The Instigator
koon139
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

eating meat is wrong of course

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 3 votes the winner is...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 36009
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

koon139

Pro

animal eating is wrong and it wll always wil be, i think it is cruel t oeat the meat and it is. if u think it is not then u r just' not as good enough, dissapointing.
MrJosh

Con

I accept this debate and await PRO's arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
koon139

Pro

ok first off i thnk it s wrong /totally wrong to eating, meat. It comes and cames from the animals, i wnet to farms and it is not good, the cows are not too good to be killed for the food ( meat). thE only way theycan be hapy is for them to be living not killed for meat or food, if u eat them ur not good. it is a disapointment to see anyone , doig this for met. we caxn of course still live w/out the food (meat).
MrJosh

Con

I thank PRO for his arguments. Right from the start, I would like to point out that PRO's position is unclear. The title of the debate states that it is wrong to eat meat, but PRO only mentions beef in his opening arguments. Meat is a vague term generally meaning any animal tissue that is eaten [1]. Therefore, beef, pork, poultry, fish, shellfish, and even insects might be considered meat. Some clarification here would be helpful.

PRO's Arguments
As I understand it, PRO's arguments are that 1) cows cannot be happy if we are eating them, and that 2) the human diet doesn't need to contain meat. PRO might also be arguing that we shouldn't eat meat because of the treatment of the animals pre-slaughter, but this isn't clear; some clarification would be helpful here as well.
I would first like to point out that PRO has not tied his arguments to his overall position. If we come to an agreement that cows cannot be happy because we are slaughtering them, we then must discuss why this should be a part of the decision-making process regarding the foods we eat. Likewise, if the human diet doesn't require meat, the claim that we shouldn't eat meat doesn't necessarily follow; PRO must draw the line connectiong these two points.

Happy Cows

PRO has claimed that the only way cows can be happy is for them to be allowed to live beyond the point when they would normally be slaughtered. Until PRO provides evidence for this claim, it remains an opinion. I will address it if PRO chooses to support it with evidence. I would also like to point out that even if we come to agree on this point; PRO has not shown why the happiness of cows shoule play a role in the decisions humans make regarding their diets.

Human Diet
PRO's second argument is that the human diet doesn't require meat. I will concede the point that it is generally possible for a healthy adult to eat a balanced diet as a vegetarian or a vegan, but it is very difficult [2]. In fact, in some areas, its impractical, if not nearly impossible [3]. Also, when feeding children vegetarian diets, special care must be taken [4] as there have been numerous documented instances of children dying or suffering other negative consequences as a result of just such dietary restrictions [5]. As a final point on diet, even if it is 100% true that humans can consume a healthy, balanced diet without eating meat, PRO has not connected that point with his claim that it is wrong to eat meat.

Conclusion (so far)

So far, PRO has not sufficiently made his case. He hasn't connected his arguments to his claim, and his claims only address one of the numerous kinds of meat that humans eat. PRO has not yet met his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
koon139

Pro

Omg u fgt u r posting to much, i m right u r not idc bout ur aruments, so i m right. idont care u r obviusly a omg u r not good. i am disapointed
MrJosh

Con

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
MrJosh

Con

As PRO has chosen not to make any further arguments, or to rebut mine, all of my arguments stand.

First, PRO began his debate stating that humans shouldn't eat meat, but in his arguments, he only addressed beef. Even if all of his arguments stand, nothing translates to pork, poultry or any other meat. Secondly, PRO did not source any of his claims, therefore, it can be regarded as opinion.

Finally, and most importantly, PRO has not tied any of his arguments to his initial claim. Even if cows can only be happy if they are not slaughtered, and even if humans can full obtain their nutritional requirements through a vegetarian diet, this still does not support his claim that it is wrong to eat meat. PRO has not met his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dashy654 3 years ago
dashy654
What.......
Posted by koon139 3 years ago
koon139
omg dis is to much i cant under stand u're texts arguments, vote me
Posted by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
Since you chose not to make any arguments, I was just showing anyone who might be reading our debate that I chose not to make new arguments. Since you didn't rebut mine, they all stand.
Posted by koon139 3 years ago
koon139
omg wot is dis
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
koon139MrJoshTied
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: Con made to much of a point about Pro only mentioning cows, when Pro clearly states 'meat comes from the life of animals' and then further described cows. Con also didn't counter the right animals have to life execpt asking for a source to verify this axiom.... Pro then went into melt down and Con just held the argument, however bad. Advice to Pro, if you start a debate you have to defend your argument, not drop it.
Vote Placed by BeckyDawg 3 years ago
BeckyDawg
koon139MrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote 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: PRO is just...Ouch.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
koon139MrJoshTied
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: Legit vote. Pro dropped all arguments, could barely speak English, and was acting like a retard towards the end of the debate. Total win for the con