1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Topic
#3775
The majority of animal agriculture in the United States is slavery [for @Oromagi]
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 7 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description
Is Animal Farming Slavery?
Full resolution: The majority of animal agriculture in the United States is slavery.
The burden of proof is shared:
Pro: The majority of Animal agriculture in the US is slavery.
Con: The majority of Animal agriculture in the US is not slavery.
Slavery: the state of being owned by another person.
Animal agriculture is the rearing of animals for resources/food consumption.
All rules, terms, and specifications of the debate are agreed upon by acceptance.
Only Oromagi or Barney can accept this debate. Anyone else accepting will result in an automatic loss.
Round 1
Framework
- Our framework is set by the description of the debate where all terms are defined and accepted.
- Slavery is the state of being owned by another person.
- Animal agriculture is the rearing of animals for resources/food consumption.
- The majority is greater than 50%.
I. Definitional
P1) Slavery is the state of being owned by another person.
P2) The majority of animal agriculture places animals in the state of being owned by another person.
C) The majority of animal agriculture is slavery.
- Premise one is definitional, with all terms being found in the description of our debate. Premise two, subsequently, is truistic. In animal agriculture, animals are owned as the property of their rearers. Observing domains such as animal husbandry, animals are exploited, and geared toward the production of certain resources. Given that "99 percent of animals in the US are raised on factory farms;" a system of farming in which a lot of animals are kept in a small closed area, in order to produce a large amount of meat, eggs, or milk as cheaply as possible, it goes without question that the majority, if not the entirety of animal agricultural processes categorically conform to the exploitation of animals, using them as resources for profit, taking them as profit, thus culminating in a description of slavery.
- My conclusion follows via the modus ponens rule of inference. Animal agriculture is the enslavement of sentient creatures, turning them into resources for human consumption.
II. Moral Equalization
P1) If x societal practice features the disparate treatment of different sentient individuals, there must be an ethically relevant distinction between the instigators and the recipients of x practice, such that x practice is justified as ethically permissible.
P2) Our current societal practices feature the disparate treatment of different sentient individuals (animals and humans).
C) Therefore, there must be an ethically relevant distinction between the instigators and the recipients of x practice, such that x practice is justified as ethically permissible.
- This syllogism effectively proposes that there must be an ethically relevant distinction between farm animals and humans that delineates the respective justifications for our societal actions towards them. It rests on two propositions:
Proposition a: If we can clearly recognize the slavery of humans, we can recognize that treating humans the way we treat farm animals would be slavery.
Proposition b: If there is no ethically relevant distinction between humans and animals, the way we treat farm animals is slavery.
- There are commonly many proposed distinctions, however, none of them are ethically relevant, and thus none of them showcase a justification for P2.
- a. Intelligence
- It would be untenable to suggest that a human of low intelligence, such as children, and those disabled (ex. severe down syndrome and other deformities) can be farmed, enslaved, and eaten by other human beings.
- a.b. Rationality
- The same case follows for rationality. It would be absurd to suggest that it would be ethically permissible for disabled humans, or young children, who are not rational, to be raised in factory farms to be enslaved and consumed.
- b. Species
- If there were a species that was sentiently identical to humans, it would be absurd to suggest they can be farmed, enslaved, and ultimately consumed by virtue of being non-human just as it would be to suggest the same if a population of humans over time evolved into a different species, but maintained the overwhelming majority of the same attributes.
- c. Citizenship
- It would be untenable to suggest we can farm, enslave, and consume non-citizens such as various immigrants.
- d. Consciousness
- Farm animals are conscious, (awake and aware of [their] surroundings) and it would be untenable to say we can consume anyone who is unconscious.
- e. Sentience
- Farm animals are sentient (able to perceive or feel things).
Verdict: none of these positions exhibit an ethical justification for the treatment of animals. As a consequence, animal farming is unquestionably slavery.
Conclusion
- My round-one arguments establish certain propositions. For one, animal agriculture is slavery, irrefutably, within the parameters of our deliberation. Animals are in a state of being owned by another person and thus enslaved.
- Secondly, I demonstrate that there is nothing true of animals, that if true of humans would categorically preclude slavery. Thus, animal farming must logically be slavery if doing the same to humans is slavery, so long as there is no ethically relevant distinction between the two.
- Conclusively, my first argument demonstrates the resolution to be a certainty. My second argument demonstrates the resolution to be a certainty.
Thx, Novice!
FRAMEWORK
- CON must show that the majority of animal agriculture in the US is not slavery.
DEFINITIONS:
- PRO has provided a customized definition without any dictionary source:
- SLAVERY is "the state of being owned by another person"
- That is, PRO defined SLAVERY as an exclusively human state because ANOTHER is a determiner specifying the interaction of at least two people, the owned person and another person who is the owner.
- That slaves are human would have been evident to PRO had he relied on a dictionary definition of the term. For example,
- SLAVE is " someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay"
- PRO's definition is also insufficient. PRO wants to argue that "SLAVERY is the state of being owned by a person" but that describes all property and while SLAVES are generally property not all property is a SLAVE
- A car is not a PERSON and so cannot be said to be owned by ANOTHER PERSON. By definition, cars cannot be slaves
- A chicken is not a PERSON and so cannot be said to owned by ANOTHER PERSON. By definition, chickens cannot be slaves
- PRO should have also checked his definition constitutionally:
- The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution states:
- Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
- 94% of Americans eat meat but no law enforcement officials consider that fact a constitutional crisis because animal agriculture is not SLAVERY
PRO I. Definitional
P1) Slavery is the state of being owned by another personP2) The majority of animal agriculture places animals in the state of being owned by ANOTHER personC) The majority of animal agriculture is slavery.
- PRO 1 fails by definitional fallacy: Slavery only applies to people and never to animals.
- It is not true that the majority of animals agriculture places animals in the state of being owned by ANOTHER person because no animals are persons
- Therefore the conclusion is false and PRO's argument stands disproved
- PRO falsely characterizes his argument as deduction, modus pollens, when in fact PRO just invented an unwarranted definition to try to force a false argument to appear true
PRO II. Moral Equalization
P1) If x societal practice features the disparate treatment of different sentient individuals, there must be an ethically relevant distinction between the instigators and the recipients of x practice, such that x practice is justified as ethically permissible.P2) Our current societal practices feature the disparate treatment of different sentient individuals (animals and humans).C) Therefore, there must be an ethically relevant distinction between the instigators and the recipients of x practice, such that x practice is justified as ethically permissible.
- PRO II fails by non-sequitur fallacy: whether animal agriculture is ethically permissible is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether animal agriculture is correctly described as SLAVERY
- Just because we agree that murder and rape are bother ethically impermissible does not mean that rape is murder.
- Even if PRO could show that eating meat was just as ethically impermissible as human slavery, that would not make SLAVERY the correct adjective to use when describing animal ownership
- PRO ridiculously blows off many ethically relevant distinctions between humans and animals that might justify human ownership of animals
- HUMAN RIGHTS- humans are the only species capable of conceiving, demanding, upholding civil rights and as such, enjoy a superior and unique claim to those rights we perceive as self-evident.
- HERBIVORES vs OMNIVORES- almost all animals farmed for meat are herbivores. The herbivores position and value within relevant ecological biomes is actually dependent in part on their role as prey. The gazelle runs fast because it is adapted to be hunted by big cats. Likewise, omnivores are adapted to obtain essential nutrients like Omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B-12, protein, etc.
- DOMESTICATION- most food animals would not exist in nature and are entirely dependent on their role as human food for existence. Cattle are descended from wild aurochs but would not survive long outside of human husbandry
KRITIK1:
- ANALYSIS:
- PRO is employing loaded language to sensationalize the issue of animal agriculture
- LINK:
- SLAVERY is one of the most fraught and divisive issues in US History. The bloodiest war in American History was the American Civil War fought to resolve the issue of SLAVERY and abolish that undemocratic practice in America forevermore. PRO is evoking that outrage of the past to describe an ordinary human practice that is foundational to human nutrition, evolution, religion, and civilization, namely eating meat
- IMPLICATIONS:
- Loaded words like SLAVERY are employed to produce an emotional response that terminates more reasoned approaches. Americans need to be able to discuss the environmental, economic, nutritional, and yes, even ethical consequences and advantages of phasing out factory farming without likening the status quo to the great evils of SLAVERY or suggesting the violence that might be justified to force that phase out in the way that violence was justified to end SLAVERY
- PRO forgets that one of the false justifications of SLAVERY was that African-Americans were less than human, less evolved, closer to animals then mankind. SLAVERY was unacceptable because Americans came to understand that African-Americans were human, fully distinct from animals and, unlike animals, deserving of equal rights and liberties. PRO's reasoning downplays the fact that the most inhumane aspect of SLAVERY was the act of one human declaring ownership over another, and in this sense, PRO extends the comparison of Black Americans to animals
- ALTERNATIVE:
- These harms are easily avoided by using less hyperbolic language to describe ordinary human practice of animal agriculture. CON recommends the more precise and less loaded term ANIMAL HUSBANDRY for use in discussing the practice and ethics of animal agriculture.
- VOTERS can discourage the abuse of loaded language in debates by awarding points with deliberate reference to that abuse
KRITIK2:
- ANALYSIS:
- PRO is deliberately abusing the debate description to disguise a tautological trap
- A TAUTOLOGY, in logic, is "a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency"
- PRO's trap failed to spring because PRO defined SLAVERY as ownership by ANOTHER PERSON, rather than just "a person," but the attempt should be noted and the harms of such conduct confronted
- LINK:
- PRO attempted to trap CON by making the argument true by definition without any resort to logic.
- That is, by trying to define SLAVERY as simply any ownership when everybody knows that animals raised for food are owned by definition, PRO tried to make his case a foregone conclusion without any resort to logic. That's why PRO keeps re-emphasizing his definition:
- Premise one is definitional, with all terms being found in the description of our debate. Premise two, subsequently, is truistic.
- animal agriculture is slavery, irrefutably, within the parameters of our deliberation
- Since animal ownership is never referred to as SLAVERY in dictionaries, encyclopedias, common discourse, or the law, PRO invented his own overly broad definition that applies not just to food animals but to all human property. Using PRO's entirely inadequate definition the way PRO hoped to use it, just about everything is SLAVERY:
- bottled water is SLAVERY
- sailboats are SLAVERY
- Cheetos are SLAVERY
- television shows are SLAVERY
- PRO screwed up his definition but even if his definition were interpreted as intended, we can see that PRO deliberately defined his terms with irrational overbroadness in order to reach out for some validation of his obviously false conclusion
- IMPLICATIONS:
- Let's agree that such semantic traps are bad for the quality of debates on debate.com. Tautologies test no rhetorical skill and teach no truths.
- As DebateArt.com's VOTING POLICY states:
- "The setup for a debate need not be wholly fair, but there should be grounds for either side to argue. A debate such as “the sun is hot”' are so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, that the other side is best off kritiking the setup and asking for voters to disregard the proofs. This makes it a time of voter discretion if the setup was cheating or not"
- VOTERS will note that CON is following the advice and forms of kritik to combat PRO's harms to the quality of debate on this site
- ALTERNATIVE:
- VOTERS should note the VOTING POLICY regarding instigator's rules in the description:
- Whereas some clarifications in the description are conducive to the spirit of debate, others are clearly set to swindle someone out of having an actual debate
- A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested
- VOTERS can discourage the abuse of customized definitions in debates by awarding points with deliberate reference to that abuse
CON 1:
P1A: SLAVERY is the state of being owned by another person
P1B: No persons in the US are farmed for food
C1: Therefore, no animal agriculture in the US is SLAVERY
Since no humans are farmed for food and no animal other than humans can be a SLAVE, animal agriculture in the US is not slavery
CONCLUSION
- PRO tried to trap CON with cleverness in lieu of a rational argument
- Unfortunately for PRO, his definition still makes SLAVERY an exclusively human institution
- CON looks forward to PRO's R2.
SOURCES in COMMENTS
Round 2
Overview
- Let's make some brief notes. First, to concede means to "admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it." As long as our voters have functional eyesight and can observe this has not occurred, you can ignore anywhere con suggests his fantasy.
- Second, con's analysis of the intricate semantics of my definition seems to be a waste of his entire round one. His kritks not only bear no relation to any argument or position of mine, his conspiratorial notions of a secret plot of mine also bring his conduct into question.
Definition/Personhood
- Contrary to con's notions, a "person" refers to the doctrine of personhood which evaluates whether or, not an entity has imperative moral rights or moral consideration. This is understood as commonplace in the foundations of ethical philosophy. A person is "any entity that has the moral right of self-determination, or "the kind of entity that has the moral right to make its own life-choices, to live its life without (unprovoked) interference from others."
- Personhood as a concept has shaped the evolution of society and our perceptions of entities. It has been the determinant of rights for marginalized groups and continues to configure our discourse around ethical issues of today such as abortion, and likewise, animal rights. My moral equalization argument (II) already demonstrates that there are no ethically relevant differences between animals and humans. I have thus argued and delineated that Farm animals are persons, entities that have a moral right to self-determination. Extending this as case, all categorizations of human slavery must apply to farm animals.
- In the same way that various groups, Black people, Jewish people, etc. are and were persons despite historically not being recognized as such, animals are persons despite not being recognized as such because they have a moral right to determine themselves.
I. Definitional
- Extending from personhood, this renders con's objection to irrelevance. Various groups of humans in the United States and around the world were not considered persons; they were not recognized as entities with rights or moral value, yet we would still ascribe their treatment as genocide or murder. Despite not being considered persons, they were persons, being individuals which exhibit no ethical difference between the then irrational conceptions of such. Being individuals that had a moral right to their self-determination, Farm animals, despite not being considered persons, are persons, by virtue of having the same ethical right to self-determination as shown through inconsequential differences (II).
- The prevalence of animals in the factory farming system unquestionably vanquishes my burden for this debate. It indicates that the near entirety of animal farming places animals in a state of enslavement. Consequently, the only particular of our debate in dispute, is whether or not these entities are persons. Any aspect of con's round one speech that diverts from this question can effectively be ignored. If this is in dispute we can simply answer this question with moral equalization.
II. Moral Equalization
- My argument is of moral trait equalization. In this, we examine the traits that we implicate with value and see whether or not they distinguish how we treat humans and farm animals. Extend all premises henceforth.
- If humans are persons, farm animals are persons. If humans have personhood then animals have personhood based on the same parameters of analysis. If one denies this they exhibit special pleading, the prelim of logical contradiction. Con's ignorance of the deductive implications of my argument should be ignored. Not only does it attack the ethical permissibility of our social practices, it equalizes our treatment of humans and animals. They are not mutually exclusive as he dogmatically suggests.
- If there is no ethically relevant difference between humans and animals, and if the same actions we perform on animals would be considered slavery on humans, they are logically slavery when performed on farm animals. Even further, my argument equalizes our conceptions of personhood as well. Animals are persons—entities with a moral right of self-determination—if humans are, because no ethically relevant distinction exists between them.
- Con attempts to propose a set of differences he believes are relevant, however, they are all untenable and lead him to absurd conclusions that alone are enough to make the decision self-evidently in favor of the instigator:
- "Human rights..."
- Pro's claims are baseless. Many humans, such as disabled people, are not capable of doing anything substantial to speak less of conceptualizing rights, yet this does not entail we can farm them and consume them for resources. The acquisition of rights based on species is also logically incoherent (b. round 1).
- "Omnivores/Essential..."
- Pro uses the is-ought gap fallacy, assuming that just because evolution exists, it is ethical to torture, farm, and kill animals. Discard the fallacious argument. David Hume has already proven that "you cannot deduce moral conclusions, featuring moral words such as ‘ought’, from non-moral premises, that is premises from which the moral words are absent." Further, animal farming is not essential. Not only is it continuously found that "plant-based diets are healthier than diets where meat is consumed," they are significantly more affordable. This is an unnecessary consumption and an unnecessary practice, just like enslaving humans would be, yet con does not argue that enslaving humans is ethically permissible.
- "Domestication..."
- Many humans would not survive long outside of human care, such as the elderly, the sick, and infants. This does not entail you can farm and kill these humans.
- Pro's fallacious conjectures and weak ad hoc justifications further solidify that we can't even create a logical division between humans and animals. Animal farming is slavery. These animals have the same rights to self-determination as we do. They are persons.
- We can even further examine con's questionable and fallacious line of argument.
I. Appeal to popularity
94% of Americans eat meat but no law enforcement officials consider that fact a constitutional crisis because animal agriculture is not SLAVERY
- This is an appeal to popularity fallacy (using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness). Spousal sexual abuse was not recognized as rape, yet this does not change the fact that it was, as there is no logical difference between being sexually assaulted by a stranger, and by your husband. Likewise, farm animals may not be recognized as persons, but this does not change what they are because there is no logical difference between the justification of what we do to animals and what we do to humans. Farm animals are entities that hold a moral right of self-determination.
Kritik(s)
- Con's points here are all immaterial if not irrelevant to my case, allowing them to be cleanly discarded. Firstly, I am describing animal agriculture as it is: the enslavement of persons. This is not loaded language but a proposition that I have argued for soundly.
- Secondly, Con weirdly claims that my definition has a secret intended use (there is a mystery plot behind the scenes) seemingly contradicting everything he pointlessly argued for: a sole application to persons. Thus con's examples of objects that he believes are slaves do not influence my case, nor are they relevant to anything I have discussed.
Conclusion
- In round one, I showcased two compelling arguments that prove that animal farming is slavery. My moral equalization argument equalizes the conclusions from premises society has instantiated, including personhood.
- In round two, I extend this argument, the only opposition I face being the use of the word person as a synonym for a human being. This is incongruent with the commonplace of axiology/ethical philosophy and the development of our ethical understanding. It should be ignored. Animals are persons because they are entities that have a moral right to their own self-determination. As it stands, pro has made a sound argument that animal farming is the enslavement of persons, beings that have an ethical actualize themselves. The decision hence is simple. There is only one debater who has made sound arguments: the one who has upheld our resolution beyond doubt.
Thx, Novice!
Definition/Personhood
- In his description, PRO defined SLAVERY as being owned by another PERSON
- and in R1 CON defined a PERSON is " a "human being" using the first definition found in most common dictionaries
- After missing two opportunities (in the description and Round1) to define PERSON, and only as reaction to CON's demonstration that all slaves are human by definition in Round1, PRO now relies on the equivocation found in the fallacy of persuasive definition
- "Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as politics, sex, and religion, as participants in emotionally charged exchanges will sometimes become more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts. A persuasive definition of a term is favorable to one argument or unfavorable to the other argument, but is presented as if it were neutral and well-accepted, and the listener is expected to accept such a definition without question"
- PRO describes his definition of SLAVERY as "intricate" but in fact that definition was quite straightforward, just not to be found in any dictionary. What is quite intricate is PRO's Round2 definition of PERSON created especially to rescue his argument, but which is also not to be found in dictionaries
- VOTERS are asked to notice how PRO has no problem relying on commonplace dictionaries to define a word like CONCEDE but in order to create the illusion that animals are properly defined as PERSONS, PRO runs far away from dictionaries into the realm of philosophical theory
- Even at those semantic fringes, PRO's own sources substantially undermine PRO's specialized definition:
- Anderson: "Of course, when it comes to animals there are serious moral constraints on how we may treat them. But we do not, in fact, give animals the same kind of autonomy that we accord persons"
- Kawohl: "The English term, "person," is ambiguous. We often use it as a synonym for "human being."
- Wikipedia: " The concept of personhood is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts. Capacities or attributes common to definitions of personhood can include human nature, agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others"
- A definitional fallacy presents "as if it were neutral and well-accepted" but according to PRO's own sources, defining animals as PERSONS is neither neutral nor well-accepted. PRO's definition certainly meets the qualification of "emotionally charged"'
. My moral equalization argument (II) already demonstrates that there are no ethically relevant differences between animals and humans
- We've seen PRO's own sources disagree but so does any application of common sense
- There are many important ethical differences between humans and non-humans, the most obvious being that no non-humans are ever ethical agents.
- Domesticated pig mothers, for example, will savage and devour their offspring when under stress or underfed. Humans' ethical response to this behavior is to increase comfort and support for the sow
- but if a human mother kills and devours her children under any circumstance, humans' ethical response to this behavior is isolate and punish that individual
- so clearly it cannot be fairly claimed that there are no ethically relevant differences between humans and pigs
In the same way that various groups, Black people Jewish people, etc. are and were persons despite historically not being recognized as such animals are persons despite not being recognized as such because they have a moral right to determine themselves
- Even unacknowledged , Black people and Jewish people were always people (the plural of PERSON) because they were manifestly human in exactly the same way that non-human animals are manifestly non-human. To argue that animals are just as deserving of ethical consideration and human rights and Black and Jewish is to fail to acknowledge the manifest, natural, inherent humanity of Black and Jewish people (see KRITIK 1)
- Even though PRO's entire argument hinges on VOTERS acceptance of his fringe definition of PERSONS as animals, CON asks VOTERS to disqualify PRO's definition of PERSON as
- too late in the debate
- too customized to PRO's argument, and
- too reliant on controversial theory to serve our discussion of SLAVERY in America
PRO I. Definitional
P1) Slavery is the state of being owned by another personP2) The majority of animal agriculture places animals in the state of being owned by ANOTHER personC) The majority of animal agriculture is slavery
- Therefore, PRO 1 still fails by definitional fallacy: Slavery only applies to people and never to animals
PRO II. Moral Equalization
- Therefore, PRO II continues to fail by non-sequitur fallacy. PRO has defined all SLAVES as PERSONS, therefore no animals can be SLAVES by definition
- PRO insists that there is no ethical difference between animals and humans but this is madness
- ETHICS is "rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad"
- Humans are the only animals with ethics, morals, good, and bad. We invented the whole notion for our own social purposes
- Right and wrong is predicated on our humanity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We have a special obligation to moral agents because we are moral agents ourselves. We treat the humans at the margins of humanity, the infants and sick and dying as fellow humans not because they are animals with feeling s but because they belong to the society of moral agents with deep and sophisticated binds of social obligation and care
- No animal is a moral agent
- When the elk gores the occasional hunter, we do not fault the elk
- When the sow eats her piglets, we do not fault the sow
- Since animals cannot play the role of moral agent, they lack the rights to respectful reciprocity that every human in every condition enjoys
- Humans owe a moral debt to all other humans first and before any animal
- Humans are the only animal that controls the destiny of the Earth, and so we control the destiny of all other species
- Domesticated farm animals are literally a human creation, we took them in to our civilizations, bred important survival characteristics out of them, changed their very nature to be more fat and docile and dependent on human care
- THAT is why we don't call animals SLAVES, to distinguish our unique moral obligation to respect the freedom of other humans
- THAT is why it is an insult to humans harmed by SLAVERY to equate that harm to animals with little sense of equality or independence or right or wrong
- PRO argues that such an outlooks suffers from the gap between is and ought- that because it was always thus it should remain so but this is not CON's argument at all
- In fact, 20th century innovations in agriculture and nutrition make make abstinence from meat a realistic option for humans for the first time in history while 20th century threats like overpopulation, pollution, and climate change make abstinence from meat realistic efficiencies likely to improve human sustainability
- But THOSE are truly moral "oughts" with realistic moral weight- human improvement, human sustainability, not fuzzy intangible "oughts" like "animal slavery"
- If we do away with cows as a source of food, we aren't going to give those cows free reign to breed and eat as they chose
Appeal to popularity
- PRO thinks that any notion with popular support must be wrong because a book told him that appeals to popularity are fallacious, but in fact, argumentum ad populum is only a fallacy when irrelevant to the truth
- The English language derives meaning from usage
- It is entirely relevant to point out that English language speakers use the word SLAVERY in order to distinguish human bondage from the bondage of other kinds of animals
- It is not irrelevant to point out that it "sounds wrong" to call a chicken a slave because that exaggeration disrespects the special harm that we designate with the word SLAVERY (see KRITIK 1)
- Likewise, it is entirely relevant to point our that American law defines SLAVERY and outlaws that act constitutionally and that any treatment of any animal, legal or not, is very carefully and particular never called SLAVERY because that exaggeration disrespects the inhumanity we designate with the word SLAVERY
KRITIK1:
- PRO drops this argument
- PRO stands by his disrespectful use of loaded language to sensationalize his political views but he makes no argument in defense
- PRO does not deny he could argue the same topic using non-sensational terminology like animal farming or animal husbandry
KRITIK2:
- PRO drops this argument
- PRO stands by his tricky abuse of loaded language to conceal a tautological trap but makes no argument in defense of this practice
- RPO does not deny his PRO 1 argument is no more than tautology disguised as controversy
- PRO does not deny his definition of SLAVERY as the "state of being owned" deliberately avoids dictionary definitions of the word and commonplace semantic understandings of the word because any dictionary or good faith semantic interpretation of the word SLAVERY effectively terminates PRO's case
CON 1:
P1A: SLAVERY is the state of being owned by another person
P1B: No persons in the US are farmed for food
C1: Therefore, no animal agriculture in the US is SLAVERY
- PRO offered no counter to CON's affirmative case. We can see here clearly why PRO's argument depends on a radical interpretation of farm animals as people: because if farm animals are not people, PRO's case must fail
CONCLUSION
- Unfortunately for PRO's case, animals are not people
- Therefore, even PRO's overbroad definition still makes SLAVERY an exclusively human institution
- CON looks forward to PRO's R3
SOURCES in COMMENTS
Round 3
Overview
- For some notes, a dropped argument is one "not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it." I have responded to con's arguments in entirety, so voters can ignore his delusion along with other claims that I have not responded to x.
- I extend my responses to con's kritiks: neither impact my case. First, the resolution is a proposition I have made sound arguments for, precluding loaded language. Second, con continues to contradict his own arguments, wanting to have it both ways. He argues that slavery only applies to persons (something weirdly no one has denied) and also argues that slavery also applies to objects. Which one is it? If con believes books are slaves that is his position, not mine. I remind the voters that (per rules) we have agreed to all terms of the debate.
- I have consistently shown from round one with contention II, that equalizing the justifications of our actions towards farm animals reveal no ethically relevant distinctions, entailing that all our societal practices and conceptions apply to farm animals—they are persons. Slavery as a category applies to them just as personhood does. Having been shown from round one, con's complaints of anything coming too late, at best show an inability to read. Animals are persons by virtue of having a moral right to self-determination.
Definition/Personhood
- What is personhood, and why is it imperative? Personhood is a doctrine of ethics. It is a moral category used to denote entities that have certain moral/ethical rights. A person is any entity that has the moral right of self-determination. There are undoubtedly both non-human persons and human non-persons. For instance, abortion issues deliberate over the personhood of the unborn child. If being a biological human alone was sufficient for personhood, this would not be the case. Con's use of terms like "common sense," amounts to an argument from incredulity, and should be discarded. When discussing ethical issues regarding how we ought to treat entities, we discuss whether or not these entities are persons: whether or not they have a moral right to their self-determination.
- Voters can ignore con's conspiracy that I created the definition of a person or personhood as a concept. The doctrine is one of the most fundamental aspects of ethical philosophy. Things con does not like do in fact exist, and establish the basis for our approach towards moral issues such as abortion or animal rights.
- Voters can also ignore con's statement that my sources somehow work against me. Both of my sources define a person (from personhood) in ethical philosophy. What con refers to is their documentation of individual theories of personhood from different philosophers: these have no impact on what a "person" means as a category—con commits a category error. I don't have to agree with the entirety of what any source I use includes, so cherry-picking various quotes yields no impact on my case; I simply argue against them. My moral equalization argument (II) shows that it is logically impossible to argue humans are persons without arguing that farm animals are persons by the same token. If humans are persons, animals are persons. If humans have a moral right to self-determination, animals have a moral right to self-determination.
I. Definitional
- Extend. I have argued soundly, imperatively (II) that animals are persons, entities that have the moral right of self-determination. This makes my opening syllogism sound. Con exhibits no remaining defense against my argument.
II. Moral Equalization
- I will re-iterate my argument once more. This contention equalizes our treatment of farm animals and humans. Through this, I demonstrate four propositions that affirm the resolution beyond doubt: (1) There are no ethically relevant distinctions between our treatment of humans and animals. (2) Animals, like humans, have a moral right to self-determination (3) From this, animals are persons, and (4) any action performed on animals that would be categorized as slavery if performed on humans, is categorized as slavery. From these simple propositions, the resolution is affirmed. Con has provided no ethically relevant distinction that would reject any of them.
- Not only does moral equalization equalize our treatment of animals, but it also equalizes our notions of personhood. If humans are persons, animals are persons because there is no ethically relevant distinction between them. This necessitates the conclusion that animal farming is the ownership of persons, and that animal farming is slavery because animals have the same fundamental moral right to self-determination.
- Cumulatively: by establishing that personhood must necessarily apply to farm animals, moral equalization shows that our treatment of animals—which would be considered slavery on humans—must be considered slavery for animals. Con's newly proposed distinctions are even worse than those from round two, and they are new because he drops his previous ones upon their refutation.
- "Moral Agents..."
- By the same token, many disabled people are not cognitively developed enough to engage in moral reasoning or to know the difference between right and wrong. They are not moral agents, and neither are most children who are too young to understand these concepts. Does con argue that we can dissect and kill these people for resources?
- "Controls the destiny of the Earth..."
- This statement is vague—almost meaningless. All living things control the destiny of the earth through ecological processes, including farm animals. Thus pro's implication that humans "control the destiny of other species," is an informal fallacy: proof by assertion, not an argument. Just because humans have accumulated the most power does not mean they are justified in their actions. Besides exhibiting the is-ought gap fallacy, it amounts to an argument that might makes right. Con would also conclude that had Hitler won world war two, he would have been right in torturing Jewish people, or that if an aliens species: one more advanced than humans came to earth, they would actually be right in enslaving and torturing humans for resources.
- "Farm animals are...a human creation"
- Children are a human creation, in fact, any human that exists was created by another human, yet this does not mean we can farm and torture all humans, or any human, for resources.
- "Pig mothers...devour their offspring"
- Humans have oppressed entire racial groups, engineered the holocaust, and commit acts of genocide, rape, murder, infanticide, torture, and terrorism on a daily basis. Yes, people can do bad things, but I fail to see how this is a point in con's favor given that humans seem to perform the most morally depraved actions.
- The perpetual weaknesses in con's case remain evident.
1. Appeal to popularity
- Con's response is a red-herring. If slavery is the state of being owned by another person (description), farm animals are persons (I, II) and there are no ethically relevant distinctions between our treatment of humans and farm animals (II), animal agriculture must be slavery regardless of the population's perceptions after having equalized these imperatives between animals and humans. To deny this would be to state that "slavery is and is not slavery," a logical contradiction, or to exhibit special pleading, another logical contradiction. The development of language is immaterial to this.
2. Is/Ought fallacy
- Con continues to argue fallaciously: in fact, we can discard many of his points in the notion that just because something is the case, does not mean it ought to be so. "You cannot deduce moral conclusions, featuring moral words such as ‘ought’, from non-moral premises, that is premises from which the moral words are absent," and con continues to do so, hoping that dogmatically repeating himself will make the fallacies go away.
Verdict:
- The goal of this contention is simple. I have made a sound argument that there are no ethically relevant differences between humans and animals. If humans are persons by having a moral right to self-determination, animals are persons by having those same moral rights. Thus, I have showcased that animals have personhood, possessing this same moral right. It is not only illogical but irrational and contradictory to suggest they do not while retaining that humans do.
Conclusion
- Let's examine both of our cases in this debate. It is easy to see that pro has won every contention.
- We established that personhood in ethical philosophy denotes any entity that has a moral right to self-determination. Personhood remains a central doctrine evaluated in moral issues, most especially animal rights. Thus we adhere to the doctrine of personhood to evaluate whether or not animals are persons. The central question of this debate became whether or not farm animals are persons. Thus, if I prove animals to be persons, I have won the debate.
- My moral equalization argument shows just that: farm animals are beings that have a moral right to their own self-determination, by the same token that humans are. No matter what con posits, no matter what justification he hopes will stick, I have shown they all lead to absurd conclusions that eradicate their ethical tenability. Thus, any action performed on animals, if it would be considered slavery when placed upon humans, is slavery because animals are persons.
- Con has failed to refute this argument. Each ad hoc justification he provided yielded more and more insane conclusions that undercut his own arguments, placing him in more and more awkward positions.
- The decision for this debate is not difficult. One debater has made consistent valid and sound arguments. The resolution is confirmed.
Thx, Novice!
FRAMEWORK
- CON must show that the majority of animal agriculture in the US is not slavery
Definition/Personhood
- VOTERS should find this debate fairly straightforward to evaluate since the only question at issue is whether farm animals are properly defined as slaves in the English language.
- The answer is no, Americans don't refer chickens, pigs, or cows as "slaves" in ordinary parlance.
- No dictionary definition of SLAVERY or SLAVES mentions farm animals at all.
- Wiktionary: An institution or social practice of owning human beings as property, especially for use as forced laborers.
- Oxford: the practice of owning and forcing people to work as slaves
- Mirriam-Webster: : the state of a person who is held in forced servitude
- PRO offered a non-dictionary definition that nevertheless defines SLAVE as a person.
- At the top of Round1, CON offered a simple dictionary definition of PERSON as "a human being."
- Having created a debate that depends entirely on the definition of PERSON and having missed two opportunities to provide that essential piece of his argument in the description and in Round1, PRO then asks VOTERS to ignore CON's simple dictionary definition and instead an overwrought and entirely theoretical definition of PERSON. A PERSON is "any entity that has the moral right of self-determination, or the kind of entity that has the moral right to make its own life-choices, to live its life without (unprovoked) interference from others."
- PRO makes no apology for ignoring CON's earlier definition
- PRO makes no argument against CON's definition, PRO just insists that all the dictionaries are wrong and that his customized ad-hoc definition must be right because it is "commonplace in the foundations of ethical philosophy." (and thereby, relying on the very fallacious appeal to popularity that PRO accused CON with in Round 2. CON asks VOTERS to consider which is more relevant to the definition of SLAVERY in America- the fact that almost no Americans recognize animal agriculture as a criminal enterprise or the fact the some academics can't discern an ethical difference between humans and animals?)
- PRO then adds an adds an appeal to authority by arguing that his definition should be preferred because "the doctrine is one of the most fundamental aspects of ethical philosophy." Not particularly true but also totally unsupported by PRO's own sources. VOTERS will recall that in Round2, CON quoted all three of the sources PRO used to back up his ad hoc definition specifically refuting PRO's claim equating animals as the ethical equals of humans.
- VOTERS should note that PRO failed to find one single source that backs his claims that his argument from marginal cases is fundamental or even persuasive to most philosophic thinking in the US
- PRO misidentifies CON's reliance on common sense as "appeal to incredulity." Certainly one can imagine the possibility of a farmer referring to her cows as people, her chickens as slaves. CON does not say that's impossible, CON merely calls that improper usage. If you were on a farm with an average farmer and called his cows people or his chickens slaves would that farmer think you were using proper terminology? No.
- Similarly, we do not admit pigs to emergency rooms because they are not people. We do not report runaway goats as runaway slaves because that would confuse the populace.
- VOTERS are asked to rely on CON's definition of people as humans and entirely disregard PRO's late, sloppy, vague definition of people.
PRO I. Definitional
- Slavery means more than just being owned by another person. Objects can be owned but are not slaves. Plants can be owned but are not slaves. Animals can be owned but are not slaves. P1 fails by definitional fallacy, invalidating PRO's syllogism.
PRO II. Moral Equalization
- PRO's argument is first and foremost non-sequitur. No ethical consideration turns animals into SLAVES.
- PRO argues that there's no ethically relevant distinction between humans and animals as if humanity itself were not an important ethical distinction. We treat the marginal cases among us- the infants, the elderly, the ill as fellow humans because we recognize that human distinction from mere animal. If you subtract every animal quality from humans, there is still something more to humans that no other animal can match- our investigation and understanding of the universe we live in, our belief in the divine and the divinity in human nature- self-sacrifice, self-appreciation, self-destruction beyond any animals comprehension.
- PRO drops or eludes most of CON's counters here.
- CON says only humans conceive of rights
- PRO just calls that logically incoherent, but ignores whether that's an important ethical distinction
- CON says humans evolved to eat the meat of animals
- PRO calls that is/ought fallacy but whether we should change does not change the definition of what we are now
- CON says that farm animals are human creations via domestication
- PRO says infants would survive no longer than domesticated animals on their but ignores the fact that we don't give infants the right to self-determination either
- CON says humans are the only creatures that have or understand ethics
- PRO says some disabled people don't have ethics either but ignores the point that no animals can or do have ethics
- CON says humans control the Earth's destiny
- PRO falsely argues that all animals are a part of climate change. In fact, animals species have always lived in a remarkable balance within ecosystems. Only humans surpass, bypass, destroy those ecosystems for man and animal alike. PRO calls this might makes right but that argument acknowledge that might is an important ethical distinction between humans and beasts
- CON argues that we treat animals entirely different then humans in the same situations
- PRO counters with racial oppression, genocide, and holocaust failing to see how this reinforces CON's case that humans are ethically quite different from animals
- Even property itself is an entirely human distinction. When PRO says "animals are persons owned by another person" he never, ever means that "another person" is another animal because only humans claim property ownership and that itself is an essential ethical distinction between people and animals.
- We do not give animals self-determination because unlike human slaves, animals would not join in civilization or the economy nor would they cease to be anything more than a burden on humanity. Humans would not like what pigs at liberty would do to farms and fences, traffic, parks and playgrounds, produce sections at the supermarket.
- Even non-sequitur, PRO's case also fails as concrete, thinking about how to approach the human-animal relationship
- CON asks VOTERS to ignore this entire argument as irrelevant to the question of whether animals husbandry is properly called the human institution of SLAVERY
KRITIK1:
- PRO stands by his disrespectful use of loaded language to sensationalize his political views but he makes no argument in defense
- PRO does not deny he could argue the same topic using non-sensational terminology like animal farming or animal husbandry
- CON argues that the loaded language was employed to disguise the otherwise tautological nature of PRO's argument (see KRITIK2)
- VOTERS can discourage the abuse of loaded language in debates by awarding points with deliberate reference to that abuse
KRITIK2:
- PRO stands by his tricky abuse of loaded language to conceal a tautological trap but makes no argument in defense of this practice
- RPO does not deny his PRO 1 argument is anything more than tautology masquerading as controversy
- VOTERS can discourage tautology in debates by awarding points with deliberate reference to that abuse
- Debate.com's VOTING POLICY advises:
- The setup for a debate need not be wholly fair, but there should be grounds for either side to argue. A debate such as “the sun is hot”' are so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, that the other side is best off kritiking the setup and asking for voters to disregard the proofs
- If VOTERS rely on PRO's definition, then all he is arguing that "some people are slaves," which would not be particularly controversial if PRO's definitions weren't so bizarre.
CON 1:
P1A: SLAVERY is the state of being owned by another person
P1B: No persons in the US are farmed for food
C1: Therefore, no animal agriculture in the US is SLAVERY
- PRO dropped 100% of CON's affirmative case.
CONCLUSION
- VOTERS should find this debate fairly straightforward to evaluate since the only question at issue is whether farm animals are properly defined as slaves in the English language. As long as PRO's radical redefinition of animals as the moral and semantic equivalent of human beings fails to persuade, then CON wins this debate.
- CON asks VOTERS to further consider PRO's deliberate inconsistencies and delays in defining his terms when considering votes for sources
- CON asks VOTERS to further consider PRO's abuse of loaded language to disguise a tautological trap when considering votes for conduct
SOURCES in COMMENTS
A desperate attempt of AI supporters to give rights to AI:
"If there were a species that was sentiently identical to humans, it would be absurd to suggest they can be farmed, enslaved, and ultimately consumed by virtue of being non-human"
Wrong. "species that is sentiently identical to humans can exist" is true. "species that is sentiently identical to humans can be farmed and consumed" is true. "is absurd" is not true. They can be farmed to increase human population. Thinking that non-human is more important than human is absurd. They are not equally important. Human is more important. There is no value in sentience. Nobody cares if you are sentient. AI doesnt have rights and will never have them. You can try all you want to give rights to AI. However, AI is only there to serve humans. It doesnt have any rights other than to serve humans.
"just as it would be to suggest the same if a population of humans over time evolved into a different species, but maintained the overwhelming majority of the same attributes."
Wrong. "population of humans that evolved into a different species can exist" is true. "population of humans that evolved into a different species can be farmed and consumed" is true. "is absurd" is not true. Thinking that non-human is more important than human is absurd. Non-human is less important than human. Non-human can be consumed to increase human population. Increasing human population is of greatest importance to humans. Humans should not allow to be decreased so that some non-human may live. Human life is the most important thing. Thinking that something non-human can have equal importance as human is absurd. Nobody cares about non-human attributes. We should judge such thinking as plot against humans. Anyone not working to increase human life decreases it. Non-human life is not more important than human life. Humans hold the greatest value. Anyone disagreeing with this should be corrected and put to shame for being an AI pervert.
Huh. I guess I did miss the personhood argument. Though I think it is true - as oro said - that round 2 is too little too late for this kind of push.
it isn't a flaw though, if you follow Novice's Round 2.
In fact Oromagi's way of exploring the lesser sentience of animals was so bad here that Novice got away with not at all proving that the animals have their sentience.
Sure RM, if you really want to split hairs, maybe if oro made that argument and then screwed it up in the next rounds I still would've voted for Novice. But the whole reason I made my initial comment is because I noticed an immediate and exploitable flaw in the aff that would be hard to come back from. It's not like judges only can be confident in a debate's outcome once the final words have been said.
It actually does mean that, you are saying using the argument wins the debate regardless of execution or what the opponent said.
It is the very same blindness driving all the people who voted against Novice in this debate.
Yes, in this hypothetical I would've favored the side that made the stronger argument. But that doesn't mean that I'd always vote for Oro no matter what he said, just because he's a "human supremacist".
Your vote was promised to always favour the human supremacist, mine is the openminded approach.
If the value of humans vs. animals is directly relevant to the resolution, a vote that can put their views on that issue aside is clearly better than one that can't.
I could say the opposite to you. I am entitled to vote as I want.
If you wouldn't vote for any argument that is "human supremacist", then you probably shouldn't have voted on this debate.
And I wouldn't.
It is human supremacist bigotry, plain and simple.
It seems to me that Pro's definition of "slavery" loses the debate on the spot. Con is right that grammatically, the word "another" implies that the person being owned in Pro's definition is a human; therefore, under Pro's definition, animal agriculture cannot be slavery.
Reading Con's R1 though, he kind of mishandles the issue. I think the correct (and kind of tricky) strategy here would have been to wholly concede Pro's definition and then make the argument that it negates the resolution. That takes out Moral Equalization because even if animal agriculture is morally equivalent to slavery, that's insufficient to prove that it is slavery, since slavery is a human-on-human offense. Con has all the right pieces to make this argument, but since he responded to everything and introduced a couple Ks, the point didn't come through.
Now, would people have voted on this argument? I don't know. I would've.
damn a #1 vs. #2 battle
I haven't noticed much attention towards my vote. Just a report made against the original (but not the recast one), which is expected from some debaters regardless of the quality of the vote; and a couple comments from RM directed at me.
I thought my vote was pretty clear. The debate quickly became about if animals are people (as is required for them to count as slaves). While it might prove an interesting topic in its own debate, in this one it was perhaps the most extreme Semantic Kritik I've seen; and yes, I have been quite honest for a long time that I frown upon instigators K'ing against their own topic selection. Still I read the debate, and quoted from it to make my conclusions. A key factor was of course some of pro's own sources being caught directly contradicting pro's own case. I lost count of how many times pro repeated the same assertion about how animals are people because of self-determination, and I seem to have missed the evidence of said self-determination being actualized to then be violated (an assertion repeated 20 times without evidence, does not become good evidence by virtue of being repeated so many times). Whereas con leaning on the dictionary gave a definition for person which excluded farm animals and there was no reason to disregard.
So in short: con proved with evidence that within English humans are people, and offered sufficient challenge to pro's case of for being "non-sequitur."
Conduct over issues such as pro accusing con of being in favor of farming "elderly, the sick, and infants" from the human population; and rather obvious lies (such as at the start of R2 (I'll never understand why people on message boards do this, we can literally scroll up if we've forgotten what actually happened)).
At the end of the day, pro was not convincing to me that animals are the same as people, nor even significantly similar to people for there to be doubt. Were the debate /animals ought to be considered a class of people/ then he would have done quite well.
I usually do not look into on going vote dramas, but I think that, in the case of Barney's vote, his mind was made up prior to reading the debate. This is evident in the first line of his RFD, indicating Novice must win the debate with terms used "in plain English", implying that it is impossible for the instigator to win, despite the compelling justification of why a more compelling definition of person ought to be used.
I cannot imagine that anything Novice could have done would have adjusted his adjudication.
Barney, I think the issue is your vote received a lot of attention and it felt you didn’t really have a lot of good justification for it (especially for a moderator). You might think or know in your heart something that we can’t see, but you have to tell us. I myself am quite confused too. Could you go into more detail what your vote means?
I find it hilarious how Barney got to grudgevote against Novice and has zero warning because they lack proof but with me they assume it and punish. Hypocrites.
No it did not. You did not even say so and you were indeed online after I posted it as you replied to me after it was up.
I didnt base my vote on any policies except my own policy.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
I consider my vote logical because only I can decide what is logical. Therefore, whatever I label as logical is logical. I agree with this, so this too is logical.
The simple answer is that RM's vote broke the guidelines of the CoC due to surmounting evidence being a retaliation vote
Rules against voters participating will not be upheld by moderation btw.
Well, I am a bit appalled here. I don't understand why this could not have been left as is, a fair debate. I can understand wanting oromagi to win, and I have no problem with such on the face of it, but I tend to take issue when the phenomenon becomes taking actual moderation/voting action solely to ensure that this happens.
As a baseline, I tend to expect this from Barney, and some aspect of this could have been prevented (I should have made the rule that "Barney may not vote") so I may take slight indigence to that missed action.
I don’t really understand Barney’s first vote with sources too, and the second one isn’t much better. I didn’t notice any severe errors with conduct, but again I’m a pretty logical guy.
I'm not going to take a side on a vote removal that another moderator executed and justified. Given that only Supa could make this call without being biased by his own vote, I'm not sure why you want me to take a position. It was his call. It wasn't mine to make during the debate and it's not mine to make now.
I'm telling you why he did it at this point instead of a different one prior to this - I talk to Supa often enough to know that his schedule is hectic. You're the one who is assuming an insidious reason is behind it. If you call it defensive of him to point out that there's nothing insidious about being busy, then yeah, I guess I defended his actions, though he is perfectly capable of defending himself.
"Why are you asking me to apologize for this when I was neither able to remove the vote as a voter on this debate nor had anything to do with Supa’s decision?
I’m more than willing to apologize if I’ve made a mistake, though you seem to think otherwise."
so protest it then, don't defend it.
He works under you and you defended his actions.
Pick a side, then I can explain why I expected you to apologise, now that I understand he was acting rogue, it perplexes me why you defended it.
Can you actually believe this shit, he will allow the reason Barney voted conduct but remove mine based on 'intent'.
This is a joke.
The only issue Supadudz had with the original vote was conduct, the fact he'd have removed it again if he had time proves pure corruption based on protecting Oromagi against an earned defeat.
you cannot even justify the vote removal other than assumed intent.
you didn't have a second vote to take down. You only said conduct was the issue and I used the same RFD again.
Based on the evidence provided, I, as within my rights, concluded that RM's vote was a retaliation and was not a genuine vote on the debate and should not count. I stand by the decision I made despite me not being available to take down the second vote
I am not going to sit here and argue for you when I have a life to live. I stand by my vote that your vote was a retaliation vote and is forbidden by the CoC and should not have been verified due to implicit bias with bad conduct and source points. I could give benefit of the doubt to arguments, but the majority evidence suggest you retaliated to oromagi, especially after the comments you left on your debate and the vote he made.
And the fact you think I am lying about my activity is shocking. If I had the time, I would've removed your second vote under the same clause and the others and if I had the chance, would still remove your current vote and other vote bombs
As I understand, you will believe that your vote is a good reflection of the arguments presented in this debate. If that is the case, I will take it that you would have no problem with debating someone who may disagree with that system. Now that I am done with this debate, here is my proposition to you: (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3809-thbt-vote-4-is-an-insufficient-analysis-of-the-instigators-case).
First, I will state that I am not interested in any obfuscation here. I noticed you were already very hesitant to accept this animal agriculture debate. While satisfied that someone else I have been just as eager to debate took it, I am still very interested in debating you, and thankfully, you seem to have created a pertinent subject matter for an engagement. To this, I want a direct answer, not a dodge, not a tirade irrelevant my proposition. I don't want to be rude to you, but this specific expression is to control your previous behavior.
The rules prohibit anyone else from accepting this debate. It is either, yes, or no.
I am sure we can all agree that whiteflame exhibits incompetence regularly. This is honestly nothing surprising to me, I don't even understand why he is still a moderator. I am, regardless, satisfied that it was not enough to taint the outcome of this debate.
I’d like to see that change as well. As for imposing the two-day period, I think that might yield its own complications since a lot of people tend to wait until near the end of the voting period to vote. Maybe it’s worth the cost of losing those votes that happen in the last 48 hours, but I’d need to think on it.
Why are you asking me to apologize for this when I was neither able to remove the vote as a voter on this debate nor had anything to do with Supa’s decision?
I’m more than willing to apologize if I’ve made a mistake, though you seem to think otherwise.
The dirty voters of the past actually helped oromagi secure some of his wins.
Stop making excuses.
This was absolutely vile play and you know it.
Any other user less active than me and even me myself easily is not there in the last 1.5 hours of a debate to revote. I bet he would he deleted the rfd too if I had not commented it.
You can never say sorry nor own up to a genuine mistake. Neither you nor Barney seems to possess this quality. Supa screwed up.
I'm not too bother in this instance as the ballot is unaffected by problematic votes, but I think this highlights the underlying issue of the current voting system. It's an issue which is blindingly easy to fix - just establish a time period between the last ballot that is allowed to be cast and subsequently the completion of the debate - say two days, where votes cannot be casted but moderators can impose judgement. If the site user is too busy to do this, moderators can send an announcement stipulating that, for any debate which is in voting period, no votes can be casted in the final two days (in spite of the fact that you physically can), and anyone who does receives harsh punishment. The latter is meant only to temporarily alleviate the issue.
I'm honestly surprised that the likes of Oromagi and Barny's streaks were not unjustly disrupted before their current records.
Supa’s been busy, so whatever you may think of the timing of his removal, it wasn’t “dirty play”.
Both of those last minute votes would have been removed if possible, though their decisions to cast them likely would have happened regardless, since this debate has regularly been on the front page of recent debates. Both of them knew what they were doing.
While the dirty play got what I see as the correct result, I want you to realise that Supadudz's last minute vote moderating and me protesting it resulted in two votebombs.
Best Korea copy and pasted Bones' RFD.
If you had been responsible and this debate had stayed lower down the list of active debates, I doubt both would have struck.
Public choice's vote was neutralised by itself but Best Korea's could have swayed results especially if mine had stayed removed and if mine had been for Oromagi.
Not sure why you just copied the text of Bone's vote...?
With or without it I would have won the debate, but I don't know why you would even logically think of doing that.
No need, I have seen enough at this moment.
I am usually not in charge of votes so I do not know the format. Therefore if any other moderator wants to take charge of this case, feel free.
Maybe I am on to something you don't see. What is your perspective here?
Indeed, this seems to have been orchestrated somehow.
(a) It seems that Barney removed his vote quietly and edited the source points, so his vote would not be removed alongside Rational Madman's. Peculiarly enough, this suggests that Barney knew his own vote did not meet the voting standards, and he cast it anyway which is interesting in its own right.
(b) SupaDudz only chose to review votes an hour before the debate ended, despite me having reported Barney's vote over 3 days ago. Why is that?
(c) SupaDudz did not even follow the typical format for vote removal. He did not mention anyone, he did not use the proper text format, and he did not even copy the text of RationalMadman's vote out. Not to mention, he deleted the vote quietly without even giving a reason, and then provided a rushed one after his tactic was pointed out. The goal here seems to have been to remove x vote without anyone knowing.
The moderators are acting very strange here (outside of their usual incompetence) and I very much agree with RationalMadman based on these three propositions. I am a bit disappointed in that sort of conduct. Why not just make debates fair?
Voter: RationalMadman
Vote: 3 for conduct, 2 for source,1 for conduct in favor of PRO
Status: Removed
Reasoning: Voter fails to provide a reason as to why the conduct presented in such statement should award the point to PRO, therefore, the justification of conduct point is not valid. Giving yourself an advantage by specific wordings DO NOT cause a conduct point. The voter also blatantly lies about sources used and purposefully avoids sources from oromagi for a bias toward the PRO. Therefore, due to the bias in regards to the vote, both of these are constitute under the retaliation vote, thus is against the rules
If I had been offline in the final 1.5ish hours of the debate, Supadudz's vote deletion of me would have won Oromagi the debate.
I recommend you to strongly consider what the fuck you have d9ne here. Stop rigging debates. Do not expect me to keep your corruption quiet.
I agree, however Whiteflame is extremely strict about these type of debate topics so I can see how he chose con, especially since oromagi is the type to think “Aha the debate is set in stone”. However Your display was the precise implication. The title was deceptive (Ex “a fetus is a person” complicated into the idea that the fetus has the personhood rights). I think a less trapping/strict title could have given more leeway, but also perhaps Oromagi would not have accepted. Since there is little way his style can win a debate as incredibly complex as abortion.
Most of the votes cast in my favor take considerations to logic and philosophy, and I for one see this as the only efficient way to judge debates. That being said, thanks to Bones, Undefeatable, and RationalMadman. There is a lot to say about some of the other particulars of this debate, but I will keep that to a little later.