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

animals should not be killed for any reason

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,472 times Debate No: 74494
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




I think animals SHOULD NOT be killed for ANY reason at all! Animals have a right to live because they are innocent creatures. We want to live our life and so do they, so why are we aloud to kill animals in a inhumane way and not get punished, but if a child gets hit by a car, it's all over the news, and families are having sad ceremonies because of their loss. But on the other side of the world, mother pigs are getting stacked onto a truck, getting ready to be traveled for 72 hours in the hot weather, no air leaving their young behind and not getting time to look after them. What happens to those piglets, they end up as fresh bacon on your plate. What happens to them in the process of making bacon to fill selfish humans belly, I'm not gong to go there. If someone is sad because a child has died and they mourn because that child didn't have a chance to live life, But then they don't realise that that is exactly the SAME thing in animal matter? why do we value human lives over animals so much? What makes us so special, especially since we are the ones who are ruining our earth for everyone and everything else.


I'll accept the debate. Thing called a "Food Chain".
Debate Round No. 1


Yes lions are allowed to eat other animals, how else are they going to live, they can't excalty go to Coles and buy fresh zebra?


  • Thank you Pro. I will now present the rebuttal for your argument.

What is the definition of a Food Chain?
Food Chain- A hierarchical series of organisms each dependent on the next as a source of food.

As for humans, we are animals. We derived from the Homo-Sapien species that are classified as mammals. But enough with that argument.

People have always eaten animal products. Why should we stop now?

If you look throughout history at the human diet, it consists of a large amount of raw plant products, and some meat for important proteins. Not to dig too deeply into the science behind all this, but the easiest way to get all of your essential acids is by eating meat. Granted, you don’t need four steaks and a chicken breast a day, but having at least some meat on the table once a week is going to be healthier for you unless you are very carefully planning your amino acid intake. Humans didn’t evolve our incisors for chomping down on leaves, and we didn’t evolve our molars to try and rip the flesh off of a bone. Omnivorous diets are what we as a species are designed for.

All health reasons aside though, it’s important socially that we don’t confuse the ideas of vegetarianism and animal activism. There are right ways to raise animals and there are efficient ways to raise animals. These two aren’t necessarily exclusive, but if you believe the megafarms, they’re doing what they have to do in order to “feed the world,” never mind that even here in the United States 14.5 percent of households go hungry or don’t know where their next meal is coming from.

The largest reason for this isn’t the inability of farmers to produce enough food, it’s the extreme inequality in food distribution that mirrors the economic dispersion in this country. So for all the farms who raise animals that never see the light of day, where they interact almost exclusively with machines, the excuse of “feeding the world,” just isn’t going to cut it.

The same goes for all the vegetarians out there who don’t eat meat to protest these conditions. It isn’t that hard anymore to find a semi-local farmer, no matter where you live. You can meet the farmers, talk with them, and find out exactly what kinds of living conditions their animals have.

What you absolutely should not do is insist that everybody you meet share your feelings and moral position on the subject. Both sides of the proverbial electric fence have been guilty of this. Vegetarians and vegans are often seen as pushy, throwing their ideals at other people. This is very much the wrong thing to do. But this also applies to you, dear reader, if you are an omnivore who likes to “casually” suggest that any vegetarian is less of a person, or just following a trend, or “missing out,” or any number of things I hear on a fairly regular basis when a person finds out my eating preferences.

Trophic levels” is a biology term used to describe different levels of a food chain with, for example, a blade of grass being the lowest trophic level, right up through the bugs that eat the grass, the birds that eat the bugs, and the foxes that eat the birds. At each level, a large amount of energy is lost due to the energy needed for those living things to survive, the heat they put out, and the fact that not every member of a trophic level is eaten for food. Actually, only ten percent of the energy that comes into a given trophic level goes up to the next higher level.

So in the previous example, if we set the grass as receiving 100% energy from the sun, the bugs get 10%, the birds 1%, and the foxes .1% of the total energy that came in from the sun. This on its own looks like a pretty convincing ecological reason to become a vegetarian, but just imagine if everything did that.

It simply isn’t possible to survive if every living thing is competing for the same resources. Yes, it is less efficient to eat a cow than it is to eat corn, but if we were competing with animals for all the plant-based resources available, we would soon push them right out of the food web entirely, destroying any benefit the species might have of not being eaten. Even the ideal 100 percent energy directly from the sun wouldn’t be a viable solution, because then we’d be in competition with the trees for sustenance, and would eventually end up wiping them out in order to secure more sun for ourselves.

Still, that supermarket-packaged ground beef from cows who never see the light of day isn’t your most ethical food choice, or your healthiest. Truly free-range, grass-fed livestock are going to be much healthier and much better for you to consume, and they actually get to live decent lives before slaughter. And it isn’t impossible to raise your own animals, or hunt truly wild animals for food, and then you know exactly how the animal was treated, if it was killed with respect, and how you feel morally about eating it.

Health Reasons

Throughout evolution, humans and pre-humans have been eating meat. Our digestive systems are well equipped to make full use of the healthy fats, proteins and nutrients found in animal foods.The truth is that humans are omnivores, despite what some vegan proponents would have you believe. We function best eating BOTH animals and plants. Humans have much shorter digestive systems than herbivores and don’t have the specialized organs to digest cellulose, the main fiber in plants.Humans also have canines, with big brains, opposing thumbs and the ability to make tools to hunt. Meat was one of the reasons humans were able to evolve such large, elaborate brains. Some of the earliest evidence shows that our ancestors were eating meat as early as 1.5 million years ago.


(And my brain)
Debate Round No. 2


And thank you for your argument con, the reason I am brining this up is because of how the animals are brought up, treated and then killed. I don't think it would be very pleasant to get shot in the head and then hung upside down to let the blood flow to you head so u get concussion, then your mouth is blocked so u can't BREATHE by someone stepping on it....I don't think any of us would want anything like that happening to us, so why should it to them, when they are innocent, not every human is bad, but animals are fairly, surely innocent, I assume? They aren't going to go and rob a bank, or kill a person cause they feel like it. Because they don't have a voice and can't express their feelings. But I know they to have feelings, feel pain, have families and just to casually want to live their life, without anyone coming and interrupting. We have a enough idiots in the world as it is!


Thank you Pro for your argument.

How do you know for sure whether or not Animals feel pain?

Whether animals can feel pain has been a theory, not a proven fact. Also, where are your sources for your arguments?

Types of Pain
Pain can be considered to have two components: Physical hurt or discomfort caused by injury or disease and Emotional suffering. Most people would agree that animals are capable of feeling pain according to the first definition. But it is less clear whether they also feel emotional pain. This is a theory, not a fact.

Sensing damage
One of the functions of pain is to warn against damage and to act as an alarm system so that action can be taken to avoid or minimize injury. This usually takes the form of a withdrawal reflex.

In vertebrates, nociceptive information is collated and augmented in the brain and signals are relayed down the nervous system to alter the intensity of pain. All vertebrates possess the primitive areas of the brain to process nociceptive information, namely the medulla, and the thalamus

However, one area of great importance for pain perception in humans is the cortex and its relative size decreases as we descend the evolutionary tree. For instance, in relative terms, the cortex gets smaller going from humans, through primates, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibian and finally to fish, which possess only a rudimentary cortex.

Other animals show reflex responses similar to our own. For example, when we accidentally touch a hot iron we respond almost immediately by retracting our hand. There is a lag period following this when no adverse sensations are felt but, if left untreated, the burn begins to throb and we alter our behaviour to guard the affected area.

Other animals respond to painful damage in a similar way. Their responses comprise several behavioural and physiological changes: they eat less food, their normal behaviour is disrupted, their social behaviour is suppressed and they may adopt unusual behaviour patterns (typically, highly repetitive or stereotyped behaviours, such as rocking to and fro), they may emit characteristic distress calls, and they experience respiratory and cardiovascular changes, as well as inflammation and release of stress hormones.

As these responses are complex and coordinated, it is likely that the brain is involved and they are more than just simple reflexes.

Although comparatively simple, fish have recently been shown to possess sensory neurons that are sensitive to damaging stimuli and are physiologically identical to human nociceptors. Fish show several responses to a painful event: they adopt guarding behaviours, become unresponsive to external stimuli and their respiration increases. These responses disappear when the fish are given morphine – evidence that they are, mechanistically at least, directly analogous to pain responses in more complex animals.

Emotional pain
Another theory. Humans can certainly feel pain without physical damage – after the loss of a loved one, or the break-up of a relationship, for example. Some scientists suggest that only primates and humans can feel emotional pain, as they are the only animals that have a neocortex – the ‘thinking area’ of the cortex found only in mammals. However, research has provided evidence that monkeys, dogs, cats and birds can show signs of emotional pain and display behaviours associated with depression during painful experience, i.e.. lack of motivation, lethargy, anorexia, unresponsiveness to other animals.

Although modern philosophers have debated this issue, we simply do not know whether animals experience emotional pain. In his essay ‘What is it like to be a bat?’, Thomas Nagel concluded that unless we can get inside the head of an animal and actually be it, we will never know exactly how that animal feels. An important issue in animal pain is empathy, and many arguments about what animals feel have can only be based on the human experience and, therefore, may be tainted with anthropomorphism.

Another argument against animals experiencing pain is the question of whether animals are conscious. Scientists have argued that no animals, except primates, are capable of feeling pain, as they are not conscious. In essence, consciousness is a sense of an awareness of how things affect me and how something feels. Whether animals are conscious, or possess some degree of consciousness, has been endlessly debated, but consciousness is such a subjective experience it is hard to define and to assess. Fish can certainly learn complicated tasks, remember approximately 40 individuals, and measure their size relative to an opponent’s to decide whether to fight them. Therefore, at the very least they must have a sense of how big they are.

Higher vertebrates show even more significant signs of consciousness. Some Scientists have suggested that animals may be conscious but that this is not as developed as human consciousness. Many argue, however, that consciousness is fundamentally dependent on language, something no other animal has yet been convincingly shown to possess. In contrast, Peter Singer, a bio ethicist who has championed animal rights for many years, suggests that consciousness is not even the key issue: just because animals have smaller brains, or are ‘less conscious’ than humans, this does not mean that they are not capable of feeling pain. After all, says Singer, we do not assume that newborn infants, people suffering from neurotic brain diseases or people with learning disabilities experience less pain than we would.

In practice, welfare scientists, who assess animal well being in various contexts including intensive farming, try to be unbiased and objective when monitoring behavioural and physiological responses to potentially painful events. If an animal shows the same kind of adverse reactions as humans after a painful stimulus, it is assumed that the stimulus is also painful to the animal. Inevitably, however, all welfare science on pain is essentially a interpretation based on indirect measurements.

Weighing the evidence
In conclusion, it is currently impossible to prove whether animals are capable of emotional pain, but it is equally impossible to disprove it. The conclusion is drawn; it is impossible to know for sure. The whole idea of animals being slaughtered is to show a sense of compassion of animals, when we certainly don't even know.


Also, a question for Pro, whenever we kill a fly, mosquito, Etc; do they feel pain? They are animals also, right?

Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Animalsforever 2 years ago
Thank you, at least u understand 😊
Posted by Arrogant 2 years ago
It's alright :D First debates are always tough.
Posted by Animalsforever 2 years ago
Oh ok, and yes it's my first, sorry for giving u a headache lol :(
Posted by Arrogant 2 years ago
Is this your first debate also?
Posted by Arrogant 2 years ago
You never answered my question and you only set the debate for 3 rounds for each person.
Posted by Animalsforever 2 years ago
I don't know why I can't post my next argument, but of course they can feel pain. Step on a dogs tail and see it cry in pain. When I leave me dog at home by himself, he howls and cries because he doesn't want to be left alone, he misses us. So that proves that they have emotional pain. Also I didn't mean to bring this argument up, I just wanted to see other people's oppinions on whether or not they agree or disagree, like a poll? But thank you con for being so patient with me as I didn't know this is what would happen if I posted something, I like how your keeping your cool :)
Posted by Arrogant 2 years ago
Before I post my next argument, Animalsforever, do you follow the traditions of the Bible and Christianity?
Posted by Animalsforever 2 years ago
A lion can't go down to Coles and buy a fresh Zebra for dinner? Can they? So therefore lions and other animals are allowed to eat each other, like someone else who commented said "food chain" :)
Posted by justincameron410 2 years ago
I am con all the way. One thing, Animalsforever, you may want to improve your spelling and grammar before posting another debate.
Posted by ATMACS 2 years ago
I'll be supporting con all the way. You can't just stop killing all animals.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lumberjay85 2 years ago
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: Con provided a thorough argument backed up with sources.