On balance, do LGBTQ people in the United States who make an income of over 80,000 USD DESERVE to eat meat?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
- Written in the description of the debate
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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/
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.
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.
- No response. PRO does not deny that rearing meat animals are essentially the state-sanctioned torture of millions of innocent animals.
- No response. CON interprets that PRO accepts the frequently touted false distinction between animals and humans.
- No response. CON sees it fit to reasonably interpret that PRO does not deny that rearing meat animals is slavery.
- 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.
"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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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-
- 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.
Novice R1:
The meat industry self-evidently does not practice rape and slavery. It's so ridiculous to say otherwise that I had to point it out. Pointing out that people making more than $80K USD annually means they can afford to not eat meat and that it's healthier to have a vegan diet are preemptive rebuttals for points RMM could've but did not end up making, but they are effective in that regard. Nonetheless, they are just that: rebuttals. Therefore, they give no reason to believe the resolution, just show why not to believe reasons that the resolution should fail (those being people not being able to afford non-meat or needing it for health reasons).
They point out that some animals are more intelligent than humans. Sure, maybe some animals have complex emotion and consciousness to the point they have a right to life, but what about the animals that don't? This isn't something they explain. This casts doubt on that point because chimps are an incredibly small fraction of the global meat market and much dumber animals (like pigs or cows) make up the lion's share. Since this is an on-balance resolution, it's flimsy at best. They talk about the torture of animals, but what if it's meat from a cow that hasn't been tortured and was slaughtered humanely? In that example, there's not a single case of a person who doesn't deserve to eat that meat. Even if most meat is from tortured and slaughtered animals and therefore nobody deserves to eat it, that just means they don't deserve to eat most meat, not that they don't deserve to eat meat in most cases (which is what the resolution is regarding). Said differently: this debate is about "not deserving to eat meat in most cases". What it isn't about is "not deserving to eat most meat." This point only demonstrates the latter, which isn't what this debate is about.
RMM Round 1:
RMM explains why the resolution would, in fact, lead to a higher percentage of meat being produced inhumanely because less people would be buying humanely produced meat, pushing companies to produce cheaper meat. This argument has enough validity to at least pull the debate in RMM's favour somewhat, meaning he's winning at the end of R1 because Novice presented no reasonable affirmation of the resolution.
Novice Round 2:
The income and diet things are irrelevant. They're preemptive rebuttals to points that RMM didn't make and they don't help Novice's case. RMM talked about how high earners help increase the amount of meat that is humanely produced, not how some people can't afford to not eat meat. RMM didn't even talk about diet. Novice provides no further affirmation of the resolution, only rebuttals.
By the end of Novice's 2nd speech, it doesn't even matter what RMM says. Novice has failed to affirm the resolution in substantial way and RMM wins by default. RMM provided some reasoning to believe the resolution should fall that was not successfully taken down by Novice. In contrast to the irrelevant points Novice made, RMM wins in that regard too.
In short:
Con wishes to protect animals from wealthy gay people, in a proposal that pro is able to show would actually be harmful to said animals.
...
Tortured animals:
Con argues that no one deserves to eat meat because animal cruelty is bad.
Pro argues that wealthy people buying meat causes the meat industry to produce higher quality meat using less torture.
Con argues he did not read pro's replies, and they therefore do not exist.
Cannibalism:
Con argues that eating meat is secretly cannibalism and slavery. This is just too big of a leap in logic to take seriously.
Pro's responses about hunted animals really should have been in R1 instead of R2.
Vegans:
Con argues that vegans are healthier, and it decreases the number of animals raised for slaughter.
Pro counters that less animals would live (intuitively leveraging the better quality of life lived by the organic farm raised cows and such).
Con repeats that less animals would die.
Economics:
Pro leverages massive harm to the economy inherent to the proposal. And further that buying nice organic meat is a deserved reward for capitalistic success within our economy.
Con counters with a Institutional Kritik comparing the meat industry to the African slave trade, but this misses the mark by way too much; failing to really refute pros points (particularly the earlier one about harm to animals).
This is what happens when you write debate resolutions with Mad-Libs.
This is what Marjorie Taylor Greene's twitter sounds like
Most likely a Kritik of no one deserves to eat meat.
WTF? This topic is weird. Is this a joke?
What is this topic-