to be cruel to them in any way. I love looking after animals and all I am saying is they are a staple in my diet, I don't want to hurt them.

Finally:

I conclude with this point...

As humans we have the right in looking after our own species to eat meat in our diets as we are omnivores. We do not as a whole torment animals, or prolong their deaths and have kept a few species alive due to eating them such as cows. I ask from you what is so wrong? You yourself showed me a link about animals eating their offspring and I responded by saying that as humans we are above them for reasons such as that and we worry far too much about their rights (which is quite strange compared to all the starving people and natural disasters and genocides in the world.) When we have been so lucky to have the ability to have such an abundant plethora of foods why encourage us to waste some due to misconceived notions of helping them as many vegetarians wrongly say.
quarterexchange

Con

Well thank you for your reply


Firstly



Animals are considered sentient beings that are aware of their surroundings and care what happens to them.[1] This means they also actively try to survive, find food, etc. Therefore animals do care what happens to them seeing that they are actively trying to survive and provide for themselves.


My opponents argument here is negated.



Secondly

Aha, you say that it is wrong to eat fellow man for these reasons:

  • We fall in love
  • We become friends
  • We have blood relations with each other

Animals fit all of these requirements. Animals as well

  • Animals fall in love as well [2]
  • Animals for friendships as well [3]
  • Animals obviously have blood relations with other animals when they reproduce.


The very atributes my opponent claims make it morally wrong to consume other humans, are the same attributes animals posses as well.

Therefore my opponent has no moral ground to stand on when he says it is okay to eat animal flesh and not the flesh of fellow man.


My opponent's argument here is negated as well.


Thirdly


You have already proven to the audience that by your own terms regarding eating other humans that it is not okay to eat other animals

You have also not addressed why the parallel situation of killing humans humanely and painlessly so they can be consumed is somehow more of a moral evil than killing animals painlessly.

Conclusion



My opponent claims that it is okay to eat animals because they don't bother to spare each other or care for themselves.

The fact that animals are sentient beings proves that they do, debunking this argument.


My opponent claims it is okay to eat animals and not humans, because humans fall in love, develop friendships, etc

I have posted claims to the contrary with appropriate sources showing that animals do fall in love and have friendships.

I imagine my opponent still opposes eating human flesh so a more reasonable tweak in his position would be to acknowledge that since animals are sentient beings, develop friendships and fall in love, that it is therefore wrong to eat both animals and humans.

Therefore the resolution, "veganism is wrong" has not been affirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.


Vote Con



P.S. I oppose vegetarianism as well, so I don't want people who disagree with me voting against me. Thank you.


Sources

[1] http://kwelos.tripod.com...
(Animals are sentient beings)

[2] http://russia-ic.com...
(Animals fall in love)

[3] http://news.discovery.com...
(Animals are reported to have human like friendships)
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fesuj 5 years ago
fesuj
I retract my last comment, it appears I was all over the place in that debate.
Posted by fesuj 5 years ago
fesuj
Well done Quarter exchange you made a good point. But you know I meant humans have bonds with each other and not about the ability to make them?
Posted by screamingrage 5 years ago
screamingrage
For Pro: your topic pick was worded in a wrong way. It implied that no one should be a vegetarian and that's why i picked Con for my first argument. maybe if you had reworded the topic...
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
continuing my RFD...

Even though Pro didn't do that (he should have, but didn't), Con still never provided an actual argument. Had BOP been equal, arguments would have been 0 to both.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
That's fine. You set the time limits and I accepted them. Take all the time you need to make a good argument.
Posted by fesuj 5 years ago
fesuj
I'm sorry I took so long, I didn't realise, Good Luck!
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
You are, I'm arguing for it, but I was just making the claim that I agree with you in real life.

Still, You are arguing against vegetarianism, I'm arguing for vegetarianism.
Posted by fesuj 5 years ago
fesuj
OK, I have a problem, I was trying to be against vegetarianism and now I'm confused.
Posted by fesuj 5 years ago
fesuj
I don't mind. If you want I will.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
I'm just curious, since you are the instigator would you like to make the opening arguments in the second round? That's usually customary on this site.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
fesujquarterexchangeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I hate voting for Con, because I am anti-vegetarian myself. But, unfortunately, Con made better arguments. Personally, I was hoping Pro would pull this one out.
Vote Placed by Zyanya 5 years ago
Zyanya
fesujquarterexchangeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro just stated their opinion, but con gave sources that verified their statements. Furthermore, con took each of pros statements and showed flawed thinking. Bravo con.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
fesujquarterexchangeTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: 1 PT to Pro for a interesting topic, however Con was simply overpowering on argument, the human example was novel and the presentation was much stronger. Pro also needs really to improve grammar, even the resolution is spelled wrong. 4:1 Con
Vote Placed by detachment345 5 years ago
detachment345
fesujquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: sources, the args weren't good on any side
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
fesujquarterexchangeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: "...if you have those views that I should be a vegetarian then please accept this debate." I used this from the OP as my measuring stick for arguments. Con, actually never provided an argument that Pro should become a vegitarian. Con's strongest "argument" was that Pro could not come up with a good moral difference between eatting humans and eatting animals. However, eatting humans doesn't apply to the resolution. And Pro could have just said "eatting humans is fine" to end Con's argument.