Eating animals is immoral and wrong
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
squeakly54n6
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 2/4/2019 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,096 times | Debate No: | 120170 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)
 Pro  Con Look at the animals in the wild. Predator and prey. Is it immorally wrong for a predator to hunt and kill it's prey? That's the only way it will eat. If humans eating animals are wrong then is animals eating other animals in the wild wrong? |
 |
|
Pro - Animals don't have an established irrigation system so it would be impossible for them to adapt a vegetarian/vegan diet. "If humans eating animals are wrong then is animals eating other animals in the wild wrong? " - If that's the only way the animal can live than I think it would be justified, Which is why I am fine with still developing countries eating meat as more often than not they don't have an established farming system and are living in poverty. - However in a 1st world country like America and Canada where we have an established irrigation system and aren't living in poverty, There is generally no reason to eat meat. Con Animals don't have an established irrigation system so it would be impossible for them to adapt a vegetarian/vegan diet. What about the case for animals that are herbivores or omnivores? If that's the only way the animal can live than I think it would be justified, Which is why I am fine with still developing countries eating meat as more often than not they don't have an established farming system and are living in poverty. Okay. Keep in mind, Humans are technically animals. However in a 1st world country like America and Canada where we have an established irrigation system and aren't living in poverty, There is generally no reason to eat meat. Are you saying 'not living in poverty' should lead to eating non meat and vegetarian things only? There are a lot of reasons to eat meat. Beneficial reasons. One would be for proteins as proteins are a necessity. If every human on earth became vegan/vegetarian then that wouldn't be good, It would effect the earth and environment. There would be serious drawbacks. |
 |
|
Pro - If the animal needs meat to survive for dietary reasons or food source reasons than it is justified. However animals that are already herbivores scavenge for their plants. Besides without an established irrigation system there would not be enough plants for the majority of animals to eat as a good chunk of animals depend on meat. " There are a lot of reasons to eat meat. Beneficial reasons. One would be for proteins as proteins are a necessity. " - Actually there are plenty of vegan foods humans can eat to obtain protein such as tofu, Lentils, Beans, Or green peas. All of which are either vegan or vegetarian. SOURCE, Https://www. Healthline. Com/nutrition/protein-for-vegans-vegetarians#section8 " If every human on earth became vegan/vegetarian then that wouldn't be good, It would effect the earth and environment. There would be serious drawbacks. " - Actually this is completely false if just 1 person went vegan we would save 4, 200 liters of water, 20. 4 kilimeters of grains, And save 2. 8 meters of squared forested land. We would save this many resources if just one person went vegan for one day, Imagine how many resources we would save if just the united states went vegan? SOURCE: " What about the case for animals that are herbivores or omnivores? " |
 |
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
| squeakly54n6 | Kvng_8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded in the last Round from the looks of it with his "o" which means Con was not able to rebut Pro's claims. Pro also provided sources which Con did not. I found Con's arguments were not really arguments for his side instead questions which he wanted answers. He actually thought 1 question would win him the debate turns out it didn't with his Round 3 argument.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
| squeakly54n6 | Kvng_8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Countering a poor vote that only analyzed one side.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
| squeakly54n6 | Kvng_8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: To me it appeared Pros argument was based around saying that it was immoral for those who had the means to not eat meat and still be healthy it would be immoral and wrong for them to eat meat. I think Pro was able to counter Cons arguments against Pros resolution, as well as the statements that Pro made while doing so added weight to the Pro side of the debate. I think the debate could have progressed more, though I'm not sure how off the bat in my head.
If you read what he said you would have found out yourself but you needed me to actually find what rebutted your claims in a debate you were already in.
What you said here:
"Like I said, Animals hunt other animals in the wild, So its no different than humans eating meat"
Was rebutted here:
Actually this is completely false if just 1 person went vegan we would save 4, 200 liters of water, 20. 4 kilimeters of grains, And save 2. 8 meters of squared forested land. We would save this many resources if just one person went vegan for one day, Imagine how many resources we would save if just the united states went vegan? SOURCE: " What about the case for animals that are herbivores or omnivores? "
If you want to know what it means. If we stopped killing animals we would save 4, 200 litres of water. We don't need to hunt animals which Pro also rebutted with this:
"Actually there are plenty of vegan foods humans can eat to obtain protein such as tofu, Lentils, Beans, Or green peas. All of which are either vegan or vegetarian. SOURCE, Https://www. Healthline. Com/nutrition/protein-for-vegans-vegetarians#section8"
Yes I think he could have done a better job with it but his argument was better than yours.
But you have your opinion. Make sure to keep it short because I'm not going to argue all day.
@Pro
Thanks for the debate! You did very good and I had fun. Congrats for the win!
"Con conceded in the last Round from the looks of it with his "o" which means Con was not able to rebut Pro's claims. "
I could have but, Just didn't care. I felt like I made better arguments anyway, Specifically in my R2. Animals eating meat in the wild can't be justified just because people disagree that humans aren't supposed to eat meat.
"I found Con's arguments were not really arguments for his side instead questions which he wanted answers. "
It were arguments. Asking those questions invoked thinking and in turn comes to argument.
My arguments "There are a lot of reasons to eat meat. Beneficial reasons. One would be for proteins as proteins are a necessity. If every human on earth became vegan/vegetarian then that wouldn't be good, It would effect the earth and environment. There would be serious drawbacks"
"He actually thought 1 question would win him the debate. "
Still does in a sense. Like I said, Animals hunt other animals in the wild, So its no different than humans eating meat
If you look at other debates his/her voted on. He/she hardly does give explanations for both sides instead focuses on one. Which means dsjpk5 has a double standard.
Thank you. I'm not against him voting against me but if you're going to counter someone else's vote and claiming they aren't examining the " other side" than they should explain how.
He doesn't explain him/herself.
I'll vote your favour because I also think you won.
" Countering a poor vote that only analyzed one side. "
- Explain to me how Leaning only addressed one side of the debate?