Instigator / Con
8
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3431
On balance, do LGBTQ people in the United States who make an income of over 80,000 USD DESERVE to eat meat?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
Deserve: do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment).
Meat:
1. Red Meat: All livestock is considered red meat. This includes beef, pork, goat, and lamb.
2. Poultry: Commonly referred to as white meat, poultry includes chicken and turkey.
3. Seafood: That includes fish, as well as crustaceans, like crab and lobster, and molluscs, like clams, oysters, scallops, and mussels.
Eat: put (food) into the mouth and chew and swallow it.
USD: United States Dollars
BOP: Shared
Round 1
Resolved: On balance, do LGBTQ people in the United States who make an income of over 80,000 USD DESERVE to eat meat?
FRAMEWORK
- Written in the description of the debate
OVERVIEW
- Deserve means to have done something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment LGBTQ).
- LGBTQ people have done nothing to deserve to eat the flesh of killed animals because there is nothing they can do that will make them entitled to the consumption of tortured and slaughtered animals.
TORTURE OF ANIMALS
- Eating meat directly stimulates a market that produces food with the torture, rape, and killing of animals [3]. The question here is done LGBTQ people deserve to benefit from torture, rape, and killing. I don't believe they do.
ANIMALS vs HUMANS
- There are reasons people argue we deserve to kill and eat animals.
- The most common factor is believed to be intelligence. However, "there are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability, for example" [6]. If no one deserves to kill and eat the remains of those humans, we should only conclude no one deserves to kill and eat the remains of meat animals.
SLAVERY
- Forcefully rearing meat animals for food, torturing and killing them, etc. is slavery. Seeing as this is held as a commonplace wrong I assume eating the remains of slaves is wrong as well. Therefore, as no one deserves to eat the remains of dead slaves, LGBTQ people don't deserve to do so either.
INCOME
- According to the U.S census as of 2020, the median salary for a four-person household is $68,400 per year. Remember this resolution is discussing LGBTQ people. That means for our debate, each one of these people makes 12,000 more than the average income for a four-person family.
- There may be an argument that some people can't afford other products therefore they have no choice but to eat meat. However, when you make an 80,000 dollar individual income which places you in the top 26.57% [2] of income earners, this objection becomes inapplicable.
DIET
- Studies have shown that "Numerous studies have shown that a vegetarian diet is one of the most effective for maintaining health. Plant-based diets are healthier than diets where meat is consumed, whether measured by the occurrence of heart disease, cancer, or death" [4].
- This means that vegan diets are superior to those that include meat in nearly every way. If someone makes 80,000 thousand a year they don't need to eat meat because there are so many alternatives that don't stimulate the slavery of animals.
- "By going vegan for a month, you would not only save 30 animal lives but also 620 pounds of harmful carbon dioxide emissions" [5]. Just one month of veganism would save 30 animals and reduce harmful pollution.
CONCLUSION
- LGBTQ people don't deserve to eat meat. There is ultimately nothing they can do that will justify not taking an action that can save the lives of at least 30 enslaved animals.
SOURCES
- https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/is-80k-a-good-salary
- https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/the-one-percent/
- https://www.lcanimal.org/index.php/campaigns/other-issues/factory-farming
- https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/02/07/a-skeptical-look-at-popular-diets-vegetarian-is-healthy-if-you-tread-carefully/
- https://www.veestro.com/blogs/food-for-thought/what-difference-can-one-person-make-by-going-vegan
- https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/animals-are-not-as-intelligent-or-advanced-as-humans/
Pro is doing a lot of conflation between what would be the desired outcome from an action and the actual (let alone alternatively desirable) outcome. One example of this is presuming that if wealthy LGBTQ people were to boycott meat, that the meat industry and the farmers would respond by just straight up going out of business... Not quite. That's not an economically savvy response to the pressure from the wealthy, instead luxury meats would go out of business or at least have less demand and the industry would shift even more towards catering towards the lower and middle class, with more vicious low-price-level competition in all kinds of meat (the description says 'red meat', 'poultry' and 'seafood' where it defines seafood as including all fish. There is no way at all that the adaptation taken will not be simply to kill less shellfish, oysters etc and to aim at cheaper meat like chicken to be produced at even higher rates by cheaper methods.
Factory Farming Systems Monopolize the Supply Chain
Factory farms generally operate within what’s known as a vertically integrated system, where large companies control the entire supply chain—from the animals on the farm all the way to the processing and distribution plants. This means that factory farms pay significantly less to get their products to market than higher-welfare farms do, allowing them to charge less at the grocery store.
UK case study: cheap imports
Cheap meat found on UK supermarket shelves comes with hidden costs that are not reflected in the purchase price. The majority of this cheap meat is imported and can only be produced at such low costs by disregarding animal welfare laws, over-using antibiotics and polluting the air and water.
76% of the UK food market is controlled by just four companies. This monopolised market is both costly and unhealthy; the concentrated nature of the market means that our access to the food supply, and the price that we pay for it, is dependent on the decisions of a few key corporations.
Why do pig factories exist?The aim of pig factories is to produce as much meat at the lowest possible cost possible to meet the rising global demand for cheap protein while making the largest profit. Livestock production has grown increasingly more industrialised compromising not only animal welfare but also our health, local economies and the environment.
^ all 3
^ further references for claims made in the quotes, inside.
If you are confused what my justification is for the fact that significantly wealthy LGTBTQ people in America boycotting leading to a shift towards cheaper meat instead of animals being spared, you need to perhaps think beyond just supply and demand and imagine how a corporation dedicated to high-end luxury meat would adjust to the reduction in demand for a now oversupplied product in the higher-end priced line of competing.
Who then is saved? It would actually become akin to mass abortion of a being (could be humans according to Pro they are essnetially equal) to stop them living a life out where they get slaugthered later. See, farms are not going to just 'not kill' animals and keep these cute cows as pets. They are going to breed less so less will ever get a chance to live and experience life.
It is extremely likely that the market will shift towards cheaper meats, factory farming will be done more, increasing the percentage of animals being mistreated. A high-end costing cut of beef probably came from a wealthy farmer making organic meat. The rich can afford organic meat and actually almost, with a boycott like this, could lead to a serious dent that drives organic farmers out of business because it is likely that they could peer pressure other wealthy people to cut down on meat consumption after this mass-boycott (at first at least).
Most importantly is the idea of 'deserve'. The fact is even if it's morally reprehensible to Pro, even if it's a double standard humans have toward other species, it is the right of those who own wealth to use that wealth to purchase legally available products in a Capitalist system. What Pro is arguing is not much about deserving and instead is about if they should choose not to purchase meat in spite of having the deserved right to.
Private property rights are central to a capitalist economy, its execution, and its legal defenses. Capitalism is built on the free exchange of goods and services between different parties, and nobody can rightfully trade property they do not own. Conversely, property rights provide a legal framework for prosecuting aggression against non-voluntary means of acquiring resources; there is no need for capitalist trade in a society where people could simply take from others what they want by force or the threat of force.
Round 2
TORTURE OF ANIMALS
- No response. PRO does not deny that rearing meat animals are essentially the state-sanctioned torture of millions of innocent animals.
ANIMALS vs HUMANS
- No response. CON interprets that PRO accepts the frequently touted false distinction between animals and humans.
SLAVERY
- No response. CON sees it fit to reasonably interpret that PRO does not deny that rearing meat animals is slavery.
INCOME/DIET
- By arguing on somewhat of an appeal to legality, CON interprets that PRO implicitly concedes that these people do not need to eat meat primarily because vegan diets are potentially better for the body, and secondly because they make an income of over 80,000 dollars individually, over the average income of a 4 person household.
- I agree that the meat industry would not simply go out of business, but it is simply a fact that going vegan would save the lives of animals.
- Some of the largest studies and the trusted bodies of research have analyzed data provided by the United Nations itself. These studies have shown that "by eating a plant-based diet, an individual saves the lives of 105 animals, it concluded" [3]. These studies were assisted by the largest facilities of data available and they along with the previous study I cited in round one have come to the same conclusion. Going vegan saves animal lives no matter how you spin it.
DESERVE?
"Most importantly is the idea of 'deserve'. The fact is even if it's morally reprehensible to Pro, even if it's a double standard humans have toward other species, it is the right of those who own wealth to use that wealth to purchase legally available products in a Capitalist system. What Pro is arguing is not much about deserving and instead is about if they should choose not to purchase meat in spite of having the deserved right to"
- CON interprets that PRO appears to have implicitly acknowledged that eating meat is morally reprehensible and double standard humans have towards other species.
- I am not arguing that these people deserve the right to purchase meat at all. PRO's argument can be parsed into this syllogism.
P1) People deserve to purchase legally available products
P2) Animal products are legally available products
C) Pople deserve to purchase animal products
- However, the argument fails in that it assumes that
- The law is infallible
- People deserve to do things just because they are legal
- The law is far from perfect in any sense, and we all know the law has produced some of the most grievous outcomes in human history such as the holocaust or the Salem witch trials. Just because a product is legally available does not mean people deserve to purchase it in a moral sense.
- As a more tangible example, 53 countries currently do not consider child pornography a crime [2]. In these countries, it is as my opponent describes, a product available in a market economy. However, we must ask ourselves, what have these people done to deserve to freely use products created with the sexual exploration of children. There are no qualities that make someone worthy of exploitation.
- We can thus observe that CON's argument fails in many ways. In addition to child pornography which is legal in many countries, Black people were also once considered legal property. As you can illustrate CON's argument would also assert that:
P1) People deserve to purchase legally available products
P2) Black people are legally available products
C) People deserve to purchase black people
- George Washington lost his teeth in his early 20's. As a result of this had a set of teeth made for him to function as dentures. They were teeth pulled from the mouths of African American slaves [1].
- Does he deserve these teeth? Of course not. They were forcefully taken from an exploited group that had no say in their enslavement and torture.
CON's own source says that "there is no need for capitalist trade in a society where people could simply take from others what they want by force or the threat of force."
- This is what the meat industry does to animals. It takes their lives, children, and resources away from them. CON does not dispute that meat farming is slavery, and his sources would have us believe that it is immoral to take from others with the threat of force, the very same thing we do to animals.
CONCLUSION
- Deserve means doing something or having or showing qualities worthy of (reward or punishment), and there is ultimately nothing one can do, or has done that makes them worthy of benefitting from slavery, torture, rape, and exploitation, especially when they are wealthy and have every alternative.
SOURCES
- https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/coard-george-washingtons-teeth-not-from-wood-but-slaves/article
- https://www.icmec.org/press/despite-increase-in-global-child-protection-laws-many-countries-still-do-not-consider-child-pornography-a-crime
- https://plantbasednews.org/culture/ethics/105-animals-saved-a-year-by-eating-plant-based-study-
MISTAKE CORRECTION: In round 1 replace all 'Pro' said by me with 'Con' I made a mistake as the second speaker and forgot the instigator was Pro, the rest all is correctly worded.
Actually, I responded to torture, which very cheap farming often can be. It is the wealthiest meats that often are often from the organically reared animas. I didn't deny that animals can feel things physically like humans can but I have not seen evidence that they react to 'slavery' the same at all. Pro has not explained the idea that farm animals crave 'freedom' and rights to move, do a job, smile and party etc like we do. That's specific to human emotions and habits.
Meat industry doesn't just involve strictly farmed animals, fish and shellfish are good examples of animals that are caught just as much (if not more) wild than in any sort of 'farmed' environment.
As for 'deserved', Con hasn't prove that they don't deserve to purchase the meat, all Con has proven is that they should opt out despite deserving the access to purchase it.
Con has made something clear then, in this final Round:
- The law is far from perfect in any sense, and we all know the law has produced some of the most grievous outcomes in human history such as the holocaust or the Salem witch trials. Just because a product is legally available does not mean people deserve to purchase it in a moral sense.
This blatantly implies that Con should be arguing to ban all meat purchasing from all income brackets but that was not the framework provided. Con never said non-LGBTQ people or the LGBTQ that earn less than 80k annually don't deserve to purchase meat.
Con also never explained anything against my abortion analogy. The animals aren't being saved from slaughter past the first generation, they just won't exist and fail to be bred.
In fact, if animal farming were to end what would actually happen is a mass-slaughter of animals or perhaps putting them to the wild where they have no clue how to fend for themselves.
This fits the theme of Con throughout the debate; never separating desired and/or one likely outcome from what really is the most probable one. Con's arguments suffer from severe idealistic impracticality. Mine consider the actual ramifications of following the plan laid out in the resolution.
Okay. I don't really have to engage with such an obvious bad faith and dishonest statement other than to point out it is bad faith and dishonest
Oh look, Novice is freaking out and accusing everyone who voted against him of being stupid and biased against him. Color me shocked.
Stay mad
In no way did oromagi gish gallop you. He just went through your arguments point-by-point.
Let me start by saying I do not care if you are a trans person no matter how many times you mention it. Of course, we must see your daily reminder. While you whine that this site is heavily based against you, this isn't true in any way, and I could care less about your attempts to proport self pity.
1. "half a dozen people"
Learn to count.
2. "the problem is that you're an idiot"
Projecting.
ADoL doesn't debate as to avoid the ad populum fallacy.
If you stop debating, it will be to avoid recognizing that you could even in some minor way improved your debating.
As a trans person having to justify my own existence regularly on this site that's heavily biased against me, I can tell you that it's bias plays a factor, but it's not insurmountable. When you have half a dozen people including the most active and reputable debaters on the site representing a vast array of biases and perspectives all simultaneously telling you that you lost because you debated poorly, your claims to bias are nothing more than vain tantrum of a child who refuses to recognize that they might have, at the very least, failed to communicate their logic effectively.
I'm creating my own debate on a very similar resolution today just to show you that the problem isn't bias, the problem is that you're an idiot.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter specifically covers a wide variety of arguments from the debate, includes specific points made by both sides under those arguments, and determines the outcome of the debate on that basis. That is sufficient to award argument points.
Sign up for coaching from me, I will make you vicious.
And do you know who will know your new account? Whiteflame, Supadudz and potentially... Barney.
That is the mod team.
I will make my new account, maybe go on an undefeated run, and then hang it up for good I think. It's just been ruined for me.
I would absolutely beat you on that topic, but I am just not interested in debates anymore after all the issues I have had with voters.
I have conceded to ADOL, debates on this site are just...not worth it. The joy is gone because of how many people vote with spite and use
their bias and personal issues in the voting block.
So that's why I have not accepted.
You've asked me to debate you.
You've expressed confidence that you could beat me in a debate on the 2020 election.
You've been invited to accept that very debate.
Why haven't you accepted? That debate expires tomorrow.
I'm just telling you in case you believe you have made a valid point, I suppose.
Sure, thanks? I mean the truth never fails. It's like I said, I don't feel well, today. It has already cost me a debate, and I'm not totally upset if it costs me a gish gallop.
"everything you have said is wrong,"
Brilliant comeback
I can't respond to your gish gallop but essentially everything you have said is wrong, especially on the genetic fallacy.
"The author... who wrote his own guide to debating can definitely leave a mediocrevote."
The claim I am refuting is "Ragnar does not understand how to vote in debates" I have not read the debate or Ragnar's vote and have no opinion on either. I am refuting Novice's manifestly false claim that Ragnar does not understand the voting process on DART when in fact, Ragnar more or less IS the voting process on DART.
"One thing I should mention is that I actually like Barney, as my narrow general default liking for everyone extends to him. I am saying these things to help ham because he has to understand these things. No ill will from my side, it is, I promise, out of concern"
In future, I suggest you lead with Smeagol
"This is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is saying someone falls under the label of an insult therefore their conclusion is false. "
Argumentum ad hominem is "an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. "
Barney is an idiot
Barney is incompetent.... he is simply too stupid
Barney is an imbecile
Classic ad hom without any supporting argument. In context, this is bullying the voter with insults to try to get the voter to change their vote. Extremely poor conduct.
p1) People who aren't stupid can vote effectively
Easily falsified. Many intelligent people fail to vote effectively because they prioritize personal loyalties, or lack education, vote single issue, are too lazy to vote, etc.
p2) Barney is stupid
Easily falsified. A 20 minute scan of Ragnar's dominant rhetorical performances on DDO and DART demonstrate why he has been recognized as a leader in online debating for years.
c) Therefore, Barney cannot vote effectively
Formal Aristotelean violation there, bub. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a formal fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion and one or two negative premises. Even if your major premise were not manifestly false, it provides no information about stupid people much less how stupid people vote. Rationally, one may not infer that stupid people cannot vote effective just because non-stupid people can.
Conclusion: Novice cannot even logic much less argue much less take advice
The author of the vague voting standards of DART who wrote his own guide to debating can definitely leave a mediocre (or less than mediocre but not entirely poor) vote.
There is no guaranteed correlation there, he may of course be inclined to not leave a vote that totally violates the rules but that by no means he leaves a good one.
"Just because someone created or playeda role in creating somthing, it does not follow that they automatically can (in practice) excersize such fucntion based on the criteria they may have created to a sufficent degree. For example: Thomas Jefferson the parimary writer of the declaration of independence clearly documented that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" but he also had slaves."
Poor comprehension of the genetic fallacy and therefore shit description. A GENETIC FALLACY is "a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the irrelevant source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence." So if you were debating "Let's put gay people in concentration camps" or whatever, Thomas Jefferson would not be a particularly relevant source in spite of his manifest erudition and genetic fallacy might apply. However, If you are going to argue that Thomas Jefferson does not know much about the Declaration of Independence then you are going to look like an idiot.
In this instance you are claiming "Ragnar doesn't know how to vote on DART." The facts that Ragnar is the most prolific voter on the site and that Ragnar authored the rules you claim he does not know are 100% relevant to topic and utterly devastating to the case of any rational claimant. By definition, the author of any work is an expert on that work's contents.
Do you understand the actual level of skill I even displayed in this debate?
I am not meaning to insult you, I am asking if you caught onto what happened... You seem to always think you outperformed the other because you did decent, that doesn't mean the other didn't outclass you.
I entered a bait-resolution, utilising the very parts of it you thought were good for bait and made that into the actual way that I limited the amount of people boycotting meat and noticed they were wealthy...
Over time, I made the very cunning element of your case encase you in an inescapable web of Burden-of-Proof that you couldn't meet in a 2-Round 5k-per-Round 1-day-deadline restricted environment.
You don't understand or appreciate how well I did in this because you are completely incapable of putting your ego aside for a moment and questioning if I was your equal, let alone superior in an encounter where you default yourself to the best.
The debate shouldn't harm your sanity.
It's a pretty quick read, and only two rounds.
I am very sick currently so I wanted to make those responses to be clear about them.
One thing I should mention is that I actually like Barney, as my narrow general default liking for everyone extends to him. I am saying these things to help ham because he has to understand these things. No ill will from my side, it is, I promise, out of concern
"It is possible you don't know that under another username, Ragnar is not just the top voter on this site, he is also an author of some of the voting standards. He wrote the rules you are claiming he doesn't understand."
Genetic fallacy or fallacy of origins. Just because someone created or playeda role in creating somthing, it does not follow that they automatically can (in practice) excersize such fucntion based on the criteria they may have created to a sufficent degree. For example: Thomas Jefferson the parimary writer of the declaration of independence clearly documented that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" but he also had slaves.
"oof. do you not know what the fuck you are talking about. If you think ad homs in comments section are going to win you points, then you are the dummy. You got to be cool in your debate demeanor, cool in comments, classier than your opponent- that's how you win debates. Sour grapes convinces no voters"
This is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is saying someone falls under the label of an insult therefore their conclusion is false. Barney is wrong for all the reasons I will be documenting behind the scenes. I am saying here that:
p1) People who aren't stupid can vote effectively
p2) Barney is stupid
c) Therefore, Barney cannot vote effectively
So I am saying he is stupid to justify the conclusion that he cannot vote effectively, while being stupid appears to be one of the reasons, it is not all of them. I'm just seeking alternative means because of this trait.
"Either he just doesn't know or understand how to vote in debates, "
It is possible you don't know that under another username, Ragnar is not just the top voter on this site, he is also an author of some of the voting standards. He wrote the rules you are claiming he doesn't understand.
"he is simply too stupid to do it effectively, "
oof. do you not know what the fuck you are talking about. If you think ad homs in comments section are going to win you points, then you are the dummy. You got to be cool in your debate demeanor, cool in comments, classier than your opponent- that's how you win debates. Sour grapes convinces no voters.
I want to vote on this debate, but I fear that reading through more than a few paragraphs would obliterate my sanity.
You're welcome to explain how the vote "is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate."
Until then, you can continue your lazy barrage of ad hominem attacks, but it will only further reduce the odds of more voters weighing in on this debate.
Another thing to note, none of what I am saying is personal. You are simply objectively an idiot. I have no personal feelings twoards you, but I am trying to help you or provide assistance.
I think you are too incapable of understanding conversations meant for different people. By this I mean people who are perhaps more reasonable to different degrees. However I feel obligated to provide some sort of reassuring statement here so don't worry, it will be taken care of.
Now, as stupid and ridiculous as you are, It has been made clear to me that many other people (many of which have messaged me personally) actually have similar views as myself on you and your perpetual idiocy, so I believe I am fine in that regard.
Thank you for your extended concern.
Let me guess, whomever you had cross reference the vote to the debate found it highly topical due to directly paraphrasing several lines of contention?
Were you correct about the vote, you had an easy way to get it removed. As is, the extent to which you're factually wrong, speaks for itself. Worse, you've just told every potential voter how you'll behave towards them if their vote contains any of the same topics mine mentioned (which you insist none of came up in the debate).
Your condemnations of Barney's vote are continuously straying into personal attacks. If you have a problem with his vote, please keep your criticisms to the substance of that vote and take the focus off of Barney himself. He may be a mod, but that doesn't excuse the insults.
Have you tested your skills elsewhere and consistently been deemed the winner?
Are you sure that you are as skilled a debater as you think you are?
I am not asking to get under your skin while you are already hurt and angry. Instead, I am just telling you that we each have our own talents and lacked talents in debating. Learn to refinenyoyr style, make your debating martial art more invincible by refining it to even voters you think are stupid.
Try it or don't, the results will show in the long run. Debating for Rating is this way, it involves deception. The skill is in making voters think your opponent played either worse or dirtier.
You are not just reasoning, you are painting a picture, playing a tune... learn what your audience likes and how to make your opponent's art seem less appealing.
I think it's extremely pathetic, and it really hurts me to berate you in this way because I tend to be an extremely kind person, but it's for your own good.
I will even admit that this could be a case of your genuine stupidity, which appears to be more likely comming from you, but I hope I can use means behind the scenes to get the evaluations I would prefer. You are simply on too low of an level for me to even begin to provide any form of education to you, and honestly, you are over 30 years old. That was your teachers job.
> "Vote casted that is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate"
Were that true, any vote which considers the various arguments of yours I listed would be wholly invalid. Please have someone you trust check if your case does or does not contain the word "torture" as my vote indicates as a key point of contention. If it really doesn't contain that, I'll remove that vote right away. It's really that simple if I've posted a RFD for a different debate as you seem to think.
If it does contain it, then you're just repeating a pattern of having breakdowns whenever people don't declare you the winner just for showing up, and each time you're unable to actually name a real fault aside from it hurting your feelings.
Granted, I too would prefer if there were more active voters around.
Barney is an imbecile that would rather take out his personal issues rather than be objective.
My point was that wealthy people don't even have to eat meat, so the argument is that even if you made a counter that it is necessary to survive therefore they deserve its consumption, it would be irrelevant.
what I mean is that the resolution is about deserving to eat, not specifically to purchase.
So for instance if a non-LGBTQ friend hosted a gathering and the LGBTQ wealthy person ate meat there, they would violate the resolution but not violate your proposed attack on purchasing.
This was not really worth me sidetracking in the debate because I was fine with the framework that you'd laid out.
This keeps happening, but when it is a result of the same person constantly, I have no choice but to conclude that Barney is incompetent. Either he just doesn't know or understand how to vote in debates, he is simply too stupid to do it effectively, or he is excersizing an action of personal bias, which doesn't make sense to me. Even if you have something against me, why would it reflect in the voters tab?
What are you talking about? I meant eat meat? When did I say otherwise that I made a mistake?
Vote casted that is irrelevant to any aspect of the debate
The vote is not even relevant to anything, I don't even know what he is talking about. Barney is an idiot, so I understand the more cognitive reasons, but I can't keep taking this.
No, I'm tired of this. There is no way this vote is actually justified. This constantly happens.
The resolution says eat, Novice meant 'purchase' but I did not wish to Kritik that because I was happy to turn it against Novice.
I need to reread this before voting, it feels like I missed the point of the resolution the first time, leaving the debate a convoluted mess.
7 days to vote, please do.
I said Pro meant Con fuck
There is no reason why any of these arguments can't be turned around for normal people. Was that an oversight or an intended word-choice to make people confused?