The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
luanism
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

It is immoral to kill animals for food

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
luanism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 864 times Debate No: 119336
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Pro

The argument for the moral value of animals.
p1: Humans are of moral value.
p2: There is no trait absent in animals that if absent in humans would make humans valueless.
C: Without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, It is a contradiction to deem animals valueless.

The argument for veganism from animal moral value.
p1: Animals are of moral value.
p2: There is no trait absent in animals that if absent in humans would make it moral to kill and eat humans.
C: Without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, It is a contradiction to deem it moral to kill and eat animals.

Debate structure:
1st round: Introduce arguments for and against.
2nd-4th rounds: Reply to the claims.
5th round: Conclusion, No new arguments.

Rules:
1. No ad hominems.
2. No life or death dilemmas. We're talking about normal circumstances.
3. Try to keep the argument on morality.
luanism

Con

My opening points will be:
- Survival & Humans are at the top of the food chain
- We have a higher purpose to carry out and that is to make a difference in the world with our unique ability to reason and make critical decisions. Whereas, Animals are of instincts
- Killing an animal vs eating a plant is the exact same thing. So what is the difference in sacrificing one life form over another?

1. I believe that human beings are unquestionably at the very top of the food chain; therefore, It is in our nature to hunt and eat animals despite it being ethical or not. To put this into perspective, Imagine if it were the other way around where Bugs were at the very top of the life cycle, Plants 2nd, Animals 3rd, And us 4th. Life would be a lot different then wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't be us having to question if eating them is moral or not, Because in this situation it would be a matter of survival and instincts than reason.

2. First and foremost, I believe that we all are and were created equally with a greater purpose to carry out; however, One should keep in mind that we are far more complex than animals are in the sense that we have higher moral values. For example, We have the ability to cause mass destruction (destroy nations) or end all the violence and work towards peace (be the change you wish to see in the world like Ghandi once said, As I believe every individual is capable of making a difference but that's a different story for a different topic). Furthermore, It's about our responsibility as human beings to reason. We have a higher duty to fulfill, A more important mission to accomplish than animals do and that is our ability to make a difference in the world, In which animals are uncapable of. A Lion cannot become the next president neither can the species of Apes take over the world (As interesting as that would be); therefore, It is moral for us to kill animals to eat as a means of survival and purpose. So, Just like how we have higher moral values than animals do, We have the ability to use this higher power to do good such as make these types of critical decisions (question if killing animals is immoral, Or not) that animals in no way can ever do despite evolution; we are at the very top of the food chain for a reason. Furthermore, Animals are of instincts; for example, Filial cannibalism. -> Sloth bears that eat their own for evolutionary/reproductive reasons. -> Human beings don't need to do that -> Therefore, The topic of morality is nullified

3. Lastly, Killing an animal vs eating a plant is the same thing. -> Both animal and plant are living organisms that feel pain & have a purpose in life; therefore, Being a meat-eater vs being a vegetarian has no difference.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

I'll respond to the points Con made. Con can respond to either this response or my original argument.

Con's 1st point: Humans are at the top of the food chain.

The 1st paragraph says that it is natural to hunt and eat animals. This is an appeal to nature. It is natural to rape; it doesn't make it moral.

Con provided a hypothetical example where humans were on the bottom of the food chain, So humans were too preoccupied with surviving than to debate ethics. If killing animals or humans was a matter of survival, Then killing would be justified only in the particular life or death situation. Humans in modern civilization aren't in this dilemma, So it doesn't make killing animals justified. By the way, Rule 2 clearly says no life or death scenarios.

Con's 2nd point: Humans have a higher purpose and the ability to reason, While animals don't.

The belief in a higher purpose is arbitrary. If I were to say I believed my purpose was to kill other humans, Would that be justified?

Infants, Mentally retarded, And senile people are incapable of reason, Is it okay to kill and eat them?

"It is moral for us to kill animals to eat as a means of survival and purpose. "
We don't need to kill animals to survive.

Con's 3rd point: No difference between plants and animals.

Plants can't feel pain because they don't have a brain to register pain. There is no evidence plants are sentient, Especially not sentient enough to compare them to cows, Pigs, Or chickens. Pigs of which have been shown to solve tasks faster than chimps [a1]. Where is the source for the claim that plants are sentient and can feel pain?

a1. Https://escholarship. Org/uc/item/8sx4s79c
luanism

Con

"The 1st paragraph says that it is natural to hunt and eat animals. This is an appeal to nature. It is natural to rape; it doesn't make it moral. "

Response: I highly doubt rape is natural, Because if it were many people would be doing it. Many people know it's wrong; therefore, It's not natural. A better analogy would be Fast Food: many people eat it while knowing it's bad for them, Because it's convenient; therefore, It's natural.

Natural, Would be emotions such as anger and wanting to kill someone, But don't follow through with it because it would jeopardize your purpose. Reason > Natural instincts. In other words, Human morals > animal morals.

I apologize for the life/death scenario, But yes you get the point. Killing animals is not justified, However, It's a biological thing that makes us more inclined to eating meat. . . It's cheaper than buying organic. . . More convenient. . . The list goes on, But I think the biggest issue is the meat industry itself and it's power over us that we have to worry about.

That, And also our own discipline on choosing to stop eating meat. However, For the purpose of debating I will play devil's advocate.

"The belief in a higher purpose is arbitrary. If I were to say I believed my purpose was to kill other humans, Would that be justified? "

The belief in a higher purpose is certainly NOT arbitrary. It's not even up for debate. But, I will say that you do make an interesting point on what you just said. Let's say that someone were to believe their purpose was to do that. I would not think much of it because everything is for a reason.

God created Good & Bad. Romans 11:36 For of him, And through him, And to him, Are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. It's not justified. . . But, Because we're nothing more than clay we can't expect to know the answers to everything. Only God knows, But yet we have this thing called Free Will (to a certain extent) which is so interesting.

It's not okay to kill infants, Mentally retarded, OR senile people. It's not okay to kill any human being, But it's okay to kill animals as a means to survive. You're right about not needing to kill any animal to survive and just eat plants, Nuts, Etc. , For nutrients but then you could argue that some people don't deserve to eat. It's a waste of resources that could be given to people in need, Third-world countries, And the list goes on.

"No difference between plants and animals. "

Plants serve their purpose. Humans have a higher purpose, Would you not agree? I was just using pain as a supplementary example, But that's the not my main point. The core idea is that people who choose to go the vegetarian path would be doing so because they feel as if they don't want to be a supporter of the meat industry/unethical production of food. However, I'm simply trying to convey the message of we're all equal. Humans, Animals, Plants, Even dirt.

Everything has its purpose to carry out, Except, Humans have been given all this power/duty to fulfill "x" purpose that sometimes we get caught up in trying to do what's right in the not so right kind of ways. Such as "it's okay to rape, Blame it on the victim for being too revealing" Such as, "it's okay to electrocute the black guy, Because the white man is always right" and the list goes on.

Ideally, What I'm trying to say is, Maybe humans like you and I don't deserve anything. Maybe we're less than our less than equal counter-parts that we think is okay to hunt, Eat, And kill for sport because we're "above" them. At the end of the day, It's not right to think we're at the top of the food chain because we have all these abilities to out-survive another living species, But we do because it's in our nature to do so. Until we've humbled ourselves and realize that the problem is us, All of this talk won't matter until we truly open our hearts. There is a purpose, And it's believing a greater cause/idea/purpose.
Debate Round No. 2
luanism

Con

luanism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Eunoiad 3 years ago
Eunoiad
I think it's more illogical than immoral to kill all animals. If we did, The human race would die.
Posted by luanism 3 years ago
luanism
Okie dokie
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I forgot to change this debate to 5 rounds instead of 3. The format will be intro for the 1st round and response in the 2nd & 3rd rounds.
Posted by IsaiahWOod23 3 years ago
IsaiahWOod23
Why is it bad to kill animals, When animals kill other animals naturally. It is in there nature to kill each other, So but when we kill them it is bad. In my opinion slaughtering animals for fun is bloodlust, But killing them to survive is fine, God allows it, I agree with God.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hello83433 3 years ago
Hello83433
AnonymousluanismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not expand upon their arguments sufficiently and barely covered their counterpoints to con. Saying "We don't need to kill animals to survive" is not enough. Pro did not provide a source that plants do NOT feel pain when it is well known and well documented that they do. Pro's only source does not add anything to their argument.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
AnonymousluanismTied
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: Pro gave better arguments. Con provided false claims that plants can feel pain. Con also gave an argument on survival. Pro stated the flaw that in the present we are not facing the dilemma. If I had to stretch Con went against the rules by giving a hypothetical but I only stick to the convincing arguments. Both did forfeit so another reason why I won't give it to either of them.

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