The Instigator
Tommy.leadbetter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan

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 4 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 60203
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

This debate is impossible to accept. Only want good debaters. This statement does not apply to primitive societies, nor force to achieve it. It is suggesting that if, as a society we became vegan, we would be better off from a selfish point of view. But also, that it is in my view, its the only moral option for us.
Defro

Con

I accept.







In Pro's resolution, "We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan," I find it necessary to define the term "should" so that the implications of the resolution are more clear.

[1]

*Using this definition of the term "should", the resolution claims that everyone in the world is obligated to become vegan. Since this is a positive statement, burden of proof lies with Pro.




I shall present my arguments:


Contentions:


C1. Human Rights

- Human Rights were created by the United Nations to have a global understanding of how to treat individuals. Fundamentally, it implies that human beings are free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not violate human rights. Of course this is not completely true, as individual nations have their own separate laws outside of the 30 Human Rights. However, since every nation has different laws, the only way to account for every human being in the world is through Human Rights, which is acknowledged globally. [2]

--> Therefore, fundamentally, people are free to do what they wish as long as they don't violate the 30 Human Rights established by the United Nations. Their only obligation is to follow the Human Rights. And since not being a vegan does not violate any Human Rights, they are not obligated to become vegans.


C2. Personal Preference and Right to Choose

-
There are many people in the world who don't want to be vegan. Why "should" they be something they don't want to?


C3. Food is Not a Luxury (in many cases)

- There are many people who cannot afford to be picky with their food and choose to be vegan. What if your in an emergency and you need to eat something or you'll die? I have a teacher who went camping once and got lost in the woods for 2 weeks and had to survive on squirrels and birds because there was nothing else to eat and many of the plants were poisonous. "Should" he have been a vegan then and died?


C4. Food Reduction

-
Let's say there is x amount of food available in the world, and y amount of meat and vegan not-approved foods in the world. Should we adopt a worldwide vegan system, the amount of food available to us would be x - y. That means there will be less food available for mankind because we don't eat meat. This is tied to the previous contention.


C5. Economic Crisis

- Fundamentally, an economy is fueled by entrepreneurship and the buying and selling of products. Many products in the market are not vegan-approved, such as dairy products or anything with the slightest bit of meat in it.

- If the world adopted a vegan system, many products would either be banned or not consumed. Many people would lose their jobs.

- Take McDonald's for example. [3] McDonald's is a huge multi-million dollar corporation that provides food with meat in it. There are approximately 1,800,000 people working for McDonald's. If everyone was vegan, McDonald's would shut down and 1,800,000 people would lose their jobs.

- And McDonald's is only one out of several mega-corporations that will shut down, resulting any many people losing their jobs. Every fast food franchise, every dairy company, they all get shut down.



Rebuttals:


"we would be better off from a selfish point of view."

- From a selfish point of view, we would be better off not enforcing our own beliefs and (eating) habits upon others. There are people who don't want to be vegans. It would be selfish to want others to eat the same way you do, assuming you are vegan, even when they don't want to.


"But also, that it is in my view, its the only moral option for us."

- I request Pro explain this claim. How is this the only moral option for mankind? As explained in my last contention, millions of people would lose their jobs. Is it moral to lose them of their jobs and destroy the economy just so that everyone can be vegan?



Sources:

[1] https://www.google.com...

[2] http://www.samaritanmag.com...


[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s


Debate Round No. 1
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Thank you for accepting. First I will state my arguments, then I will address your points.

Overview.
I am not saying we should force anyone to be vegan, meat should not be illegal to consume. I am saying that in a better version of our society, that we should hope to see in the future, eating animals should become less common. I think that the general trend of the world in getting fairer, will eventually lead to the absence of animal cruelty.

Argument 1. Killing animals is not a nice thing to do, and not doing it is the right moral thing to do, for our society.

People always say its natural to eat meat. True. Its not natural however, to eat the meat of any animal that has not been hunted fairly. No, it's not what our ancestors did. However even if it was what we did, this fact alone would not be sufficient in proving its righteousness, as our ancestors did many things that we would not endorse now. The only reason most people don't think it's bad, is because they don't know enough, and they dont have to do the killing. Repetitive stress is 35 times higher in slaughter house workers than manufacture workers. Also illness in more than 3 times more common amongst slaughterhouse workers than the general population. This reflects the grief and trouble that is caused to humans when they are exposed to the reality of the meat market. Even people who are 'hardened' to it. Animals suffer and we make them suffer.

Also, if we have learned anything from the Zimbardo prison study, slaughterhouses are breeding grounds for abuse. Low-paid, uneducated, not exactly the most compassionate portion of the population and the presence of a sub-group of individuals in the power of the higher-group; these are all things that encourage abuse of the sub-group. In my belief, it's prevalent in every slaughterhouse to a high extent. We may not have a duty to care too non-humans creatures, but we certainly have a duty to respect our position of power and not force others to suffer. Somebody once said "the true test of a man is in his treatment of his inferiors". If we believe this to be true then shouldn't we treat animals better than we do now? Or do you not agree with this statement?

So my first point is that it's wrong to make anyone suffer, I hope my opponent doesn't disagree with this.

My second argument is that it would be better for the environment and the environment is essential. We need to look for ways of reducing greenhouse gasses. (For anyone who is unaware of the effect of eating meat on the environment, this fact will have to suffice for now: livestock and meat consumption does more damage to the environment than all the transport in the world combined.)

My third argument is that it's far less taxing on the worlds resources to make plant sustenance than to raise livestock. It takes about 2,400 litres of clean water to make one pound of meat. In comparison with 20 or so litres for a pound of grain. Also it takes far more food to feed the livestock than they produce.

Livestock take up more land than humans! About 30% of our earth we devote to livestock. Pants can be grown in multy story greenhouses as tall as skyscrapers.

My fourth argument is that a properly managed vegan diet is more healthy than a meat diet. It would make people more healthy and thus happier a d less of a burden on society.

My response to your argument:

You ask me to prove why we have obligation to be vegan. Well may I ask you if you think we had an obligation to free the slaves? you will find your answer entertaining this notion. If you dont think we where obliged to free slaves, then we cannot rely on your definition of this word to bring us any enlightenment. However if you do think we where obliged to free them, then that same obligation is the one we bare to animals. But if you want my understanding: We don't have an obligation. But only because obligation is abstract. It would be more virtuos,kind,compassionate and 'good' to move toward a world that doesn't use animals as commodities. I think you would agree yes? So the real question is: do you have 'being good' as an obligation or not. If you don't oblige yourself to do the right thing then you have no obligation to be vegan. If you habitually oblige yourself to do the right thing, then you are obliged to be vegan.

Okay for your second point, your using a man made idea of what humans rights should be, to legitimatise animal cruelty. The morality of the world does not come the human rights treaty.

You say people should have the right to choose. They do have the right too choose. Organised animal cruelty will just be illegal. Don't you see the hypocrisy though my friend? I mean, I feel stupid and condescending saying it but: what about the animals choices? Do they not matter? Also, people don't have rights to make others suffer. You are using the idea of rights to deny rights! Can you not see the hypocrisy?

Your food luxury argument is flawed. If nobody ate meat, they would be no meat products available. And no, in that typical scenario that happens to us all (being stranded in the wilderness), eating an animal to survive is survival and you have hunted its fairly, presumably.

Food reduction argument-totally wrong, look at my points.

People will loose their jobs. Open your mind. Murder and rape create jobs, so does suffering and death, loosing and creating jobs means nothing, also the society would evolve. We don't still fret over having no town crier.

Sorry for short argument. Been very busy.
Defro

Con





Counter Arguments:


"I am not saying we should force anyone to be vegan, meat should not be illegal to consume."


-You are right. You are not saying we should force anyone to be vegan. You used the word "should", which does not imply force, but instead implies obligation, as shown in the definition I provided.

-Therefore, you are saying that everyone in the world is obligated to become a vegan. And I argued that not everyone is obligated to become vegan.


"Killing animals is not a nice thing to do, and not doing it is the right moral thing to do, for our society."

-Pro has not explained the morality bit of his argument. How is it immoral to provide your population with food?


"People always say its natural to eat meat. True."

-Pro has conceded that eating meat is natural for humans. If it is natural for us to eat meat, then why are we obligated to not eat meat. Why are we obligated to be unnatural, even when a lot of us don't want to?


"Its not natural however, to eat the meat of any animal that has not been hunted fairly."

-It's actually very natural. Even animals do it. Tigers have claws and sharp teeth. That's not fair for the prey they hunt. Yet they hunt and eat their prey for their own survival.



"No, it's not what our ancestors did. However even if it was what we did, this fact alone would not be sufficient in proving its righteousness, as our ancestors did many things that we would not endorse now."

-Actually, the fact that our ancestors did it is enough to justify it. If our ancestors did not develop tools to hunt and had a vegan diet, they would have gone extinct and we would not exist today. Our ancestors needed to hunt and kill animals for their survival back when they were hunter-gatherers. Vegetation alone is not enough and killing animals gave them more benefits than just food. If our ancestors had not hunted mammoths, they would have had no shelter and clothes, leaving them to freeze in the Ice Age.



"The only reason most people don't think it's bad, is because they don't know enough, and they don't have to do the killing."

-That is not true. I am positive most of our population knows that the meat they eat are dead animals. And many of them kill animals too. I've gone fishing several times and killed fish, which I ate. And I don't think it's bad at all.


"Repetitive stress is 35 times higher in slaughter house workers than manufacture workers."

-Pro has not provided a source to support this claim.


-If everyone was vegan, those workers would be out of a job. I'm certain most slaughter house workers would much rather kill animals so that they can support their families than to lose their jobs and their right to eat meat.


"Somebody once said "the true test of a man is in his treatment of his inferiors". If we believe this to be true then shouldn't we treat animals better than we do now? Or do you not agree with this statement?"

-That quote can have multiple contrasting interpretations.

-While the statement is claiming that a person's value is determined by his/her treatment of inferiors, it doesn't say that crushing your inferiors is bad nor does it say treating them better is good.

-Thus, this quote does not support your stance.


"So my first point is that it's wrong to make anyone suffer, I hope my opponent doesn't disagree with this."

-I disagree with this. There are actually many instances in which making someone suffer can be justified. For example, murderers and rapiers suffer in prison. But is it wrong to put them in prison?


-Furthermore, Pro has not explained why it's wrong to make anyone suffer.


"My second argument is that it would be better for the environment and the environment is essential."

-Not at all. Be it vegan or meat-eating people, the same greenhouse emissions are being made. The only time greenhouse emissions are being made off of meat is when you use fuel cook it. Killing an animal and gutting it does not release greenhouse gases. Furthermore, you cook vegan food too!


-The only other way the production of meat releases greenhouse gases is through transporting them by planes and trucks to different parts of the world to be consumed. But we'd still have cars and planes if we were vegans and we'd still transport fruits and vegetables through cars and planes if we were vegans, so if the world was vegan, the environment would not be significantly helped.


"It takes about 2,400 litres of clean water to make one pound of meat."

-That is because animals drink water. Cows drink 150 litres of water a day. The average cattle cow that we eat lives 15 years. That means that one cow drinks 8,212,50 litres of water before it dies. Obviously it takes a lot of water to ready 1 pound of meat for consumption.


-But here's the thing. Cows drink that much water whether we eat them or not. So the fact that it takes lots of water to make meat doesn't even matter because that much water is being used anyway whether we eat them or not.

-Furthermore, water doesn't stay in cows forever. Cows urinate it out and it goes through the water cycle. By the time you eat the one pound of meat, that 2,400 litres of water is already in the oceans, clouds, and plants. Water is a renewable resource. We never run out of water.

-Therefore, water is not an issue.


"Livestock take up more land than humans! About 30% of our earth we devote to livestock."

-Why is this a problem? We can't do anything about this even if we were vegan! If we became vegan, our former livestock still exist and breed, thus they still take up space and land.


-The only way we can recover land back from livestock is to kill them all, which would be a huge waste of meat if we were vegan. Furthermore, vegans don't kill animals!

-So, in the end, if we all become vegan, 30% of our earth are still taken by livestock and because we don't kill them, they will keep breeding and increasing in numbers. Therefore, if we become vegan, even more of our earth will be taken up by livestock that we don't kill and eat.


"It would make people more healthy and thus happier and less of a burden on society."

-Health and happiness are not deeply connected. As a matter of fact, I would be less happy because some of my favorite foods contain meat, milk, and cheese. And the fact that I can't eat them will make me less happy.

-As mentioned in my 5th contention last round, billions of people will lose jobs. The unemployed are the burden of society economic wise. Therefore if the world was vegan people would be more of a burden on society.


"Well may I ask you if you think we had an obligation to free the slaves?"

-We have an obligation to free slaves because slavery violates the Human Rights I mentioned in my first contention last round. [1]


-The 4th Human Right prohibits slavery. Therefore we are obligated to be against slavery. There are no Human Rights prohibiting drinking milk or eating cheese and meat, therefore we are not obligated to become vegan.


"We don't have an obligation."

-Pro has conceded that there is no obligation for mankind to become vegan, thus negating his resolution.


"So the real question is: do you have 'being good' as an obligation or not."


-People have different views of what 'being good' means. You are using your own view and trying to account for every human being in the world.

-I do not follow your view of 'being good', and I was never obligated to follow your beliefs in the first place.


"The morality of the world does not come the human rights treaty."

-It doesn't come from you either.

-However, the Human Rights is the closest thing to it mankind can get because it's the only thing almost every nation has agreed upon.


"Organised animal cruelty will just be illegal. Don't you see the hypocrisy though my friend?"

-Organised animal cruelty is illegal because in most cases we don't eat them. I don't see the hypocrisy.



"what about the animals choices? Do they not matter?"

-Humans eat animals. Animals don't want to be eaten by humans, but humans want to eat them. Humans and animals want different things. If I had to choose, I would side with my own species.


"You are using the idea of rights to deny rights!"

-Humans and animals have different rights, and this is due mainly to the fact that we are more intelligent than them. A human can get the right to wield weapons and drive vehicles. Animals cannot have these rights. Therefore we have different rights.


"If nobody ate meat, they would be no meat products available."

-Yes, but people HAVE eaten meat, and meat products have ALREADY been available! Your resolutions states "we should move towards a world where everybody is vegan", implying that all the meat eaters today stop eating meat tomorrow.



"in that typical scenario that happens to us all (being stranded in the wilderness), eating an animal to survive is survival"

-Pro has conceded again that there are instances in which not being vegan is allowed.


"Food reduction argument-totally wrong, look at my points."


-Your points haven't shown why it is "totally wrong".


"Murder and rape create jobs, so does suffering and death, loosing and creating jobs means nothing, also the society would evolve. We don't still fret over having no town crier."

-
Please elaborate





*Voters I apologize for the lack of sources. My Internet access is limited so I am basing my claims off my knowledge from my AP Biology, Economics, and Ecology courses I took in high school.

Debate Round No. 2
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

You argue that we are not obliged to become vegan. Well do you believe that a parent is obliged to look after their child? And if so, on what grounds is that obligation legitimised? Well I will tell you: because that child is only there as a result of their actions, and because making him unhappy is simply 'not nice'. So how do we define obligation? Well it seems that righteousness and kindness play a big role. For instance, are you obliged to help someone who is going to die without a small, easy action on your behalf? These are difficult questions, because they have two equally TRUE responses. Those are as follows: No, because 'obligation' is it's self is mearly a word. The idea of Right and Wrong is only an idea, made by a collection of neurons in so called 'biological organism'. And so we have no obligation to do the 'right' thing because all that matters is our individual desires. This is true. However it may not be true if God exists. But non the less, without evidence of God, we cannot bring him into the discussion. So if we go off all we know, that being that we are all biological organisms that have a life span, and desires, we can say we have no obligation to anything. We merely do what we please. Now, on the other side of the argument, we say YES: we do have an obligation to look after our children, do the kind thing e.t.c. In this response, we legitimise obligation by what we call 'righteousness'. So we are obliged to do something because it is right. Although both response are equally correct (besides not doing the 'right' thing if God is real) I live by the second one. So when you say: "I argued that not everyone is obliged to become vegan" your are correct, we are not necessarily obliged to be vegan. But by that same logic, we are also not obliged to do anything, thus rendering the word meaningless. The voters will have too decide how they substansiate their own obligations: either through righteousness, or selfishness.

You say: -Pro has not explained the morality bit of his argument. How is it immoral to provide your population with food?

My friend this is foolish. Did I say it was immoral to provide your population with food? I don't understand this point. Indeed I have actually explained why producing meat costs far more than other food, so your ideology is the one that provides less food if anything. It is not immoral to provide your population with food: it's immoral to make billions of fellow beings suffer horrifically in order to achieve that goal, when other options are just as easy to take.

Your next argument actually links with your first one. You say: "are we obligated to be unnatural?" Suggesting that we are not obligated to be unnatural. Well like I said, it links to the first point: are we obliged to do the right thing, or the natural thing? Like I say in the beginning: I argue that we are obliged to do the right thing, regardless of our own desires or 'natural instinct'. For instance: we don't instinctively want to do the 'right' thing as humans, indeed instinctively we want to do the selfish thing. I would argue that doing the right thing is hard and often requires us to act in ways that we don't want too. You are saying that if we don't want to do it, then why should we? I think as an intelligent beings, we should have higher standards than this animalistic attitude my opponent is portraying of selfish gain. So yes, we ARE obliged to act unnaturally (whatever that actually means), if it means we are doing the 'right' thing.

I say in the wild, animals are hunted fairly. For instance a tiger has to stalk its prey, she will have to single out a weak member of the herd, then she will chase it and there is a very high possibilty that she will fail to catch. She tries so hard because without the catch, her young will starve. You see, they cannot eat the fruits and vegetables of the trees like we can, nor can they plough the fields and bake the bread. Now when we eat meat, we don't chase anything that can survive. These animals are born into in. They have no chance of escape, or no chance of a peaceful life. And you say:

-It's actually very natural. Even animals do it. Tigers have claws and sharp teeth. That's not fair for the prey they hunt. Yet they hunt and eat their prey for their own survival.

Are you really comparing claws to factory farms?

You say: -Actually, the fact that our ancestors did it is enough to justify it. If our ancestors did not develop tools to hunt and had a vegan diet, they would have gone extinct and we would not exist today. Our ancestors needed to hunt and kill animals for their survival back when they were hunter-gatherers. Vegetation alone is not enough and killing animals gave them more benefits than just food. If our ancestors had not hunted mammoths, they would have had no shelter and clothes, leaving them to freeze in the Ice Age.

Yes, in the ice age. We are not in the ice age anymore. Necessities change over time. The British empire and USA may not have been without slavery, does this mean we shouldn't condem it? Women have been oppressed throughout history, without it, things would not be how they are now: does this mean we shouldn't move towards removing that ancestoral habit? You say "the fact our ancestors did it is enough to justify it" I simply believe this to be absolutely foolish. This mentality of yours, is the reason society takes so long to change socially. I'm upset because you are intelligent and yet still think this way.

You say: "I think most the population knows they are eating dead animals"

They do know they are dead animals, but I am saying that they are ignorant to their actual circumstances. They do not know how much they suffer. And so, the fact that people are accepting of it is not cause to legitimise it, as they do not know what is actually going on.

The repetitive stress evidence:

You say: -If everyone was vegan, those workers would be out of a job. I'm certain most slaughter house workers would much rather kill animals so that they can support their families than to lose their jobs and their right to eat meat.

Should we of kept slavery too then, to ensure the slave merchants kept their jobs? Because according to your logic, we should never improve the society because of short term consequences. You must not be so short sighted. Besides, I said we should MOVE towards a world where we are all vegan. I am saying that we should gradually move towards that world, and that it should be seen as an ideal to AIM for. I am not saying we should force the world to be like that over-night. As I said: is a movement towards such a world.

You say about my quote (true test of a man is how he treats his inferiors e.c.t.) that is could be interpreted in other ways and so it doesn't support my claim. Well no, not really. So your suggesting that he may of meant that treating his inferiors badly, is the true test of a mans virtue? Don't be absurd, it's obvious what he meant. He meant: treating your inferiors well, suggests that you are virtuous because you have less consequences for doing so. Thus, you are treating them well because you are compassionate, and not because of selfish or other reasons.

You argue that making someone suffer is okay when they are a rapist or murderer. Yes okay, so if someone has committed the worst offences imaginable then they maybe deserve to suffer. What offence has the animal committed?

No the environment would be helped. It takes 100x more clean water to make meat, it costs about ten times the weight of grain to get an amount of meat. There is no question about whether the meat industry is bad for the environment. Please look at these websites. I am not trying to argue that it's bad for the environment, I'm assuming we already know this, I'm using it as an argument. There is no question about its truth, the question is only about whether its sufficient enough as a reason to go vegan.

You say that the water is going to be used on the cows anyway. This is ridiculous, if we don't eat cows why would so many of them exist? Obviously in a vegan world there would be less cows to spend drinking water on. So it would save water. Water is an issue actually, maintining clean drinking water.

You say the animals will take up the room anyway even if the world was vegan. Why? Why would we continue to breed animals on such a scale if we stopped using them? Who would pay to feed and keep them? Think about it. They would either be killed of just aloud to die in peace and breed no more young animals.

You say health and happiness are not linked. Well, they are. A well nutritified body is a well functioning one, a well functioning brain and body means that there is stability. If you eat loads of food that is bad for your health, you will be less happy. For instance you will get ill more often, you will die earlier and you may not feel energetic and content. For food is our medicine, and we are what we eat. You say you won't be happy because you can't eat certain meals, well you need to find other ways of being happy. If such a shallow, pleasure of the flesh is you source of happiness then you should study philosophy and the real truth behind happiness. Happiness is more likely to come from compassion to life, rather than a rejection and abuse of life, would you not agree?

Do you get your authority from others my friend? So we are only obliged to abolish slavery because of the 'human rights'? So, before this paper was written, slavery was okay yer? My friend this is foolish.

People don't have very different ideas about being good, it's all based around kindness and compassion. Most meat-eaters are brave enough to accept their faults, some like yourself want to have your cake and eat it. You want to be seen as virtuous and good, and you support cruelty for your own pleasure. Just accept it, you are doing the wrong thing, you cannot have it both ways.

Finish in comments.
Defro

Con






Counter-Arguments:


"Well do you believe that a parent is obliged to look after their child? And if so, on what grounds...because that child is only there as a result of their actions, and because making him unhappy is simply 'not nice'."

-A parent is generally obliged to look after their child because they chose to have a child. They wanted to have offspring. It was their decision, thus they must take responsibility of their decision. In many cases, parents do not feel obliged to look after their child if they did not choose to have it, such as in rape or unplanned pregnancy. In these cases, the fetus is generally aborted, or the child put up for adoption.

-My parents have made me unhappy many times, and I'm sure yours has too. While we might think this is "not nice", that doesn't make it immoral.


"And so we have no obligation to do the 'right' thing because all that matters is our individual desires."

-This is the fourth instance in which Pro has conceded to my points.


"We merely do what we please...we are also not obliged to do anything, thus rendering the word meaningless."

-Not true. If you come from a biological standpoint like you just did, every living organism has two obligations: survive and reproduce. And in nature, this generally implies out competing other species, in which case, we are actually obliged to eat meat.

-But as sophisticated, intelligent beings, we have developed the Human Rights.


"we have no obligation to do the 'right' thing because all that matters is our individual desires. This is true. However it may not be true if God exists. But non the less, without evidence of God, we cannot bring him into the discussion."

-This is Pro's fifth concession.

-Pro has stated that we have no obligation to do the right thing unless God exists, yet concedes that there is no evidence of God, negating his entire argument on morality.


"your are correct, we are not necessarily obliged to be vegan."

-This is Pro's sixth concession.


"it's immoral to make billions of fellow beings suffer horrifically in order to achieve that goal, when other options are just as easy to take."

-Pro has brought morality back into the equation after negating his argument on morality, contradicting himself.

-Even so, Pro has not explained why providing your population with food at the expense of animals dying is immoral.

-Furthermore, this is based only off of Pro's sense of morality. People have different ideas of morality. Therefore, you cannot argue using your definition of morals until you prove your morals are the correct morals, which you haven't done.


"we ARE obliged to act unnaturally (whatever that actually means), if it means we are doing the 'right' thing."

-And how is what we were doing right now the "wrong" thing? How is becoming vegan the "right" thing? Again, you are using your own set of morals, which do not apply to everyone.


"For instance a tiger has to stalk its prey, she will have to single out a weak member of the herd, then she will chase it and there is a very high possibility that she will fail to catch."

-Actually, if a tiger singled out the weak member of the herd, the possibility that she will fail is close to nothing. The weakling of the herd has essentially no chance of escaping because the rest of the herd will run as fast as they can, leaving the weakling (who assumingly runs slower than the rest).



"Are you really comparing claws to factory farms?"

-Yes I am. You said that we hunted animals using unfair methods. Tigers having claws is unfair for the prey, just like us having intelligent brains capable of creating factory farms is unfair.



"We are not in the ice age anymore."

-Actually, there is evidence to believe that an ice age is coming soon. [1]



"Necessities change over time."

-Except for food. Food is always a necessity.



"The British empire and USA may not have been without slavery, does this mean we shouldn't condemn it?"

-Pro has committed a fallacy by affirming the disjunct. [2]


-Pro is assuming that because our ancestors did unethitical things to advance society, and since eating meat is something our ancestors did to advance our society, eating meat is unethical.

-Furthermore, we only condemn it in most cases today because of the Human Rights [3], which does not condemn eating meat.


"You say "the fact our ancestors did it is enough to justify it" I simply believe this to be absolutely foolish."

-The fact that our ancestors did is not enough to justify it. The fact that they did it and it has benefited humanity justifies it. This would also justify the slavery that helped advance our society in the past. But slavery doesn't help as much today. At the same time, not being a vegan has benefited society dramatically.


-Here in Thailand, we've recently had a lot of Japanese restaurants open up. They are very popular, and our local economy has never been so good. The Japanese restaurants offer many dishes containing meat. And because of how good they are, more and more consumers are consuming, contributing to our economy.


"This mentality of yours, is the reason society takes so long to change socially. I'm upset because you are intelligent and yet still think this way."

-Pro has committed ad hominen.


-This is a formal debate. This "mentality" of mine is none of your business. This might not even be how I think. For all you know, I might be playing devil's advocate (which I am by the way).

-I used to believe passionately in certain fundamental Buddhist ideals. I even tried being a vegetarian when I was 13. After three months, I fainted in school a couple of times. I also craved my favorite foods (which contained meat), so I stopped. So you see, my "mentality" might not be how you perceive it.


"They do not know how much they suffer."

-Many of them do, and it has not affected them very much. I've had to butcher live animals before to eat, such as fish and chickens. I know first hand how much they suffer. And I don't think much about their suffering when I eat them.


-Many schools are raising awareness on how our food is prepared. My whole school had to watch a documentary called "Food Inc." [4] The documentary covers where our meat is from and shows us first hand the animals who suffer. Nevertheless, everyone in my school continued to eat meat.


"Should we of kept slavery too then, to ensure the slave merchants kept their jobs?"

-No, because slavery violates Human Rights.



"according to your logic, we should never improve the society because of short term consequences."

-Short term consequences? We're talking billions of people losing their jobs here! I don't think you understand the economic impact this could mean. This might be a short term problem if more jobs were created to replace the ones lost, but that is impossible. Without meat, the product diversity of the market is dramatically decreased.


-I eat at a local fast food joint very often. And there's a waiter there who's only option was to work in a restaurant because no other jobs would accept him. His mom is in the hospital due to cancer and his dad died a while back. He had to drop out of school to work in a restaurant to earn money for his mom's medical bills, and that's not enough! After work, he plays his guitar in the streets, begging people to spare a coin or two. And yet, he can only barely support his mom. What is he going to do if he is jobless? Let his mom die? I wouldn't mind if he had to serve 100 cows worth of beef, as long as he can help his mom.


"I am saying that we should gradually move towards that world"

-Which would result in billions of people gradually losing their jobs.



"What offence has the animal committed?"

-In most cases, nothing. We just want to eat the animal.



"It takes 100x more clean water to make meat"

-Like I explained, water is not a huge issue as it is a renewable resource and by the time the meat is being eaten, the water would have dispersed into the clouds and oceans.



"it costs about ten times the weight of grain to get an amount of meat."

-And if we ate grain instead of meat, we'd have to eat ten times more grain to be full.



"the question is only about whether its sufficient enough as a reason to go vegan."

-And I have explained why its not sufficient enough.



"if we don't eat cows why would so many of them exist?"

-By breeding. Now, we have cows in farms and factories. We can control the amount they breed and their population. If we are vegan, we have to let them go, and there is no one to stop them from humping each other dry.


"Why would we continue to breed animals on such a scale if we stopped using them?"

-They breed themselves.



"If you eat loads of food that is bad for your health, you will be less happy. For instance you will get ill more often, you will die earlier and you may not feel energetic and content."

-Not true. I eat loads of food that is bad for my health, and I am very happy from it.


-The news and media are filled with articles on how meat is unhealthy. But people still eat them because it brings them happiness.

-I can say with credibility that me, and many people I know, would rather die when we're 65 and having eaten delicious food that we like, than to die when we're 100 and to not have the pleasure of our favorite foods.



Sources:

[1] http://www.cbn.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.samaritanmag.com...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org....



*Pro has continued his argument in the comments. This is a violation of debate restrictions, as it allows for him to go over the 10,000 word limit, giving him an unfair advantage. I will disregard his argument in the comments section until he posts it in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
Defro

Con







To wrap up the debate.


Pro used his own morality to claim that eating meat was immoral without justifying his own morality and negating the morality of others who disagree.

Pro conceded that there are instances in which eating meat is justified.

Pro conceded that we have no obligation to do the right thing unless God exists, then proceeded to concede that there is no evidence for God.

Thank you for the enlightening discussion.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rekeah 2 years ago
Rekeah
Defro, would you be willing to have another debate on veganism? I feel as though Tommy (Pro) didn't do a good job of defending his position.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
No he is 7 weeks old can we stick to the point please haha
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
Is your son also vegan?
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
....if that evil allows for them to have some pleasure. Indeed, when has cruelty ever been for a different reason. So all cruelty in the world as a whole, is actually just to gain something. Necessity or pleasure. Pleasure being the least justifiable. And yet, my friend Defro, smart though he is, agrees with cruelty because it beings him pleasure. And so is, in some ways, the face of evil. For evil is not pure evil as we understand it, it's a perversion of the character. A mis-connection between the soul and the body: the body craves something that the soul knows to be wrong, and it overpowers the soul. People have all kinds of natural urges: jealousy, sexual e.t.c but part of being a sentient, intelligent being is to be bigger than those urges. Following our urges and not our soul makes us 'evil' and you are following your craving for pleasure rather than your spiritual urge to be kind. You are not wrong, but merely less enlightened and more human-centred. This is not meant to be voted on by the way I just love to argue with this kind of mentality please don't consider this is your voting decision.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I must ask though: you say you don't disagree with animal cruelty, is this true? For if so, this argument would have some similarity to an argument about anti-Semitic attitudes, debated between a typical person and a Nazi. What I mean is, you cannot argue slavery is wrong with a racist, nor that the bible is inaccurate to a devout Christian. You would be arguing that their very nature is false.

I could argue that slavery is wrong, on the grounds that it causes suffering: but to a person who believes that black people are sub-human and all that, the foundation of my claim becomes irrelevant. So they may agree with my opinion (that is causes suffering) but they simply to small-minded to see its significance. They would say: "but we don't have to do work, it makes life easy. Why would we stop something that makes life easy? I actually don't really mind that much that they suffer, they are black people so they probably don't suffer like we do". Does this sound familiar? You say that it's okay because you like the taste of meat. You say it's okay to make them suffer because YOU don't mind. You even say: "what's wrong with wanting to feed the population?". This one is very similar to: "what's bad about making life easier?" When talking about slavery.

I am in intrigued at this attitude. I understand it, for its merely self-centred and pleasure driven. Indeed it's our most natural state, for as children, this is how we think. Also, many adults do grow up without ever acquiring a more developed, less self-orientated attitude, but these adults don't join debating websites or give good converse. However you seem smart enough to debate with and describe your opinions, and so I feel like you can offer me a window into the mind of the kind of human that is typical and non-revolutionary etc. For it is people who share the same attitude as you have portrayed, that make society so slow too advance. For they agree with discrimination, suffering, cruelty and captivity if that e
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Got very busy for my son has been ill. Sorry for inconvenience would of loved to finish debate.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
I don't disagree with it. I was never vegan. I tried being a vegetarian when I was 13 but it didn't work out.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Do you agree with animal cruelty? Or are you vegan yourself?
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
My goal in life is to help encourage a revolution in the way we live our life. I have a plan, though I know it's very unlikely to succeed, to make this revolution happen. At least, even if it does fail to get power, it will be the beginning of the end of our current system. Gandhi said: be the change you want to see in the world. So becoming vegan is the only way I could align my life with my soul. If that makes sense, for I hate animal cruelty and yet supported it every day, until I became vegan.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Yes I am vegan. I was raised a meat eater, and I must say, I love meat. For me, no meal is complete without meat. I'm a trained chef also, though its not my career, and I have a passion for cooking. Becoming vegan has taken this away from me and made my food pleasure much less. But if I can do it, anyone can. Because few people love meat more than I, and few people enjoy cooking so much. The reason I carny cook a lot now is because, without eggs and cream, most desserts become impossible. Though, in the last week I have found egg, cream, milk, butter, chocolate and cheese substitutes and they are very good.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Tommy.leadbetterDefroTied
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 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: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. For this, Con is awarded points. S&G - Con. Pro committed several misspellings, which can immediately be seen with his misspelling of the term "lose, with loose in R3. Con's spelling was perfect, literally. For this, I award points to Con. Arguments - Con. Not only did pro fail to justify his rebuttals in R2, specifically where he stated, "This is wrong" but then failed to provide justification. As Pro had the burden, it cost him to conceed certain points like obligation and eating meat in certain situations. Ultimately, Pro was not able to defeat the counter-arguments and rebuttals presented by Con. Therefore, arguments goes to Con. Sources - Con. I'm really surprised none of the other judges picked up on this, but Con was the only one to utilize sources throughout this debate and therefore is awarded source points as they helped verify his claims. A rare, 7-point win for Con.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Tommy.leadbetterDefroTied
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: This debate was good and bad. I am awarding Con argument points as he effectively dismantled Pros arguments by rebutting all Pros claims. Additionally, by not having a strong layout for the debate Pro was already on the back-foot by dealing with tough questions regarding human rights after the first round. Regarding arguments from Pro, they were not well sourced. I still want to read the Zimbardo prison study? Additionally, Pro never addressed Cons rebuttals or arguments but kept saying the same thing over and over with no support. This is not debating tactics this is speaking louder, and not worthy of a debate win. Lastly regarding conduct. Pro forfeited and made multiple Ad-hominem attacks and as such conduct points go to Con. Regarding source points, I am not awarding them as Con on his own admission did not include them in round 2. Although I am still tempted to award them as Pro sourced zero arguments, there was some things in round 2 at needed sourcing.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
Tommy.leadbetterDefroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Tommy.leadbetterDefroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit--and arguing in the comments is always to be ignored in terms of judging the debate's arguments. As to arguments, it was very close. Con seems to have largely ignored the moral implications of eating meat. To be honest, though, I would have given him arguments anyway on the strength of what he did present, except that I think he shifted the focus of the debate--the "should" is not applied to "being vegan" in the resolution, but is applied to "mov[ing] towards" being vegan. As such, many of his arguments fail when the resolution is considered as it was written. Pro further acknowledged in the opening that there are "primitive" societies that wouldn't be under this "should". So I wound up nulling it. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.