The Instigator
Topaet
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Leaning
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

On balance, Animals should not be killed for human consumption

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...
Leaning
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,003 times Debate No: 119001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Topaet

Pro

Resolution: On balance, Eating meat is immoral.
The BoP is shared, With Pro presenting arguments that on balance, Humans should stop eating meat and Con presenting arguments that humans should continue eating meat.

Definitions:

On balance: In general; on the norm



Leaning

Con

Sure, I'll accept these terms. Though I'm also going to go to sleep after posting this round 1. I'll reply to round 2 in about 6-10 hours, Or when you finish it.
Debate Round No. 1
Topaet

Pro

Topaet forfeited this round.
Leaning

Con

Hmm, Well it's another day.
Debate Round No. 2
Topaet

Pro

Topaet forfeited this round.
Leaning

Con

Ah, Well, I would say not to bother voting on this debate, Was nothing debated.
2
3
4
And now, On to the reposting of subpar poetry.

-Before Dawn Comes-

Falling moon in the ink blue sky
Silver streaks of stars guide your way
This moment enjoy before day breaks
And we night owls sleep to reawake
Once morrows passed over those nocturnal
When again vanity hangs framed on black
Shining once more suns reflection, Mans mirror.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
I would have difficulty taking that stance. Admittedly I would have trouble with either stance, But I think I would find it harder to argue against eating animals.
Posted by shortkid64 3 years ago
shortkid64
Leaning if you are against the idea of ridding animal slaughter for human consumption seek my debate and I will gladly help you understand why you are likely wrong.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Morality I think.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
is this a question of morality? Or a question of benefis?
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
@GuitarSlinger
Somehow your point escapes me. Do you disagree with the words "On balance"? And feel that it should be a more one way or the other? Definitively right or definitively wrong?
Posted by Block.19 3 years ago
Block.19
I don't understand what is immoral about animal consumption
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
Guys, You're going about this all wrong. If something is immoral (wrong), One shouldn't do it, Regardless of what it is. All of societies debates have been determining whether one should do X. The pros argue it's ok to do "X", There is nothing wrong with it (i. E. It's moral). The cons argue, It's not ok to do "X", It is wrong (i. E. Immoral).

The debate should be "Eating meat is immoral". If you are asserting/assuming as FACT that eating meat is immoral, Then I would argue one shouldn't eat meat (See first paragraph above). However, I don't believe it is a Truth (fact) that eating meat is immoral.

It's a nuance,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zhaod1 3 years ago
zhaod1
TopaetLeaningTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 2 rounds, which is poor conduct.

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