Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
FrizzyHairInc
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
PointProven
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Eating animals is immoral and wrong

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 1 vote the winner is...
FrizzyHairInc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,312 times Debate No: 119323
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

FrizzyHairInc

Pro

Hello I see you made a debate which didn't get far titled " Eating animals is not immoral change my mind". And I wish to change your mind so here is goes. Eating animals is immoral as they are a sentient being and have a right to life and instead we should eat plants which reduces the most amount of harm. To be clear my position is that we should reduce the amount of harm as reasonably possible so people who live in poorer countries are not immoral for eating animals as they need to to survive. However as a person living in a wealthy country who has access to all the major food groups, I believe that we should not be eating animals.
PointProven

Con

" Eating animals is immoral as they are a sentient"

I understand where you are coming from, But you do realize we humans aren't the ones who invented eating animals, Right? Animals have been eating each other long before the first humans ever walked the earth. So what do you do about those animals? Are they doing some form of "wrong" because they eat other animals? Should they be banned from eating other animals because all are entitled to life?

There are 2 billion pigs in the world, 1. 5 billion cows, And 19 BILLION chickens. And while those animals have numbers in the billions, There are only 20, 000 lions, About 12, 000 wolves, And 100, 000 gorillas. And you want to know why? BECAUSE WE DON'T EAT THEM! If we were to stop eating cows, Chickens, And pigs, People would stop mass breeding them in massive farms, Causing their numbers to dwindle, And probably even go extinct.

"If everyone in the world were vegetarians. . . . Livestock would be fucked. . . . FUCKED! " -TJ Kirk
Debate Round No. 1
FrizzyHairInc

Pro

"I understand where you are coming from, But you do realize we humans aren't the ones who invented eating animals, Right? Animals have been eating each other long before the first humans ever walked the earth"
So your stating that since we weren't the ones who started eating other species first, It is moral to do the same thing? This makes zero sense from a moral stand point as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Plus most of said animals have to eat meat to survive and I think you missed my point in my previous post as I stated that if your an insidiousness tribes person its morally acceptable to eat meat. However as a person living in a 1st world country who has access to all the major food groups, It is our moral duty to not eat meat.
" If we were to stop eating cows, Chickens, And pigs, People would stop mass breeding them in massive farms, Causing their numbers to dwindle, And probably even go extinct. "
Not true as animals before and even after we came along were perfectly fine living by themselves. While you are right that there numbers would be higher if we breeded them, It still doesn't make a difference if we eat them. I mean you do realize that we eat more meat than that's being produced right and that's the only reason the numbers are so high right?
PointProven

Con

"So your stating that since we weren't the ones who started eating other species first, It is moral to do the same thing? "

Yes, That is exactly what I am saying. It is part of nature, As animals (which is what we are), We tend to exploit other, Less intelligent animals to benefit ourselves. This is a form of survival of the fittest and all animals do it. Who are you to say that it's wrong? And why is it wrong? Because you say so?

" This makes zero sense from a moral stand point as 2 wrongs don't make a right. "

So you're saying that it IS wrong for animals to eat meat? Not just humans. If two wrongs don't make a right, That means it's wrong for US to eat animals, And it's wrong for ANIMALS to eat animals, Otherwise there would not be two wrongs, Just one.

"Plus most of said animals have to eat meat to survive and I think you missed my point in my previous post as I stated that if your an insidiousness tribes person its morally acceptable to eat meat. "

It seems like your idea of what is ok and what isn't is very arbitrary. And no, I didn't miss your point. It just didn't seem that relevant.

" However as a person living in a 1st world country who has access to all the major food groups, It is our moral duty to not eat meat. "

No, Actually it isn't. The animals we eat are dominating the planet with there insane numbers, Whereas animals that we don't eat, Such as lions, Tigers, Wolves, And gorillas, Are all endangered and going extinct. So actually, It is our moral duty to eat all those animals, As they will start being bred in MASSIVE numbers in order to accommodate the demand. By us eating animals, We have reason to breed them in huge farms all around the world. Why do you think cows, Chickens, And pigs all have numbers in the BILLIONS?

"Not true as animals before and even after we came along were perfectly fine living by themselves. "

That is false. Lions, Gorillas, Giraffes, And and a TON more, Are all endangered and going extinct. They might have been doing ok before humans, But certainly not now. But it doesn't have to be that way. All we have to do is start eating them, And their numbers will skyrocket, And likely even reach the billions. Seeing as we don't eat those animals, No one cares enough to try and save them. If lions die, We won't lose anything but a pretty sight. So why would anyone bother trying to save them? But chickens however, Oh they'll never be endangered. As long as humans are here, There will be billions of chickens. Heck, They even outnumber us.

" While you are right that there numbers would be higher if we breeded them, It still doesn't make a difference if we eat them. "

As I said, The sad truth is that we have no other reason to breed them. They aren't helping us in any way besides that we like looking at them.

" I mean you do realize that we eat more meat than that's being produced right and that's the only reason the numbers are so high right? "

I think you meant to say that we produce more than we eat, And that's not really true. It's safe to say that all 19 billions chickens that are alive right now will be eaten. The thing is, We are constantly breeding more. And those will be eaten, And we keep breeding, Keep eating, Keep breeding, And so on.
Debate Round No. 2
FrizzyHairInc

Pro

" Yes, That is exactly what I am saying. It is part of nature, As animals (which is what we are), We tend to exploit other, Less intelligent animals to benefit ourselves. This is a form of survival of the fittest and all animals do it. "
So by your logic we shouldn't have buildings, Air conditioners, And factory's as they are apart of nature right? Also if you really want to advocate for survival of the fittest, Than would you be OK with killing and eating mentally retarded people and old people as to you they are weak and we have the right to kill them.
" who are you to say that it's wrong? And why is it wrong? Because you say so? "
I think you've missed my whole point so ill explain it again. It is immoral and wrong to kill anything that is sentient or some intelligence. That's why killing and eating animals is wrong.
" So you're saying that it IS wrong for animals to eat meat? Not just humans. If two wrongs don't make a right, That means it's wrong for US to eat animals, And it's wrong for ANIMALS to eat animals, Otherwise there would not be two wrongs, Just one. "
I am not stating that animals eating animals is wrong, I am simply using the logic you had in another argument where you used the fact that animals also eat other animals. Once again you blatantly took me out of context.
" That is false. Lions, Gorillas, Giraffes, And and a TON more, Are all endangered and going extinct. They might have been doing OK before humans, But certainly not now. "
Actually yes they are going extinct because humans are poaching and cutting down forests. In other words these animals are going extinct because of humans not nature.
" All we have to do is start eating them, And their numbers will skyrocket, "
So let me get this strait, Your stating that we should eat these animals as there numbers will sky rocket? There are so many things wrong with that and here's why. While it is important that these animals numbers are high, If we are killing and eating them at the same time than its counter productive. By that logic we should enslave and kill humans as our numbers would also sky rocket as well.
PointProven

Con

"So by your logic we shouldn't have buildings, Air conditioners, And factory's as they are apart of nature right? "

That's not exactly true. People tend to describe human creations as "not nature", But if you think about it, They are. We humans a part of the natural world, Therefore our creations are as well. Just because some of them are destroying the natural world (cars and factories for example), Doesn't mean they aren't part of it. We humans use our intellect to create various structures with the materials we find here on earth. Therefore, Things like building are 100% nature, Because they are built by nature. I know it sounds silly, But think about it. It kinda makes sense. Not to mention, I never said that things that are "apart from nature" shouldn't exist. I have no clue where you got that from.

"Also if you really want to advocate for survival of the fittest, Than would you be OK with killing and eating mentally retarded people and old people as to you they are weak and we have the right to kill them. "

That part made me laugh. I stated that we use our superior intelligence to exploit OTHER animals to benefit ourselves. I never said we should kill and eat our own species. You are twisting my arguments.

"I think you've missed my whole point so ill explain it again. It is immoral and wrong to kill anything that is sentient or some intelligence. That's why killing and eating animals is wrong. "

My point is that you have yet to explain how that is wrong. Just because they are capable of thought doesn't mean anything. Cancer is capable of thought, What is your point? We breed animals in farms, Feed them, They don't know they are going to die, And it is done in the most humane way possible. It's a quick, Pain free death, And then we consume the animal. I don't see how that is wrong. Cows, Chickens, And pigs are not capable of the same level of emotion, If any, That humans are. I don't see what is wrong about eating them.

"I am not stating that animals eating animals is wrong"

When I used the fact the animals eat each other as a reason why it's ok, You said "2 wrongs don't make a right". So yeah. . . That's exactly what you said.

"Once again you blatantly took me out of context. "

What? ! ? How precise do I have to be before the context police are satisfied? No, No I didn't take you out of context.

"Actually yes they are going extinct because humans are poaching and cutting down forests. In other words these animals are going extinct because of humans not nature. "

I agree. If you wanted to make the points that that is bad, You would be perfectly valid. However, Despite the fact that we are destroying the natural habitat of animals, Cows, Chickens, And pigs are doing just fine. In fact, The are in the billions. Hmm, Why is that, I wonder? Oh right, Because we eat them! If we ate lions and gorillas, They would be in high numbers as well.

" While it is important that these animals numbers are high"

Really? Why is that? They are benefiting us in any way. But they would if we ate them. Funny how that works.

" If we are killing and eating them at the same time than its counter productive. "

Not true, Otherwise the animals that we do eat wouldn't be so high in numbers.

"By that logic we should enslave and kill humans as our numbers would also sky rocket as well. "

Actually no. If anything we need to bring the number of humans down. Scientist say at least half, To 1/3 of the number there currently is.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@zhaod1
Sorry i'm replying so late, Shortly after this debate I lost my original account anyways,
explain to me what trait an a human has that an animal doesn't that justifies killing the animal?
Posted by zhaod1 3 years ago
zhaod1
FrizzyHairInc
Killing animals is one thing, And killing humans is another.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Correction

Pro did use logic to find holes but Con's argument were like this
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Pro in Round 3 made the point "So by your logic we shouldn't have buildings, Air conditioners, And factory's as they are apart of nature right? " and "Actually yes they are going extinct because humans are poaching and cutting down forests. In other words these animals are going extinct because of humans not nature. "
Con in Round 3 made points but I did not see any of them as good arguments.
Pro won this Round too reason is Con's rebut "I stated that we use our superior intelligence to exploit OTHER animals to benefit ourselves. I never said we should kill and eat our own species. You are twisting my arguments. " which Con did not make it clear that it was other animals. Humans are still animals but more developed. Pro did use logic to find holes in Con's argument like this one "We breed animals in farms, Feed them, They don't know they are going to die, And it is done in the most humane way possible. It's a quick, Pain free death" are misleading. Factory farming do have unsafe conditions for animals so I don't see how this is true.

Both did not use evidence so I am only basing it off the most convincing argument. Pro made the best points.

Anything wrong with what I said ask me in the comments.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Pro in Round 2 made the point "This makes zero sense from a moral stand point as 2 wrongs don't make a right. " and "While you are right that there numbers would be higher if we breeded them, It still doesn't make a difference if we eat them"
Con in Round 2 made the point " This is a form of survival of the fittest and all animals do it. " and "That is false. Lions, Gorillas, Giraffes, And and a TON more, Are all endangered and going extinct. "
If I had to pick in who made the better arguments it would be Pro in Round 2. Reason is 2 wrongs do not make a right is better then saying it is a form of survival of the fittest. We as humans can survive without meat.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Pro in Round 1 made the point "Eating animals is immoral as they are a sentient being and have a right to life and instead we should eat plants which reduces the most amount of harm. "
Con in Round 2 rebutted with this "Animals have been eating each other long before the first humans ever walked the earth. " Everything before and after were questions which did not provide a point. In Round 1 Pro made the better argument and Con decide to add more with "BECAUSE WE DON'T EAT THEM! . . . . . People would stop mass breeding them in massive farms, Causing their numbers to dwindle, And probably even go extinct. " Which does not say whether eating meat is right or wrong. "probably" does not mean they will go extinct so it is a bad argument.
Posted by Nartnod7875 3 years ago
Nartnod7875
I understand where you're coming from. There's a difference between pain(showing physical suffering, Distress) and stimuli(attempting to avoid injury). Humans have stimuli as well, For example, When we are unconscious, We shift and roll around in bed to find a position that prevents any potential damage to our bodies.
Usually, Pain can be detected by finding out if an organism can invoke some kind of emotional response. "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, Or described in terms of such damage. The inability to communicate verbally does not negate the possibility that an individual is experiencing pain and is in need of appropriate pain-relieving treatment. "
And, As I told you earlier, Plants do express distress through whimpering and squealing.

https://m. Dw. Com/en/when-plants-say-ouch/a-510552-1
Posted by FrizzyHairInc 3 years ago
FrizzyHairInc
@ zhaod1
Also in this study it states that an unconscious brain can still register pain.
https://www. Sciencemag. Org/news/2008/10/unconscious-brain-still-registers-pain
Posted by FrizzyHairInc 3 years ago
FrizzyHairInc
@zhaod1
Well let me ask you this, Would you be fine with aborting a baby that doesn't feel pain? Because on your profile you classify yourself as anti abortion.
Posted by FrizzyHairInc 3 years ago
FrizzyHairInc
@Nartnod7875
There is not study to show that plants feel any sort of pain. They only know when they are being eaten as once again plants lack a nervous system and a brain to feel pain. That being said I ask of you if you can please site your source on what study says that plants can feel pain. Here is one of my sources that claims that plants can't feel pain.
https://www. Livekindly. Co/plants-feel-pain/
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
FrizzyHairIncPointProvenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons in the comment section.

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