Instigator / Con
15
1458
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2600
Is supporting the meat industry justified?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
18
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
In this debate, I, being con, will argue that we are not justified in supporting the meat industry. I understand if someone is in a third world country and can’t stop eating meat. I am talking about people in 1st world countries who are eating meat because of the pleasure meat gives, and not out of necessity.
Round 1
One day, while scrolling the internet, I encountered a guy who said that he takes dogs, puts them in extremely small cages, cut off their teeth and tails without anaesthetic, and puts them in such horrific conditions that they go mentally insane. Obviously, I was disgusted to hear this and quickly closed my laptop because I was so appalled. Oh, wait I can't believe I messed up my first argument. I meant to say pigs, not dogs.
Did you know that male baby chickens, in most factories, are put on a conveyer belt and thrown into a blender like ice cream to make a milkshake? Can you possibly imagine how many turns of the blade it takes to finally kill them? I hope not too many, but what I hope oftentimes is not true, especially in this case. Did you know in some factories, they cut off circulation to the cow's balls so then they will decompose? Imagine your balls decomposing, how painful that would be. How about being forcibly impregnated every year, and pumped full of drugs?
Give me a trait that humans have that animals don't that says that torturing animals for a momentary pleasure for your taste buds is justified? Give me a reason why making pigs go insane, throwing chickens into a blender, and crowding cows in like sardines, or anything of the sort is worth it as long as you get that nice juicy burger, which you don't actually need?
Also, while you are at it, explain why we should be using our crops, which we have enough to feed every person on Earth, and instead feed tortured animals? Why should we use 2,500 gallons of water, 35 pounds of soil, and 12 pounds of wheat w,hich could all feed a family that doesn't have much food, and instead give it to a cow in exchange for a pound of beef?
Literal Concession
I understand if someone is in a third world country and can’t stop eating meat.
Since the 3rd world poor people eating meat is still a result of the meat industry and Con thinks there is nothing wrong with it, he literally conceded as he thinks supporting parts of the meat industry is justified.
Definition Kritik
On Merriam Webster Dictionary, it states:
1a: FOODespecially : solid food as distinguished from drinkb: the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell)2: animal tissue considered especially as food:a: FLESH sense 2balso : flesh of a mammal as opposed to fowl or fishb: FLESH sense 1aspecifically : flesh of domesticated animals4a: the core of something : HEARTb: PITH sense 2ba novel with meat5: favorite pursuit or interest
Using definitions 1a, 3, and 5, there is nothing wrong with supporting the "meat" industry(CON did not define), with definitions 1a being vital(Or else, people will starve, making it vital to support the meat industry).
For fair competition, I will use definitions 2a and 2b for this debate because this is what I see Con is trying to use.
Actual Argument(In case if nothing above works)
First off, I would like to say, What are good alternatives to the entire meat cuisine culture? Is there a wide-enough protein alternative to replace meat? You can't propose a problem and stand on its feet without proposing a new solution. If you assassinated the ruthless leader and did not have any establishment in replacement, causing anarchist chaos, then people are going to still hate you.
What makes the harvesting of animal lives more grave than the harvesting of plant lives? I want Con to present such evidence.
Con proposed cruel treatments of animals. This, however, is not solving any problems because you are still taking pain from plants and other living organisms, even without meat. Unethical treatment and Corruption calls for the revision of the system, not the utter abolition. Organizations such as PETA and ones with similar goals are working towards better conditions of animals. There are means of death and acquiring meat that does not cause painfulness such as euthanasia, and just like a human peacefully passing away, animals do it too. It is essentially impossible for a deathless environment where there is meat, especially since the animals' nature is to go hunt other things. What is it wrong with excercising our natural instincts that have been around for as long as animals existed?
About 300,000,000 tons of meat are currently being consumed this year. It is clear that people enjoy it. It is unrealistic for the taste of billions of people to change towards a Uni-direction. Some lean meats are healthy essentially. While the meat industry could be unethical at times, it is obviously the better choice to solve the problem instead of running away from it.
Plus, billions of people would support the meat industry anyways. What is wrong with something so common in this world it could be treated as nothing wrong? I like meat, why am I not justified to support the meat industry? Just because some animals are being tortured, something both we can change and is nothing out of the ordinary considering of our survival instincts?
This argument is a bit underwhelming but I think it works.
Round 2
Doing horrible things, such as killing animals without necessary reason, requires strong justification. If you will literally starve to death if you don't eat meat, because there isn't much else around, then it is justified to kill animals. Me and you, living in 1st world countries, are not justifiably killing animals, as they are not a necessity, but instead something that is a pleasure for us. We do not have justification in supporting the industry.
Yes, you can have a vegetarian and/or vegan diet. Vegetarian and/or vegan diets have been shown to be just as healthy, if not healthier than meat diets, one of the biggest problems being planning your diet. But if you are able to plan smartly, which most people can, then you can have a much healthier diet. Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, two companies that make great veggie burgers that taste, I would say, like 95% like real meat, are two great alternatives for meat. If you are worried that they are too expensive, never fear, as Impossible for instance is planning on mass-producing their products by 2022, which will decrease the price as low, if not lower than actual meat.
What do you mean? I would kill a plant over a rabbit, deer, pig, dog, etc any day. Why? Because plants don't feel pain or have a nervous system. Plants only have defensive mechanisms to prevent organisms from eating them, such as some plants killing bugs through chemicals, such as with basil and how it kills mosquito eggs. Besides, even IF killing plants is unethical, we use almost half of our crops to feed animals, so no longer supporting the meat industry would actually lead to fewer plant deaths, not more
One, don't mention PETA. They are a disgusting organization and everyone knows it. Two, if you have animals in an actually happy environment, they still have no wish to die, and will still be being killed unjustifiably. Three, meat would skyrocket, and most people, even in 1st world countries, would no longer be able to eat meat because they could not afford it. Four, it still would not be a happy environment for the animals, as they would still most likely be separated from their parents. It would especially be hard on creatures like cows, who have been proven to actually have friends, and because they would probably be transported to places a good amount of times in their lives, they would constantly be separated from their friends.
Oh yes, the common argument "Hey well we did it in the past because of our instincts so why not still do it". Well, news flash, we live in a society now. We have rules, laws, and morals. In the era of our history where we did not have society and rules, and simply acted out on instinct, we did many other things, including hunting and eating meat. I will include some.
1) Forcefully mate with females who wish not to do so
2) Kill a leader of another group of humans, whether that be for a territorial dispute or whatnot, we still did it.
3) Torture enemies of another human group after defeating them. Ah yes, let us go to back to the golden days where we could eat meat, along with rape, kill, and torture other human beings. What a lovely era in our history.
Many rich plantation owners used slaves, who they would beat and treat horribly, so it is obvious that they enjoy having slaves. Just because people enjoy meat, doesn't make the meat industry morally right. This is a debate about ethics, not whether or not people enjoy meat. Besides, as I said earlier, there are meat alternatives that are increasingly becoming cheaper, healthier, and overall better and tasting much more like meat.
Raping a female to spread your genetics is also a survival instinct, but now we have society, mate, and in a society, we have rules and morals and seek to abandon our natural instincts, instead of living like animals.
Also, you still have not answered my question, what trait do humans have that animals do not have that gives us the right to eat and torture them just because it gives us momentary satisfaction?
Vegetarian Diets Are Healthy if not healthier: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446#:~:text=Vegetarian%20diets%20continue%20to%20increase,%2C%20sugar%2C%20fat%20and%20sodium.
Impossible Burger will be cheaper than real meat: https://uproxx.com/life/impossible-burger-cheaper-than-meat/
Plants don't feel pain: https://www.britannica.com/story/do-plants-feel-pain#:~:text=Given%20that%20plants%20do%20not,the%20animal%20kingdom%20understand%20it.
Most of our crops go to feeding animals: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat#:~:text=%22More%20than%20half%20the%20U.S.,for%20more%20than%20a%20decade.
Dropped Points:
- Concession within the resolution
- Definition variations
I technically have these two that are basically undefeatable. Using them and leave it be, however, would be unfair. I will continue using the wagon provided above.
Depending on meat
As my opponent said, the meat industry of people who literally NEED meat(not just want, like the filthy rich bourgeoisie) and depend on meat to live is justified. And it is, because if the meat industry save lives, why would we sacrifice lives not in our civilization's service to save lives that are in our civilization's service parameter? It is not justified whatsoever to claim that people that literally depend on meat needs no meat whatsoever and hence starve them just to save pigs and cows.
The industry saves said people[1].
If a part of what the meat industry is doing is justified, then it would be justified to support THAT thing. Who did that? The meat industry. My opponent agrees that one thing that the meat industry is doing is justified, and by supporting that action, we technically have justified supporting the meat industry.
It is not justified to support everything done by the Meat industry but it is justified to support some. Supporting some is still supporting the meat industry, and here you go.
This is technically a concession and please vote Pro.
Individual rebuttals
Yes, you can have a vegetarian and/or vegan diet. Vegetarian and/or vegan diets have been shown to be just as healthy, if not healthier than meat diets, one of the biggest problems being planning your diet. But if you are able to plan smartly, which most people can, then you can have a much healthier diet. Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, two companies that make great veggie burgers that taste, I would say, like 95% like real meat, are two great alternatives for meat. If you are worried that they are too expensive, never fear, as Impossible for instance is planning on mass-producing their products by 2022, which will decrease the price as low, if not lower than actual meat.
My opponent hit himself with a ton of meat, clearly.
The public, who eats food every single day, does not recognize a food by their origins, apparently but solely their eating experience and appearance. I would argue that the definitions would be incomplete since Artificial meat, which exists[2], would not be meat due to that they aren't actually flesh taken from an animal. That being said, it imposes no differences, at least to the consumer, compared to the average, "unethically and painfully slaughtered meat" we have. Therefore, Artificial meat would be considered meat even if it is not directly taken as flesh from an animal.
Well, some considers it actually meat and some don't, and:
- If it is, then lab-grown meat is considered a part of meat industry, and since it imposes little pain(only taking little tissue and then the process is in the lab), then lab-grown meat is considered non-unethical in the meat industry.
- If it is not, then it is justified that the standards of food according to the masses comes from its apperance from the senses, meaning that plant-based alternative meat is also to be considered meat.
- Either way, there are ethical treatments of meat within the meat industry.
Also, you still have not answered my question, what trait do humans have that animals do not have that gives us the right to eat and torture them just because it gives us momentary satisfaction?
We don't, but we have meat that doesn't unethically torture them.
Supporting the artificial-meat industry(Cell-based and Plant-based) is not anything unethical. I end my case here.
Sources
Round 3
People who live in 3rd world countries do not buy from the meat industries themselves, but either raise their animals or buy them from their own village or wherever they may live. The meat industry panders to people in 1st world countries, not 3rd world countries. Please vote con
This debate isn't, again, about what the public thinks of eating meat. We are talking about whether supporting the meat industry is justified or not, because of their horribly unethical practices. Also, your assumption that just because people know that plant-based meat tastes like meat then it is meat is insane. That isn't how it works. Regardless of whether people recognize that plant-based meat, which is supposed to taste like meat, is actually meat does not matter. The difference between plant-based meat and real meat is that plant-based meat is much more environmentally friendly, and still much more ethical.
You mention lab-grown meat, but completely ignore the fact that it is
1) Still expensive and
2) Still tastes horribly bad. It is nowhere near the level of fake meat,
Besides, we are talking about the meat industry as of now, not the work of scientists. Not to mention, it might actually be as bad, if not worse for the environment than real meat.
Yes, there are ethical treatments in the meat industry, but those are far and few between. Also, you are still keeping animals captive to take their stem cells, which could still be argued as unethical.
Again, we are not talking about the research of lab-grown meat. It seems like you are trying to change the subject to get away from the actual meat industry, which puts chickens inside of a blender as babies and makes pigs go mentally insane.
Instead of simply just refuting his points, I will be also putting more of my points. I think I have strayed too much into the morals and ethics of this debate, and have forgotten about the environmental reasons on why the meat industry is unjustifiably torturing animals, so I will focus more on that.
As many of you reading this probably know, the meat industry produces quite a lot of greenhouse gasses. But it is probably a very little amount, right? Actually, that is incorrect. We constantly hear how much planes, trains, and automobiles produce a lot of greenhouse gasses that further contribute to climate change, but what if I were to tell you that the meat industry actually produces more greenhouse gasses than the entirety of the transportation industry? Well, many of you probably know that, but it's still shocking, at least to me, nonetheless every time I remember that fact. If my opponent continues to mention lab meat as if this is what the debate is about, I would like to mention the first link I have given, which shows that lab-grown meat would either not change the meat industries impact on the environment, but quite possibly make it worse.
To produce a kilo of beef takes quite a lot of resources. How many? 25 kilos of grain, 15,000 litres of water, and a lot of lands. It is estimated that a whopping 30% of our land is used for the meat industry, land that could easily be used to house the less fortunate, land that could be used to make crops that could allow every single man, woman, and child on the planet go to sleep with full bellies. Imagine all the people that could have had that wheat and water, but hey if meat tastes good then what's a couple starving babies, right?
Also, if you think I am exaggerating when I say that all humans could be fed if we just used all our grain for humans, then look at my links below. We could feed an extra 3.5 billion people, and that is not including the amount of land previously used by factory farms that we could then recreate into crops. Although, the majority of previously factory-farmed land would probably be converted into places like forests and such for wildlife, which is a good thing.
Also, an interesting fact that I have recently discovered. You know-how millions of children will never be able to have antibiotics, and then drop dead one day? Well, apparently, the meat industry is using 80% of antibiotics on farm animals. But hey, if millions of children dying because they can't get antibiotics mean having that deliciously juicy burger on the Fourth of July, go at it.
The meat industry also, obviously, produces manure, which contains heavy metals and salts, which pollute water, which not only affects unfortunate people but also kills aquatic life, which obviously isn't a good thing.
Lab-grown meat is worse: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/22/18235189/lab-grown-meat-cultured-environment-climate-change
Meat industries impact on climate change: https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-meat-on-your-plate-is-killing-the-planet-76128#:~:text=Livestock%20farming%20has%20a%20vast,produced%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%20worldwide.
The meat industry, shocker, is still bad: https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-factory-farms-and-environment
Conclusion: The meat industry is unethical, and a huge environmental concern, more of one than most people even know. The meat industry murders and kills animals simply to give people a small shot of dopamine for a momentary amount of time. So, no supporting the meat industry is in no way justified. My opponent is trying to bring up lab-based meat and shows that as proof of ethics in the meat industry, but that does not work, because almost nobody buys lab-grown meat, and lab-grown meat is still in the development stage. Furthermore, it is still unethical in some ways, and still environmentally hazardous. Vote con
Rebuttals
People who live in 3rd world countries do not buy from the meat industries themselves, but either raise their animals or buy them from their own village or wherever they may live. The meat industry panders to people in 1st world countries, not 3rd world countries. Please vote con.
It is arguable that their own independent dealing system within the 3rd world settlements can still be considered a part of the meat industry as there are production and purchase, although independent from the larger organizations which we consider to be a part of the meat industry. Just because there is a meat industry in the 1st world nations doesn't mean there isn't in 3rd world nations.
It is obviously immoral and unethical to strip the 3rd world citizens from meat. 3rd world citizens could depend on meat and my opponent agrees that we should not strip them of meat.
I would also like to reinforce what "Meat industry" is. If an industry deals with mainly meat it is to be considered a "Meat industry". My opponent never even defined anything here and I have used this for 3 rounds.
Also, your assumption that just because people know that plant-based meat tastes like meat then it is meat is insane. That isn't how it works. Regardless of whether people recognize that plant-based meat, which is supposed to taste like meat, is actually meat does not matter. The difference between plant-based meat and real meat is that plant-based meat is much more environmentally friendly, and still much more ethical.
In summary, "Plant-based meat is not meat because it is more ethical than 'real meat'". This makes no sense, as we either take its biology or its consumer experience. If Plant-based meat is very similar to animal flesh in both the microstructure and the macrostructure, it is to be considered actual meat.
Vegetable made to be meat is altered composition so they are structurally more "meat-like"(biologically) and as a result, identical to normal animal-meat to the consumers. It is safe to consider vegan meat Meat.
I do not need to contend the fact that vegan meat is indeed healthier and more eco-friendly. If it bears these two traits then it is just to support the Vegan-meat industry, which since vegan meat is meat, it is a part of the meat industry. I could definitely support the meat industry and push towards a brighter future: A future in which there is no immoral slaughters, but just meat made of vegetables that are nevertheless still meat.
Lots of people like meat and lots of people need meat. Vegan meat is meat and it is better. Supporting vegan meat is nothing unjustified.
I will quote Doctor Who for once[2].
The way I see it, every life is a pile of good things and bad things. The good things don’t always soften the bad things, but vice versa, the bad things don’t always spoil the good things and make them unimportant.
The same here. The bad things the meat industry has done does not undermine the good things it has done. Religion? Killed millions, but religious activity has made people better also. Supporting religion is nothing bad because if we support the goods it has done in the name of religion and causes not harm, it is justified. We can't say we can't support religion just because it killed millions. China? Also killed millions, but is economically growing in rapid speeds. If we just don't support China in the sake of "They killed millions of people", then it would miss the good things it has done, making the values unfair.
My opponent is judging the meat industry only on its evils, and has not considered the benefits it has done. If one evil can completely undermine the good it has done, then nothing is justified whatsoever, which isn't true at all.
The same principle applied here. We can just support the vegan meat industry because it is still "meat industry". Supporting any meat industry that is justified in itself is justified, and there are such examples.
I conclude.
Can you remove my vote to correct my grammatical errors?
I almost did the exact same thing, I was halfway through voting when I remembered that Inteli was Pro, and Imminent was Con, xD
Can Trent recite so it is more clear?
No I didn't correct my misuse of Pro and Con
No matter how good I am I can’t deny things that exist. It would require me to play rhetorics in order to win.
I suppose I'll weigh in
Did you revote
I messed up Pro and Con a few times in my vote.
would you like to debate con's intended topic? "It is justified to support the current state of meat industry in 1st world countries". I'll take either side.
I think Con wanted to debate, "It is justified to support the current state of meat industry in 1st world countries". Being more specific helps.
Intelligence can definitely be beaten, even in this debate, I just think Imminent could have started off with a better case, forcing the BoP on Con, and having an easy time rebutting Intelligence.
Well, I suppose we will see if my strategy works then
That won’t work with intelligence. If you read Oromagi debates, he always starts off very strong and he has never been beaten
I suppose yeah... but it wouldn't it better to do that while having a stronger case?
My second argument is a lot stronger. I tend to start off weak because usually people will start off strong and pour out a lot of their points at once, and then I can attack all their points they just made, while now revealing all my points, which makes people struggle immensely in an argument
Wow... I am.... very underwhelmed..... Um.... maybe it's a bait? That's all I can see. A bait and switch is the best this argument could be.
Really, is that all you have for 30000?
that wasn't as nearly as strong as I expected for your username, lol.
let's just hope Imminent Downfall isn't as strong as Undefeatable, lol. I think he was daunted by his own research. If Bsh1 was con I would not want to be pro.
I had debates where I opened up 30,000 characters but ended up using only 5000 of them.
yeah sure why not
eh... yeah. But look at the character count. This guy's gonna destroy any egoist argument possible. If it was 15k it would be a bit harder, but 30k means he gets infinite time to weigh the environmental effects to ultimately harm yourself (you eat meat, and your lungs get polluted). Egoism doesn't work here. Kant's Universalism might work if we can convincingly show reformation can assist the animals well enough.
An ethical egoist could justify it from a moral perspective.
Nice topic. I'll be skipping out of this one because I know Con has two strong angles of attack (moral + environment), which is pitted against potential solutions (no obligation, financial gain, reformations, cultural necessity). But Pro side is very difficult to support, and I'm not confident that I can keep my namesake. XD