The Instigator
rosajae
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Based on ethics, Meat should be off the menu

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 844 times Debate No: 119000
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

rosajae

Pro

My assertion is rooted in the premise that to inflict unnecessary harm and suffering upon a conscious, Sentient creature is wrong.
There's no justification for the standard of torture endured by animals in the meat industry and to actively pay for it is to happen is to be accountable on some level.
omar2345

Con

premise that to inflict unnecessary harm and suffering upon a conscious, Sentient creature is wrong. - What if a family lives of meat? Even in the West many people still eat meat. If lets say meat was removed what would they eat instead? The source below states that in 2013 8. 6 billion chickens were processed. What would fill that gap?

Sentient creature is wrong. - What if it in the end of its life cycle? It is not an absolute wrong if the creature is already dying or will not be capable of sustaining itself for the duration of its life.

There's no justification for the standard of torture endured by animals in the meat industry- Many Americans rely on meat. What would be more ethically sound? For 100 humans to survive or 100 chickens to survive. That might not be real world example but I highly doubt obese people who have an addiction to meat would not be able to drop meat straight away.

Basically human life is valued more then animal life. Whether or not it is right is debatable.

These are my opening arguments. Next round I would like you to explain why animal life should be valued on the same level as a human life. You did say sentient and conscious but I want to elaborate more or give me other ways they should be valued the same way.

Source: https://www. Nbcnews. Com/business/economy/look-u-s-meat-industry-numbers-n451571



Debate Round No. 1
rosajae

Pro

"What if a family lives of meat? " Some families do rely on meat to live, For example in some third world countries, The privilege of picking and choosing your food from a supermarket isn't an option. Families who live in these conditions show examples of /necessity/; their infliction of suffering upon animals, While unfortunate, Is a literal necessity for their survival. My argument addresses specifically the /unnecessary/ infliction of harm and therefore such cases are barred.

"Even in the West many people still eat meat. If lets say meat was removed what would they eat instead? " Again barring places where killing animals is a necessity, Here in the US and in Western first-world countries, The answer is as simple as picking out a different food item in the supermarket. If you want to know what can be eaten instead, Simply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you will find pastas, Beans, Grains, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren't meat. We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nutrients with which meat products are fortified.

"The source below states that in 2013 8. 6 billion chickens were processed. What would fill that gap? " - Factory farming isn't going to disappear overnight; we're not going to wake up suddenly with no more chickens and wonder what we're going to eat and sell instead. If veganism was globalized, It could only happen gradually; as more people decided that human beings are not mere animals and don't have an excuse for unnecessary killing and hurting, They would start avoiding paying for it to continue happening. Consumerism for meat would begin to reduce, And therefore the market would eventually (probably over decades) reduce to irrelevancy. Like I said, It can't happen all at once, But the market for chickens would very gradually be replaced by agriculture, Which is the short answer to your question.

"Sentient creature is wrong. " - What if it in the end of its life cycle? It is not an absolute wrong if the creature is already dying or will not be capable of sustaining itself for the duration of its life. I would half-agree with you on this point and rectify my original statement. If the creature is not viable anyway, I won"t maintain that killing it would be wrong. Even dying humans are permitted to be euthanized in many places (although it"s very controversial. ) However, This doesn't pertain to the meat industry - it's not as though only animals who are already terminal are being killed and made to suffer. In fact, Even animals held on dairy farms who aren't fed through meat factories live much shorter than their natural lifespans. So sure, It's not an absolute wrong to kill an already dying animal, But that doesn't pertain to the meat industry.

100 chickens or 100 humans? - You assume inaccurately that I hold animals to the same degree of worth as human beings. I don't. I personally hold the opinion that the life of a human being holds more inherent worth than the life of an animal, And therefore that the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. So when you ask me if it would be more "ethically sound" for 100 humans to survive or 100 chickens to survive, The obvious answer is 100 humans, And I'm betting almost anyone will tell you that. However, Like you said, That's not a real world example, Nor is that dilemma representative of the meat industry. In a situation where eating meat is a necessity to save a human's life, I have already stated that the harm done to animals in those cases is unfortunate but NECESSARY. You used Americans as an example, Claiming that we rely on meat. However, It's not a reliance that we have on meat, It's a preference of palatability. We /like/ meat and that's why we pay our money to factory farms, Not because we have nothing else to eat (see paragraph 2. ) Therefore the suffering we are inflicting is not a necessity.

"I highly doubt obese people who have an addiction to meat would not be able to drop meat straight away" - Pointing out that meat-addicted obese people probably wouldn't be able to drop meat straight away is irrelevant; the fact that some people have an addiction to something is not actually a reason to support that thing. For example, I oppose the street market of meth even though I highly doubt those addicted to it will be able to cease their use straight away.

"Basically human life is valued more then animal life. Whether or not it is right is debatable.

These are my opening arguments. Next round I would like you to explain why animal life should be valued on the same level as a human life. You did say sentient and conscious but I want to elaborate more or give me other ways they should be valued the same way. "

You're right, It's debatable. However, Mentioning animals" sentience/consciousness was not stated in a way that indicated that animals are the same as human beings; its point was that they have the same capacity to suffer. Inflicting unnecessary and undue suffering is wrong, Especially to the degree of extremity at which animals in the meat industry suffer.

To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so.
omar2345

Con

I have tried to upload this four times sorry for the inconvenience

My argument addresses specifically the/ unnecessary/ infliction of harm and therefore such cases are barred. - I’ll keep that in mind.

Imply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you’ll find pastas, Beans, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren’t meat- From the source below it states plants emit noises via gas when it is in distresses signals that plants feels as pain. You might say plant cannot register pain without a brain but plants partake in intelligence behaviour that is not committed using a brain so it isn’t a stretch to say this is also possible.

We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nurtients with which meant products are fortified- Artificial meat right? This is very expensive with the current technology and for it to be cheap it would require a lot of capital to be placed into Research and Development. Second source below.

If veganism was globalized- Don’t think this is possible without radical change. One example is the Middle East. It is dominated by Islam. They have rituals that require meat to be used in the process. To me the only way this changes is with a revolution or most likely outside intervention. That is why for the foreseeable future global veganism I think wishful thinking.
The interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal- Can you clarify? Does this go in line with unnecessary harm? I think this would be misleading without adding unnecessary into it.

That animals are the same as human; its points was that they have the same capacity to suffer. –Not all animals are aware of said suffering which does not mean they have the same capacity to suffer. Third source and go to the Animal which it lists Apes, Monkey and Dolphins having the same level of awareness.

To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so. - Society should first accept it is as immoral before it should be punishable by law. By giving the government the power to do this why wouldn't they ban other things using the authoritarianism that they have gained through banning this? Animal cruelly is covered by law. I think that is what you speaking about. The person is morally wrong.

Can we switch the debate away from the meat industry? I cannot defend it. I concede that point. If you still want to talk about don't expect sufficient responses because I cannot defend it given by how you phrased this debate. No offence but you did put me in a corner either I lie and this debate is not about truth or hopefully you drop it.

Must be having a problem with the sources so I just write the title of them

Source: Plants feel pain (howstuffworks)
Vitro meat pro and cons (Petridishtoplate)
Self-awareness (Wikipedia)
Debate Round No. 2
rosajae

Pro

Imply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you"ll find pastas, Beans, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren"t meat- From the source below it states plants emit noises via gas when it is in distresses signals that plants feels as pain. You might say plant cannot register pain without a brain but plants partake in intelligence behaviour that is not committed using a brain so it isn"t a stretch to say this is also possible. - A nervous system is required to experience physical pain. The fact that plants emit gas when harm is imminent in no way proves that plants feel pain.

We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nurtients with which meant products are fortified-Artificial meat right? This is very expensive with the current technology and for it to be cheap it would require a lot of capital to be placed into Research and Development. Second source below. - I"m not talking about artificial meat, I"m talking about millions of varieties of foods. There"s no nutrients found in meat that can"t be found in thousands of other foods.

If veganism was globalized- Don"t think this is possible without radical change. One example is the Middle East. It is dominated by Islam. They have rituals that require meat to be used in the process. To me the only way this changes is with a revolution or most likely outside intervention. That is why for the foreseeable future global veganism I think wishful thinking. - The subject of this debate is whether it"s moral for us to be harming animals, Not whether or not it"s likely that all people, On a global scale, Will actually stop. Just because Islam does something and isn"t likely to change its ways definitely isn"t an argument that it"s moral.

The interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal- Can you clarify? Does this go in line with unnecessary harm? I think this would be misleading without adding unnecessary into it. - I"m gonna need you to rephrase this question because I don"t know what you"re asking. Where in my original sentence would "unnecessay" be added?

That animals are the same as human; its points was that they have the same capacity to suffer. "Not all animals are aware of said suffering which does not mean they have the same capacity to suffer. Third source and go to the Animal which it lists Apes, Monkey and Dolphins having the same level of awareness. - Okay< I didn"t word that sentence right. I should have said "They are the same IN THAT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUFFER. " Obviously, Not all animals have the same level of awareness as humans; however, They still feel pain as a physical experience.

To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so. - Society should first accept it is as immoral before it should be punishable by law. By giving the government the power to do this why wouldn't they ban other things using the authoritarianism that they have gained through banning this? Animal cruelly is covered by law. I think that is what you speaking about. The person is morally wrong. - If the person is morally wrong to do cruelty to a dog for the person"s own gain, Why is it not morally wrong to be cruel to a pig for our own gain?

Can we switch the debate away from the meat industry? I cannot defend it. I concede that point. If you still want to talk about don't expect sufficient responses because I cannot defend it given by how you phrased this debate. No offence but you did put me in a corner either I lie and this debate is not about truth or hopefully you drop it. - If you want me to ignore the topic of the meat industry, What exactly are we debating about? After all, Why else are animals being unnecessarily harmed if not for industry? We"ve already established that we"re not talking about people in countries where they need to kill animals simply to feed themselves and survive.

I would also like to note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

I'm sorry for how rushed my response is, I let the time slip by without realizing. If you have anything specific you would like me to expand on in my next response I will be happy to.
omar2345

Con

A nervous system is required to experience physical pain. The fact that plants emit gas when harm is imminent in no way proves that plants feel pain- I can't prove plants feel pain so I will go for another argument. Vegan diet is good but it has problems. One problem is an essential vitamin B-12. It is a nutrient that keeps blood cells and nerves in the body. It also help to create DNA in cells. Evidence have not shown to give this essential in a vegan diet. Yes you can use supplements but they do not work all the time and it will take time adjusting. Supplements do not have research stating that they do work. It has been tested but the results were not used to broad picture because of the different supplements you can get. Scientists cannot advice patients on the supplement they have when it might different from the store bought one.

Even though many can state a vegan diet is healthier it still has not been proven in a controlled area. Another argument why we should not abandon meat even as a gradual change is the condition some people might in. The vegan diet can be excessive to the body even with a gradual change if you have pre existing conditions. 2 examples of these would be diabetes and osteoporosis.

There"s no nutrients found in meat that can"t be found in thousands of other foods. - Vitamin B-12 if I have not made it clear above and supplements are not always the best.

it"s moral- I assumed wrong.

Where in my original sentence would "unnecessary" be added? - In most cases the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. One case for the favour of animal interests is unnecessary harm done to said animal.

They are the same IN THAT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUFFER- I think the suffer aspect can be negated. Mine way of not making the animal suffer is tranquilising said animal and then snap its neck if it has one. The neck snap should be an instantaneous death.

Why is it not morally wrong to be cruel to a pig for our own gain? - It is morally wrong if you put someone on the spot about it.

Why else are animals being unnecessarily harmed if not for industry? - Profit, Taste and filling a gap in the market. Not a moral argument because the market is not meant to be moral. Just there to allow people to make money.

Source:
https://www. Aarp. Org/food/diet-nutrition/info-02-2011/9-pros-and-cons-to-going-vegan. Html
http://www. Diabetesforecast. Org/2012/feb/the-pros-and-cons-of-dietary-supplements. Html



Debate Round No. 3
rosajae

Pro

rosajae forfeited this round.
omar2345

Con

Hoping you had a rebuttal for the Vitamin B-12 section or my version of humanely murdering an animal. Oh well.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pineberry12 2 years ago
Pineberry12
I understand that this debate has been over for a while, But when referring to 'plants feeling pain', You would have to suggest how they don't have a central nervous system, And theoretically, 'vegans' are doing much less harm as most of the crops go towards the animals that are slaughtered for food. Hence, To cause the least amount of harm, We would eat the plants ourselves, Rather than taking it from an animal that is fed these plants that 'feel pain'.
Also with B12, The risk of deficiency as decreased over time as we have supplements and fortified foods everywhere. Also, Most 'meat-eaters' still develop B12 deficiency in their 50's. To keep in mind, B12 isn't naturally found in meat, But used to be found in soil and water until it was removed- The reason that the animals have B12 is since they are injected with it, The same with casomorphin injections to which make products like cheese/dairy taste decent.
I just wanted to address some misunderstandings.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Do you mind if I rebut your arguments?
Posted by rosajae 3 years ago
rosajae
PART TWO
"The vegan diet can be excessive to the body even with a gradual change if you have pre existing conditions. 2 examples of these would be diabetes and osteoporosis. " - In regards to osteoperosis, The "excession" that veganism would have on a person who suffers from this condition applies only to veganism and not vegetarianism, As it"s due to lower calcium consumption; it"s not the elimination of meat that poses the risk, It"s the elimination of dairy, And dairy food items /can/ be obtained without killing animals, Unlike meat products. So this argument isn"t relevant to a debate about meat-eating, Rather it would be relevant to a debate about dairy-eating. As for diabetes, Vegan diets tend to be lower in saturated fat, Higher in fibre, Fruit and vegetables and other protective substances like phytochemicals and antioxidants " as a result, They fit very well with the current dietary guidelines for people with diabetes, So tell me specifically what about eliminating meat you claim would be excessive to people with diabetes.

Where in my original sentence would "unnecessary" be added? - /"In most cases the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. One case for the favour of animal interests is unnecessary harm done to said animal. "/ - This modification was unneeded and pointless, As my original sentence was pertaining specifically to you questioning me about if I value animal life on the same level as human life. My statement needed only address your challenge.
Posted by rosajae 3 years ago
rosajae
@omar2345
I believed my round 4 argument was posted and apparently it glitched as it's prone to do. I didn't realize this until I got the notif that you had posted your response and saw that my side had been forfeited. I'll drop my response here in the comments since obviously it's too late to add it to the debate, Since you did express in your round 4 post that you were interested in hearing my argument. (I'm posting it one part at a time because of the character limit that the comment section has. )

PART ONE

/"I can't prove plants feel pain so I will go for another argument. "/ - Okay, Let"s hear it.

"Vegan diet is good but it has problems. One problem is an essential vitamin B-12. It is a nutrient that keeps blood cells and nerves in the body. It also help to create DNA in cells. Evidence have not shown to give this essential in a vegan diet. Yes you can use supplements but they do not work all the time and it will take time adjusting. Supplements do not have research stating that they do work. It has been tested but the results were not used to broad picture because of the different supplements you can get. Scientists cannot advice patients on the supplement they have when it might different from the store bought one. " - You would have a point if B12 was only found in meat! It"s naturally found in other sources, Such as eggs and milk, Which animal cruelty isn"t required to obtain, As well as an innumerable amount of food items that are fortified with B12, Like many breakfast cereals, Non-dairy milk, Etc. Your argument doesn"t come close to proving that eating meat is necessary in order to obtain B12; a simple web search and reading into a few medical sources could have told you that many other foods contain B12.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@rosajae

Has it been uploaded?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I am having trouble posting my argument. It states that it is rosajae's turn but then 19 minutes I come back and it still wants me to add my argument.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@rosajae

(Just found out my argument is not posted so it does not matter what I said before)
Posted by rosajae 3 years ago
rosajae
@omar2345 Yes I don't mind
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I would like to add this to the debate as a source for plants sentience.

Finally found one which I think clarifies the point I am trying to make.

https://science. Howstuffworks. Com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain. Htm

Are you okay with this rosajae?
Posted by rosajae 3 years ago
rosajae
@Block. 19 Plants respond to stimuli but they don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Therefore we can't make them suffer and so my argument doesn't apply to them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.