Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Animal Rights - RFD

Balacafa
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 1:22:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
RFD for this debate: http://www.debate.org...

PRO'S ARGUMENTS

(1) Morality - Pro's first contention was based on morality. He provided very convincing examples and backs these examples up with powerful quotes. Pro shows the basic flaws in the concept of animals not having morality and begins the argument very strongly. Con's response to this contention was unconvincing. He assumes that it is logical to kill a child if they are going to kill in the future and that everyone would do this. He then provides a stronger argument regarding morality, questioning the purpose of morality and its restrictions. At the moment I am leaning towards Pro because his examples were dismissed with assumptions that were not backed up by sources and evidence. Pro introduces a new and controversial argument to refute Con's claims. This argument was not necessary to refute Con's claims however it did significantly weaken them. This argument contained two points and how they lead to a conclusion. Pro referes to God and the morals that religious people must follow. This is a convinicing argument since it covers a large portion of the planet which is an argument that pro also introduces into his argument. His second one regarded happiness. This was not as convincing and was easily refuted by Con (which I will come onto. Irrationality was controversial and this is where the points and the conclusion was made. This argument showed that humans are similar to us and since we care about ourselves it is illogical to assume that we shouldn't act morally because we are egoists. Con's first major mistake was that he dismissed the God argument. This was problamatic since Pro then brought up that the majority of the world believe in God. You cannot dismiss a fraction that large. Happiness requires it was a win for Con since it was dismissed by pro largely because he chose to introduce a framework as an alternative. Con's rebuttal to irrationality was poor sicne they excluded the fact that pro's example specifically said a moralist. A moralist is moral. Since Pro won 2/3 of the things that he was trying to prove he wins this particular argument.

(2) Needless Suffering - Pro's argument in this round basically suggests that needless suffering is a basic human right and it is a duty to minimalize pain. Con's rebuttal was that it was undefined which is an adequate rebuttal. He also shows Pro's mistakes in terms of the resolution and provides definition to justified. Pro then defines needless suffering which is a sufficient counter rebuttal since it is all that con really requested. He then goes on to talk about pain and how animals are capable of feeling this. This is a good extention to this point and it is a very strong point regarding animal rights. Con tries to use his egoistic argument to justify it as a rebuttal. This is another mistake by con since it is not a direct rebuttal. As well as this Pro's egoistic framework refutes this particular argument. Con then loses any chance of winning this particular argument by stating that voters will have to choose who had superior moral framework although Con's moral framework is unsourced and unsupported. His idea of morality is also based on assumptions. It is illogical (and pro uses this as an argument) to suggest that killing a child to stop it from killing in the future is a sound moral argument.

(3) Responsibility - This is Pro's strongest argument. He shows that we are intellectually superior and then shows that we can use this superioirty in two ways. What makes this argument extremely powerful and convincing is that it turns a very powerful argument for the con side into an even stronger one for the pro side. Con's rebuttal makes no sense. He tries to attack pro's sources but this point is easily refuted by pro when he shows that he did in fact provide sources mentioning this and con was incorrect. Con didn't really seem to understand this argument in any depth since they did not actually respond to the content of the round in any detail. Throughout the rounds Con keeps trying to bring up points that have been refuted by Pro on multiple occasions. The source demonstrated the correlation between love and compassion. It also demonstrated the possible factors too. Con tried to dismiss Pro's argument by accusing him of not sourcing however this accusation was false. Therefore Pro also wins on this argument.
Balacafa
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 1:23:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
CON'S ARGUMENTS

(1) Animals are better off dead or exploited - Con brings up a very strong point regarding how animal's are extremely useful if they are dead (or exploited). He brings up the importance of animal testing and brings up actual facts and statistics to demonstrate this to be true. Pro then proves this to be false by stating that animals are essential for human survival (providing examples). I think that Con's rebuttal was extremely powerful however the only issue is that he only talks about an egoistic society however I still believe that at this point he is winning on this point due to a very specific argument by Pro. This argument is then neutralized since eating meat for survival is an argument that suits both Pro and Con according to the definition. Due to the fact that it coincides this argument is a tie.

(2) Impossible Without Going Extinct or Killing Most of the World - The argument regarding meat is similar to the death of animals, due to the fact that animals can be used as a meat source under both Pro and Con's views (and per the definitions and rules in R1), I am froced to to vote this as a tie.

Conclusion: Whilst it was difficult to choose either pro/con on many of pro's contentions, the conlusion that we come to is relatively easy. Since both of Con's argument were neutralized due to complications regarding the first round of the debate and the definitions. Therefore, I am forced to vote based off Pro's contentions and rebuttals alone. Since Pro narrowly won on these contentions I vote Pro on arguments.

In summary, pro wins on arguments due to the fact that con's arguments were neutralized and pro won his contentions for the reasons above.

Extention

Conduct - I vote conduct as a tie because neither side forfeited and there were no clear fors of mistconduct between either side in the debate. They both remained civil and did not ask voters to vote for them more than necessary (not until the final round).

Spelling and Grammar - I vote S&G as a tie as well, since both sides made minor mistakes in their spelling and there were a few grammatical errors in both however there was clear difference in who made more mistakes or more notable mistakes. There was nothing that stood out and made the argument difficult to understand and that is what lead me to vote tie.

Sources - Both sides used sources and although both sides accused each other of not having the correct sources both sides were disproven and both of their sources were credible and were incorporated well into their arguments. Quotes were made and statistics were provided from both sides.