The Instigator
catman0100
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bullish
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

(non human) animals deserve rights (such as the right to life)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Bullish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,566 times Debate No: 41251
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

catman0100

Pro

"I extend no rights to those who do not ask for it. I extend only normal compassion, and I encourage others to do so as well." - Bullish
a baby does not ask for the right to not be kicked in the face, does this mean the baby does not have the right to not be kick in the face?

i am an animal activist, in this debate i would like to argue that it is not acceptable to kill animals for meat. i have heard no more than this one comment from you and would love to see what you say about the issue.

the debate will take this format
1. accepting debate
2. arguments (max 3 arguments)
3. rebuttals and any other argument
4. rebuttals and conclusion.
Bullish

Con


I accept.



Before Pro makes his first argument, I would like make a few things clear.



In my quote “I extend no rights...” rights is just a word. I had recently come to the realization that natural rights, in fact, do not exist; that is where the opinion came from. If Pro had read my opinion on abortion, he would have seen my answer to his rhetorical baby question – yes, one should not be legally obliged to not kick a baby in the face if no one is willing to stand for the baby’s rights. This does NOT mean, however, that I approve of kicking a baby in the face. In fact, I would be the very one to stand for its rights to not be kicked.



For the purposes of this debate, I will present a few definitions to go off of:



1. "Rights" shall be defined as certain events that a biological entity are entitled to or can commit without artificial retaliation. For example, welfare is an entitlement right of all humans in the U.S., since the government guarantees you welfare if you request it and meet the standards, while speech is not an entitlement right, since the government guarantees you no vocal cord; life is a committal right, since the U.S. government guarantees that your life will be protected, while drunk driving is not a committal right, since you will be prosecuted if you drink and drive. I assume that we will mostly be dealing with committal rights here.


2. I had stated that “I extend only normal compassion…” “Normal compassion” shall be defined as a certain set of behaviors that is beneficial or not detrimental to all parties involved. For example, me offering to pray with a grieving widow doesn’t decrease my wellbeing but helps improve the psychological state of the widow.



The BoP is shared.



I shall need to prove that it is acceptable to not grant animals rights protected under human law, while my opponent shall need to prove that it is unacceptable to not grant animals rights.



Good luck.


Debate Round No. 1
catman0100

Pro

not gory------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

the debate should focus on sentient animals, such as a dog or a sheep.

we will define sentient as, "animals with a functioning nervous system." this definition excludes creatures, such as a jelly fish, with no nervous system.

i would also like to define the word humanely as "having or showing compassion or benevolence"

argument #1:
animals should be treated humanely, outside of euthanasia there is no way to humanely kill an animal.

argument #2:
many sentient animals such as cows and chickens are social creatures.
cows have been known to morn the loss of a loved one, especially the loss of there young for veal.

chickens live in flocks where there is a complex pecking order. they are known to "fell loss" when a member of there flock dies.

dogs (eaten widely in china) have also been known to mourn, pet dogs have been observed sticking by there dead owners grave. this grieving would also apply to wild dogs.

argument #3:
sentient animals feel fear.
reference video.
fear is a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, however the animal does not need to be in actual danger in order to feel this emotion. this can bee seen in bull fighting, rodeos, fishing and hunting. just as there are countless things that can make a human scared there are countless things that can make an animal scared. fear is an evolutionary feature.
Bullish

Con

Here are my 3 arguments.

I forgot to mention but for the purposes of this debate, “animals” will only refer to non-human animals.

==========

I. Natural rights do not exist, therefore it is insensible to grant all natural rights – to anything.

One of the more radical views that I hold is that I believe that natural rights do not exist. This can be demonstrated using the following technique:

P1. There exist multiple interacting sentient individuals.
P2. Individual A has the right and only the right to do all things that do not affect individual B.
P3. P1 and P2 cause a contradiction.
C1. “Granting all natural rights” is impossible.

The goal of society is not to grant rights; it is to maximize utility. For example, the right to life ensures that all humans can be productive without worrying about getting killed by another human; the right to speech makes communication easier; the right to liberty ensures that the world wouldn’t turn into an unbenevolent dictatorship. Similarly, certain rights are not granted; the right to air is not granted so we don’t have to live in individual bubbles. The right to property is not granted so taxes can be collected. The right to not go to school is not granted, so society can be educated.

Therefore, the motion to grant animals rights do NOT rest on “natural rights”, it rests on utility, and utility only. What is utility? In a human society, it is essentially maximal happiness. If granting as certain rights is beneficial, then I am not opposed to granting it.

II. The act of granting rights is given by a defined sovereignty, and animals do not have a defined sovereignty.

The fact is, rights simply cannot exist without something to enforce it. Sure, you have the right to life. But that in no way stops me from coming over and killing you. You only have a right if a governing force says you do and protects it. The delicate balance of rule and right is maintained by mutual understanding. The ruling body maintains rights so there would be no resistance, while the ruled respect each other’s legal rights to avoid conflict. In other words, the government grants you rights because the government WISHES to grant you rights. Game Theory suggests that the development of social communities is formed from such a balance.

Where do animals fit into this? They don’t. They have no ruling body, they have no way to enforce rights, and they most certainly will not respect any kind of mutual agreement that requires them to relinquish certain rights. What happens when you have one side that simply refuses to uphold their end of the agreement? What happens when only one side knows that they are getting punished for not upholding the agreement? A decrease in utility, that’s what. I think that my opponent would not dispute that animals possess a much lesser degree of sentience than humans. If this is true, then it cannot be disputed that a suffering animal is much less important than a suffering human.

I am not opposed to having certain human groups who are capable of respecting rights take legal responsibility of non-intelligent animals. Just like human parents can take responsibility of their non-intelligent baby, humans can take responsibility to animals who they wish to have rights. If a parent has the right to life, then the baby has the right to life; if a human baby kills another human, then the socially capable parent is solely responsible for the damages. If human caretaker has the right to life, then his animal also has the right to life; if the animal mauls someone, then the caretaker must take full responsibility for the death. This is compassion. Forcing rights is not.

III. Granting animals rights does not benefit society.

There are things that depend on animals to remain efficient for the purposes that they serve. If animals were granted rights, then these things would no longer be readily avalible.

Food. The average human consumes 41.9 kg of meat per year as of 2010 [1], which is about 8 chickens (I'm not sure how my opponent would classify chickens when it comes to sentience, since chicken brain is the size of a coin [actual chicken brain: http://thebrainbank.org.uk... ]), or half of a pig, or 6% of a cow. That’s not much, especially compared to lions, which eat over 2000 kg of meat per year [2]. Animals raised to be eaten in crap filled dens and get electro-shocked fare better than wild animals, who live in the mosquito filled wild, are exposed to weather, starve regularly, and get eaten alive. It is senseless to deprive humans of a large amount of their diet just so animals that already live above-average lives can get a bubble bath every day. If animal rights activists actually cared about animal welfare, they would go into the wild and feed starving animals instead of worrying about the ones living on farms. (I, a non-activist, feed squirrels.)

Testing drugs on animals have greatly contributed to the advancement of medicine. Without lab rats and monkeys to test drugs on, humans would have to be used instead.

==========

So in conclusion, humans should not unilaterally grant animals rights because it would diminish net utility.

[1]. http://www.worldwatch.org...

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

Debate Round No. 2
catman0100

Pro

I must admit I have finally came across some new arguments in this debate, I will now try my best to rebuttal them.

argument 1. Natural rights do not exist, therefore it is insensible to grant all natural rights " to anything.
there are 2 things I picked up from this argument;
1. Rights should only be granted if said being can also conform to this right.
2. Rights are only granted if the right makes society more efficient.

I would like to point out that it is necessary for a carnivores animal to hunt for survival, these animals are badly adapted to plant biased diets. Although it is possible for this animal to get nutrients from plants it does not know how. Humans however do have a choice, we can survive without harming (or at least decreasing the amount of suffering) experienced by other creatures on this planet. The fact of necessity means that an animal can have the right to kill without losing its right to life.

"If granting as certain rights is beneficial, then I am not opposed to granting it." the right to life is beneficial (resulting in good; favorable or advantageous.) just like my right to life is beneficial. It is important to note that I am the one who benefits from my right to life not whoever wants me dead.

it may be that what you meant to say was beneficial to human society. Here are 5 ways humans benefit from animal rights.
1. Less abuse and less exploitation of vulnerable human beings. (animal abuse increases chance of someone abusing/murdering a human.)
2. Less world hunger and starvation. (cows eat 70-80% of corn produced)
3. A healthier population (many studies show that a plant biased diet decreases a range of deceases including: cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and obesity)
4. Less destruction of the planet.
5. Fewer dangerous drugs being tested on humans. (human biology differs greatly from that of other animals, many drugs that are tested on animals and labeled safe for humans have shown to be deadly.)

rights do not always lead to a more efficient society (No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.[1]) slaves have shown to be an extremely efficient labor force. (Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.) this has gotten in the way of our legal system many times.

argument 2. The act of granting rights is given by a defined sovereignty, and animals do not have a defined sovereignty.
most farm animals are not aggressive and respect other beings right to life (such as the farmer's right to life), the animal respects this right regardless of any sovereignty. I find it hard to believe that farmed animals purposely seek to murder other beings, (accidents such as squishing a bug do not count).

in some places disrespecting others rights do not take that right away from you, such as murder in Australia.

"I think that my opponent would not dispute that animals possess a much lesser degree of sentience than humans."
incorrect, by the definition we are using humans are on the exact same "degree of sentience" as many animals. It can be argued that humans are less sentient that other creatures. Such as killer wale's witch have more "parts" of the brain, they have 1 extra "part," scientist have concluded that this part is used for emotions.

argument 3. Granting animals rights does not benefit society.
you also suggested this in your first argument and I gave you five arguments against it. Food is not the only aspect that needs analyzing when proving/disproving this. There are two things wrong with your statement that testing on animals aids medical research.
1. Its incorrect, the biology of a human is to different to that of popular testing animals to aid any research.
2. Animal research is more commonly used in other industry's such as sport and beauty.

"I'm not sure how my opponent would classify chickens when it comes to sentience, since chicken brain is the size of a coin" chickens are sentient, you will find the cut off point for sentient creatures (according to most activist's) is the ability to fell pain. Chickens fit into that definition. How we are defining the word is however is "animals with a functioning nervous system." this definition is also inclusive of chickens.

final argument-rights are biased on many things including morals. [2]
pt1. Human animals have rights.
pt2. There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals.
pt3. Therefore adult mammals must have rights too.

if you can morally justify your meat biased diet then by all means continue it. If it was justifiable I'm sure I would have heard why by now.

[1] http://www.un.org...
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Bullish

Con


I thank my opponent for his time. This debate has caused me to think harder about my views. This section will contain only rebuttals to the original argument.



==========



Firstly, I would like to remind voters to take ahold of your emotions, and not let my opponent’s pathos arguments sway you. Seeing videos of tortured animals may push you over to the irrational conclusion that we must grant all animals as much natural rights as possible, when this conclusion may actually decrease what you really want – less pain.



“Argument #1: animals should be treated humanely, outside of euthanasia there is no way to humanely kill an animal.”



This argument is based on the bare assertion that animals should be treated humanely. I have demonstrated in my previous arguments that treating something “humanely” is not basis for our actions. It is pragmatic utilitarianism.


Under this pragmatic utilitarianism, the only reason killing someone painlessly is not good is the effects it would have. The living, who care about their life, would be less secure, less happy, and less dedicated to making themselves happy if they know that they are more likely to die or suffer. Animals, on the other hand, do NOT know that they will die, and do NOT change how they think when not explicitly exposed to death of a fellow animal. The video that my opponent showed that claims cows back away from slaughtering machines because they “know they will die” is false. The cow is not likely backing away because he knows that he will die, but rather backing away because of negative feedback from loud sources.


Therefore, I counter-contend that even if we take “humanely” as a factor in utilitarianism, killing animals in a painless and discrete fashion is not inhumane. Killing animals in a painless and discrete fashion is already practiced in most slaughtering houses, because it is the most efficient; killing quickly as opposed to slowly decreases time per kill, and killing discretely decreases tendency for other animals to act unruly. With this true, there is no need to specifically extend animal rights.



“Argument #2: many sentient animals such as cows and chickens are social creatures.”



Being social creatures does not necessitate any form of meaningful sentience. As Game Theory shows, being social is simply away to better the chances of survival and general utility. While sentience makes Game Theory easier, it is still not the grounds on which to grant “rights”.


My opponent further contends that certain animals have been known to “been known to mo[u]rn the loss of a loved one”. This also fits with Game Theory, because care for the survival of a community makes general survival easier; this does not mean animals should be granted “rights”. Even if it does, is quite irrelevant to the topic, since animals inevitably die, and they also mourn losses in the wild. A factory setting actually minimizes such mourning, because animals are NOT shown other animals dying. “Mourning” dogs is not a good example of real sentience, because pet dogs are much more likely to “mourn” their owners because their owners is a source of food.



“Argument #3: sentient animals feel fear.”



This is also irrelevant to the topic, since factory settings minimize animal fear as opposed to wild settings. In factories, animals do not worry about predators, where as in the wild, they have to. While it is true that animals in factories are more prone to death (this is self-evident, since factory animals are meant to be killed), the animals themselves likely do not realize this.



==========



It appears that my opponent was not anticipating my line of reasoning for not granting animal rights, and his original arguments fall flat because my arguments has undermined all of his original assumptions. He then offers new arguments (allowed by the rules) in the next round. The following will be arguments against those.



==========



My opponent has caught on quickly to the utilitarian theme. However, in doing so, he has fallen into its trap. Now that he is arguing based on utilitarianism only, he must reformulate all his original arguments. I contend that utilitarianism favors me.



“Humans however do have a choice, we can survive without harming (or at least decreasing the amount of suffering)…”



That choice, however, decreases more human utility than it increases animal utility, as I have shown in my previous argument. My opponent contends the following, which I reject:



“1. Less abuse and less exploitation of vulnerable human beings. (animal abuse increases chance of someone abusing/murdering a human.)”



This is the slippery slope fallacy. Allowing humans to abuse animals without retaliation does not necessarily mean more abuse of humans. We should ban the thing that we do not want, instead of banning everything that leads up to it that have other, better uses. This argument also fallaciously implies that animal abuse causes human abuse. It is more reasonable to believe that sadism causes both. It is also more reasonable to believe that if someone abuses animals, he will be less likely to abuse further (There have been entire businesses built upon granting humans the ability to abuse objects so they won’t go home and abuse other humans). Instead of granting animals rights, we should attack the root of the problem and eliminate sadism.



“2. Less world hunger and starvation. (cows eat 70-80% of corn produced)”



Banning meat will not decrease would hunger. There is enough farm land and food for everyone in the world to eat. The troubling part is waste and the lack of efficient food transportation [1]. In addition, meats have significantly higher digestive value than plants [2].



“3. A healthier population (many studies show that a plant biased diet decreases a range of deceases including: cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and obesity)”



While a plant based diet decreases certain diseases, it increases other harmful effects. For example, eating a plant based diet decrease muscle mass and brain functionality [3]. It is also undeniable fact that healthier first worlds eat more meat than third worlds.



“4. Less destruction of the planet.”



Bare assertion.



“5. Fewer dangerous drugs being tested on humans.



Contending this is analogous to contending that it is better to not be alive, since being alive increases the chances of death.



“By the definition we are using humans are on the exact same ‘degree of sentience’ as many animals.”



The fact that humans complain about frizzy hair is proof plenty that humans have a higher degree of sentience.



“pt1. Human animals have rights.”



Proven false by my argument 1.



“pt2. There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals.”



Proven false by my argument 2.



“pt3. Therefore adult mammals must have rights too.”



Proven false by the above two.



==========



[1]. http://www.unep.org...


[2]. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...


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



My opponent has failed to show how granting animals rights or eating a plant based diet would increase net utility for anyone. He has also dropped my contention that human treatment of animals, even in cattle farms, is already better than that of wild animals.
Debate Round No. 3
catman0100

Pro

the video i posted in my previous posts was intended to show that animals can feel fear. I have no intention to manipulate the voters into voting for me. there where many much more gruesome videos i could have used in order to do this and i did not think this one would have that effect. if i could take the video out of my previous post now i would.

"killing animals in a painless and discrete fashion is not inhumane."
inhumane "without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel." it is both cruel and without compassion.

argument "Humans however do have a choice, we can survive without harming (or at least decreasing the amount of suffering)"

rebuttal "That choice, however, decreases more human utility than it increases animal utility, as I have shown in my previous argument. My opponent contends the following, which I reject:"
this is false as i stated and you agreed meat eating causes many preventable diseases, also meat has proven to be hard for the human body to digest on top of this plant's are often easy to digest.

1. Less abuse and less exploitation of vulnerable human beings. (animal abuse increases chance of someone abusing/murdering a human.)

it would seem that Robert K. Ressler disagrees with your statement.

"Murderers " very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids," says Robert K. Ressler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation

"2. Less world hunger and starvation. (cows eat 70-80% of corn produced)"
"In addition, meats have significantly higher digestive value than plants."
however this meat decreases our quality of life[4] and our quantity of life.

"3. A healthier population (many studies show that a plant biased diet decreases a range of deceases including: cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and obesity)"
"For example, eating a plant based diet decrease muscle mass brain functionality"

Jim Morris, Billy Simmonds, Amanda Reister, Dusan Dudas, Patrik Baboumian, Alexander Dargatz, Joel Kirkilis, Kenneth G Williams, Robbie Hazeley, and Denise Nicole all disagree with you. on top of that there all body builders. [5]

and when it comes to brain functionality i would like you to explain, Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Thomas Edison, Pythagoras, and Franz Kafka. these people did not experience any decrease in brain functionality from there veterinarian diet. i can also link you to studies showing veterinarians are more likely to be (more) intelligent[6].

decrease muscle mass and brain functionality are symptoms of malnutrition not vegetarianism.

"It is also undeniable fact that healthier first worlds eat more meat than third worlds."
however these people also have worse access to plants.

pt1. humans have rights.
this is not proven false by your first argument as your first argument states that natural rights do not exist. you state that this is your belief and supply weak evidence to support it. you also state that rights are biased on utilitarian reasoning, i have provided evidence that not all rights are biased on this and provided evidence that morals are another factor that can be used when discussing rights.

pt2. There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals.
this is not proven false by your 2nd argument. "I think that my opponent would not dispute that animals possess a much lesser degree of sentience than humans." is what i believe you are talking about. you have also claimed that the fact that humans complain about somewhat senseless things (frizzy hair) it prof of this. this is false as complaining about small things is proof that we live in an abundant world where we can waist energy worrying about small things. because cows do not, can not, complain about irreverent things is not proof that they do not know of there own existence. even if the statement made logical sense it is irrelevant because the difference between the 2 "ranks" is such a minuscule amount.

pt3. Therefore adult mammals must have rights too.
this statement is no longer proven false by the previous two statements.

===============

conclusion

===============

is short i believe animals should have rights because animals commonly used in industry's such as the meat industry have proven to be intelligent[1,2,3], sentient, and it would increase human utility. it would increase world health and decrease preventable diseases. a vegan (human) society would decrease pollution, deforestation, and animal abuse. earth would benefit massively from all this, and the human race would function at its maximum potential whilst having its lowest impact on the environment. i have been able to provide a rebuttal for every argument presented by my opponent, and even rebuttal most of his rebuttals. I believe that I have proven my argument's, where as my opponents arguments take use of speculation and personal belief.

1. http://news.yahoo.com...
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
5. http://www.greatveganathletes.com...
6. http://www.standard.co.uk...
Bullish

Con

This was a good debate and has caused me to think deeper into the nature of sentience and utility. I hope that my opponent has also enjoyed this debate.

==========

“Inhumane ‘without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.’ it is both cruel and without compassion.”

Saying this would be like saying that brushing your teeth is inhumane, since brushing your teeth is “without compassion for misery or suffering”. My opponent also agreed that involuntary euthanasia is not “cruel” in his earlier argument.

“‘Murderers’ very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids…”

It appears that my opponent has failed to understand my previous rebuttal. I had said that correlation does not mean causation, yet my opponent continues to imply that torturing animals somehow causes people to murder. I repeat, it is much more likely that sadism causes both animal abuse and murder, and, among sadists, animal abuse decreases tendency to murder.

“…this meat decreases our quality of life [4] and our quantity of life.”

Of course an over-consumption of fats causes obesity. I never denied that. But this would be like saying water decreases our quality of life because people die from over-drinking water [1].

My opponent has said this in response to my statement that “meats have significantly higher digestive value than plants.” The irony is that is own source 4 proves my point.

“Vegetarian diets do not decrease muscle mass and brain functionality” (Paraphrased)

My opponent resorts to citing anecdotal evidence for this. However, this doesn’t prove his point. The source from Scientific American that I cited gave much more generalizable evidence of how meat consumption is beneficial to humans.

In addition, I’d like to point out that Einstein turned vegetarian in the LAST year of his life [2]. Suggesting that vegetarianism caused Einstein to come up with his many ingenious theories regarding physics is then blatant dishonesty.

My opponent also sources a study that states “those who stick to a vegetarian diet have IQs that are around five points higher”. Yet, the study apparently makes no distinction between “those who classed themselves as veggie but still ate fish or chicken,” which brings into question, if the tendency to classify oneself as vegetarian has more to do with the results. Moreover, his source also states: “However, vegans - vegetarians who also avoid dairy products - scored significantly lower, averaging an IQ score of 95 at the age of 10,” Which ends up proving my point.

“‘Humans have rights.’ This is not proven false by your first argument…”

Here, my opponent tries to argue that slavery benefits society. I won’t go into it any further than saying that slavery doesn’t benefit slaves, who are part of society. The rest of his argument for his pt2 is rambling and flawed. My opponent’s statement, “because cows do not, cannot, complain about irreverent things is not proof that they do not know of their own existence” is irrelevant to my argument of degrees of sentience. Saying that degrees of sentience is irrelevant is like saying there is no difference between a homeless man with a cupful of pennies and a billionaire because they both have money.

==========

Conclusion

I have shown that:
1. Giving natural rights is not inherently good.
2. Animals lack any sort of sovereignty to maintain any kind of balanced contractual right.
3. Granting animals rights does not improve net utility.
4. Cattle farming is not inherently cruel.

My opponent has failed to show or dropped:
1. Granting animals rights will be beneficial to either human society or wild animals.
2. Consumption of meat is harmful to human wellbeing.
3. Granting animals rights can be practically enforced.
4. Animals have even nearly the amount of sentience that humans do.

It is acceptable to not grant animals rights. Vote CON.

==========

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

[2]. http://www.ivu.org...

GD, thank you, and have a nice day.

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by catman0100 3 years ago
catman0100
unethical-not morally correct.
moral-standards of behavior; principles of right and wrong.
compassion- sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
==========
Now tell me what is unethical about farting or planting roses instead of corn? You plant a rose for beauty and corn for nutrients there are different reasons for the two of them but that does not make it wrong. When it comes to farting it is a bodily function that is a necessity of (human) life, there is nothing wrong with it. When it comes to ending the lives of 500,000 sentient lives every hour for food, so the humans can get the nutrients that can come for other sources (vegans and vegetarians are proof of this). It cannot be ethically justified and sits on a whole new level of wrong than your roses or fart's. If you wish to extend "normal compassion" to sentient lives, eating them is out of the question.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
There are too many unethical things in this world to count. The fact you care more about animal rights than starving children in Africa is arguably one of them; that farting isn't a crime is unethical; that we plant roses instead of corn is unethical. The point is, proving something unethical is an appeal to uncritical humans, not a legitimate reason to pass laws.

Ethics is a good point to start, but utility is what's important.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
I indeed turned this debate away from animal cruelty. The reason I did so is because I believe that animal creulty is bad, however should not be a part of human law, since animals themselves have no ability to make such rights or protection under the law active; the catch 22 here is that if humans make laws about something that have little effect on humans, then it is impossible to encore these laws better than the situation already is. Therefore the only place where one can argue from is utility.

You made the slavery example and the Indian elephant example to prove that laws are enacted for purely "ethical" reasons. On slavery, the first reason that it is banned is because slaves themselves are sentient humans, and therefore both capable of upholding and want to have their end of the deal for rights. The second reason is that there is no inherent, physical, relevant distinction between a slave and a regular human; since as humans, we have a sense of society and an instinct to help others to help our selves (Game Theory), we are generally opposed to slavery. There is no doubt that since the abolition of slavery, the world has increased utility many orders of magnitude.

On Indian elephants. There are humans in this world who actively campaign against animal cruelty or want animals rights, or both. Usually the reason for this is to decrease violence in this world. This is understandable since we are all animals and intelligent plant eating animals have a rational instinct to protect other animals to some degree. The example that you showed has minimal impact on the lives of most humans, fulfills the instinct of compassion in some humans, and is a great thing to tout on a political platform. It is an appeal to ethos that many politicians like to use. Ask yourself, why does no politician force cattle farm regulations even though it matters a lot more than a few dozen circus elephants? Because it negatively impacts too many people.
Posted by catman0100 3 years ago
catman0100
this debate would traditionally be about cruelty against animals. however you took control of this debate and changed it into how humans benefit from animal abuse. you done this by saying the only reason a government will enforce a right by law is to make society more productive. this is false, many laws are biased on nothing but ethics. recently in India laws where passed in order to illegalese elephants used in circuses for entertainment. this does not increase human utility in any way. so why did it happen? to protect the elephants. so clearly the utility of human society was not important to this law granting elephants the right to not by used as entertainment in circuses. the next step would be to prove animal exploitation is unethical. i will happily start a new debate on just that. unless you disagree with this logic in witch case tell me why?
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
You can go ahead and say what you need to in the comments. I'm here to learn and convince, not merely to win.
Posted by catman0100 3 years ago
catman0100
wish i made this debate longer so i could clean some things up. your conclusion+your final rebuttals are misleading and do not properly address my point's (not true for every rebuttal)
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
DDO text formatting is so weird.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
With Thanksgiving coming up, I gladly accept.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ndedo 3 years ago
ndedo
catman0100BullishTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It was indeed a thought-provoking debate, as Con noted. Pro made a fair argument, but in the end, Con's was more convincing and realistic. Also, he used capitalization and punctuation rules so he gets S&G. Sources were tied.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
catman0100BullishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Sourcing and conduct were ties, in my view. S&G favored Con. I felt that Pro was appealing to emotional arguments and Con was relying on more of a traditional argument structure. Pro seemed to me to rest most of his case on a fallacy: "humans are animals, therefore animals are humans" as a way to include them in the social contract with people. As a vegetarian and animal lover, I would have liked to have seen a more focused argument against animal cruelty here (health benefits of vegetatianism are not relevant - great facts, but not relevant in this debate.)