The Instigator
ethicalinvestor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Eating meat is unethical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,267 times Debate No: 108238
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (1)

 

ethicalinvestor

Pro

This argument has been formulated by vegan youtuber Ask Yourself, in this video he tackles point by point the most common arguments used by non-vegans.

It is a long video but to be fair non-vegans have a lot of retarded arguments.
If the video is too long I'll try an summarize it here, but before debating this topic I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the counter arguments.

Let's cast aside the 4 N's
http://rvgn.org...

Eating meat is "Natural" - Appeal to Nature fallacy.
Saying that something is natural doesn't mean it's ethical.
Rape is Natural, is it ethical?

Eating meat is "Normal" - Another fallacy.
Similar argument to the one above. Slavery was normal few hundred years ago, is it ethical? Rape is normal still today in some cultures, is it ethical?

Eating meat is "Necessary" - No it isn't.
The American Dietetic Association states that a vegan diet can be adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy and infancy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Also these reputable doctors have done plenty of research and published peer reviewed scientific papers showing that a plant based diet is healthier than a diet which includes meat:
Dr. Michael Greger from nutritionfacts.org and author of "How Not To Die" a New York Times best seller.
Dr. Neal Barnard from pcrm.org
Dr. John McDougall author of The Starch Solution
There are many other doctors, nutritionists and scientists which have evidence supporting this argument, eating meat, dairy and eggs isn't necessary in our modern society.

Eating meat is "Nice" - Insane position
I think everyone agrees that "I love meat" isn't a proper argument.
You wouldn't agree someone trying to eat you because you taste good.

What is the justification then?
MagicAintReal

Con

I accept Pro.
Thanks for instigating this debate.
I suspect that Pro is a vegan, so he may end up agreeing with me.
I mean, who doesn't love eating fruits and nuts?

*Meat*

We put it in smoothies, we make spreads out of it, we drink its juice, we even mash it up into a paste and place it on our skin for its rejuvenating effects; we love meat.

It's also healthy for you.
Most meat has tons of fiber, vitamins, antioxidants, and, get this, by adding more meat to your diet, you can lose weight more effectively and extend your life.

My wife had our third child about 6 months ago (at the time of this posting) and feeding our baby anything other than breast milk can be challenging, because our baby has no teeth.
That's why we mash up different types of meat, into a fine sauce, and spoon feed our baby; this was actually the pediatrician's recommendation.

I was surprised to learn that eating meat was considered a contentious issue, let alone that it was unethical.
What could be unethical about consuming the edible part of an organism's offspring?
Are you going to tell me that plants can suffer too?
Come on.

I argue that the organisms from which we harvest meat lack the neuronal substrates and neuroanatomical wherewithal to experience suffering, pain, or mental anguish, especially when you consider that we mostly harvest the meat of those organisms' inanimate offspring, not the original organism itself.

Is Pro willing to defend that juice is also unethical?
Drinking the juice of certain meat is not only delicious, it can provide much needed vitamin C, so, for people with that particular deficiency, certain meat juice is not unethical; it's almost necessary.

Is it unethical for frozen yogurt places to choose to use meat as a healthy, flavorful topping for their products?
All the data shows that meat toppings increase sales, increase customer satisfaction, and yes, increase the nutritional value of the total frozen yogurt product; people love adding meat to their desserts.

Should ice cream and frozen yogurt companies only use gummy bears and sprinkles, because someone's getting all angry about angiosperm abuse?
Give me a break.

Now, even though I'm a non-vegan, I eat a ton of meat.
I suspect that nearly all vegans eat meat too.
Which is why it's so confusing that someone like Pro, who seems to be a vegan, is so against eating meat.

My best friend was a vegan for nearly 5 years, and do you know what he always ate?
Two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches a day for 5 years.
Think of how much meat that is!
It takes a lot of meat to produce just one jar of peanut butter or jelly, and two sandwiches a day for 5 years makes that amount of meat astronomical.


*Conclusion*

There's nothing unethical about eating meat, in fact, that's why even most vegans do it.
While I can see how farming and consuming *animals* could be viewed as unethical, eating *meat* is morally inert and in most cases beneficial.


Definitions

meat - the edible part of fruits or nuts.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

unethical - not morally correct.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ethicalinvestor

Pro

Thanks for the reply, as I know that you clearly understood what I was referring to when I wrote "meat". I can't argue against your point as I don't see nothing wrong with your reasoning.

Dodging the debate using semantics was a really childish thing to do. Also unethical in my opinion as you're just prolonging the discussion while lives are being taken for palate pleasure.

I'll just have to copy and paste the same argument and change 1 word.

But again, I do thank you, it's my first debate, I'm not a native English speaker and I learned a new definition for meat.

I guess I concede if we consider the definition of meat to indicate the flesh of fruit and nuts, although in my argument it's clear that I meant animals.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for your response Pro.
Pro, as I suspected, ended up agreeing with me after all.
Pro also expressed some disdain for my actions.
I shall respond.

*Responding to Pro*

Pro admits:
"I can't argue against your point as I don't see nothing wrong with your reasoning."

My response:
Yeah, I was pretty sure that most vegans consumed meat however antithetical it may sound.
Vegans consume a lot of meat as it turns out.


Pro characterizes:
"Dodging the debate using semantics was a really childish thing to do."

My response:
Thanks.
I'm glad my arguments are clear and simple enough such that even a child can understand them.

childish - appropriate to a child.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...


Pro reckons:
"you're just prolonging the discussion while lives are being taken for palate pleasure."

My response:
Whose lives are being taken to please the separation between the cavities of the mouth and nose in vertebrates?
Where are the lives being taken to?
Don't we just brush our teeth and maintain regular mouth hygiene to please our alveolar ridge?
That way we don't have to take anything anywhere, lives or otherwise, to please our hard and soft palate.


Pro reasons:
"I'll just have to copy and paste the same argument and change 1 word."

My response:
I wouldn't.
Instead, you should just provide definitions for each term of your resolution so that no one can just come in and distort your debate.
I don't know who would actually do that though...


Pro adds:
"But again, I do thank you, it's my first debate, I'm not a native English speaker and I learned a new definition for meat."

My response:
Oh you're very welcome, and, while I have speakers of other languages in ALL of my classes (I'm a high school teacher), your writing doesn't appear to be non-native and is quite fluid; I couldn't tell you're not a native speaker.


Pro concedes:
"I guess I concede if we consider the definition of meat to indicate the flesh of fruit and nuts."

My response:
Yeah, debate rules typically dictate that the first provided definitions for the terms of the resolution are the definitions used throughout the debate, so vegans are responsible for tons of meat consumption and you admit that you don't find *that* to be unethical.


*Vote*

Voters should understand the definitions provided first round and take serious note of Pro's concession.
Also, Pro should understand that for this debate to make it to the voting period, Pro has to type "forwarding" in the subsequent rounds, else the debate ends in a forfeit sans a vote.


Thanks for the debate Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
ethicalinvestor

Pro

I did concede to that point but you certainly dodged the debate so I wouldn't be surprised if people voted Pro.
"Semantics though" isn't a valid argument. You clearly knew what I was referring to. Anyways, I suggest you don't get too engaged by semantics where there's clearly no reason to debate the meaning of a word. Just a friendly tip.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro.
Pro seems to be hedging back his concession.
Luckily, DDO already has a policy on conceded debates.
You'll see.

*Responding to Pro More*

Pro admits again:
"I did concede to that point."

My response:
You conceded that you had no response to my directly-impacting-the-resolution argument and that eating meat is *not* unethical, so it's not just "that point" you conceded; you've conceded the whole of the resolution.


Pro mentions:
"I wouldn't be surprised if people voted Pro."

My response:
I would.
Most voters don't want to have their votes removed.

DDO's vote moderation policy clearly states:

"A conceded debate is any debate in which one side clearly concedes to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are only moderated [if] a voter votes for the side that concedes."
http://www.debate.org...

Voters, moderation will remove your vote if you vote for the side that conceded.
Come on Pro.


Pro opines:
"Semantics though" isn't a valid argument."

My response:
According to the DDO's New Members Tutorial on Resolutions, Burden of Proof, Semantics, and Picking topics:

"Semantic arguments are valid. In regard to usage, semantics debaters will easily tear you to pieces if you get out of step [and] most likely, the audience will applaud the opponent's use of semantics and vote in favor of that opponent. To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first, sets the definitions for the rest of the debate."
http://www.debate.org...

Didn't bother reading up on actual, valid debate tactics?
That's ok.
At least you conceded.


Pro continues:
"You clearly knew what I was referring to."

My response:
Yeah.
You were referring to eating meat, and whether or not it was unethical, and that's exactly the debate that unfolded before you.
You also found out, on some level, you agree that eating meat *is* ethical.
That's what debate does...shows you something about yourself that you never thought was possible.
You're a meat-eating vegan.


Pro councils:
"Anyways, I suggest you don't get too engaged by semantics."

My response:
Says the guy who *didn't* supply definitions 1st round to the guy who *did*.
I was trying to avoid semantics by providing definitions, 1st round, to guide the debate and precisely avoid semantics; clearly my intent was ant-semantics.


*Conclusion*

Voters please understand that definitions were provided round 1 for both crucial terms of the resolution by Con and *these* definitions should be considered when gauging the debate.

Also, Pro CLEARLY conceded 2nd round and this cannot be overlooked when voting, in fact, those who vote for the side that conceded will have their vote removed by moderation.

Thanks again, Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Despite not being required to do so, I'd be happy to address the issue of semantics in this debate...

I have no problem with what Con did. There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity. That's why I didn't believe it was a conduct violation. This should be a valuable lesson for Pro to do a more diligent job setting up a debate.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Concession.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Voters are allowed to award points based on a concession, which was clearly made in this debate. They are not required to examine semantic issues.
************************************************************************
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I don"t care if my debates go as planned. I can also engage in a semantics debate.
Posted by ethicalinvestor 3 years ago
ethicalinvestor
Already did, waiting for round 1.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
MagicAintReal
Hahah this debate has no meat to it...classic.
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Skepticalone
Well, that was disappointing...this debate has no 'meat' to it. :-) I would love to see this debate for real though. Try again, Pro.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
MagicAintReal
You can't see any humor in it?
Come on man...it was funny.
Posted by ethicalinvestor 3 years ago
ethicalinvestor
You do that when you're debating topics where definitions can be misinterpreted. In this case you clearly used semantics to avoid the debate. It was obvious what I meant about meat, especially after reading the first round of the debate.
But whatever man, what makes you sleep at night. You won a debate woohoo. You're still probably intellectually dishonest.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
MagicAintReal
Hey Wylted.
Don't you think that if you're serious about debating a particular topic that putting the definitions in the first round with the statement "definitions are agreed to by accepting this debate" is enough to ensure your debate goes as planned?
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
You need to learn how to counter act these silly semantics which can be usied to derail any debate. I"ll vote later though. Definitions like was suggested is not enough to counter act these things, suggesting those in areas where the definition is clear is also pointless.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
ethicalinvestorMagicAintRealTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.

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