Animals should be slaughtered to provide people with food.

Con, " I want to first make clear for the voters that my opponent has the BOP to defend current animal slaughtering practices for the meat industry (see comments)" This is not true. I never agreed to defend animal slaughtering practices of the meat industry. I did tell you it was fair to bring up those types of arguments and that I would not counter them by arguing a more ethical way to eat meat. I have not argued for a more ethical way to eat meat. I'm arguing that animals should be slaughtered for human consumption. I have accepted the burden of proof for this. Con, "My opponent says that chickens do have value, because we breed and kill them, and that proves that they "count. " My opponent is here talking about the body of the chicken having a price that humans gave them. What I am talking about is the value of the life of the chicken (not it's flesh) having an inherent value that humans have no right to assign an economic value to. Lives are no reducible to a cash value. My opponent's argument in fact helps prove my point: The current system is trading lives for money like slavery, as if their lives didn't "count" beyond them being a mere object. This exclusion and objectivity is the same mentality that was used the other historical examples, as I've explained. " Con keeps repeating this same red herring argument, as if merely repeating it gives it credibility. We are not Debating the morality of eating meat. I do not have to prove its morally right to do so. If my opponent wants to use the suffering of animals as a reason to say humans shouldn't eat animals she needs to show why humans should care about such a thing. She has consistently failed to do this. My opponent is now showing signs of desperation by posting videos meant to over ride voter's logical reasoning and appeal to their emotion. As far as comparing acts such as the holocaust or slavery to factory farming practices. It's silly. I've already explained that there is a reason to care about the rights of our fellow man. Ultimately it protects our own rights. The reason to care about the rights of other humans can be summed up with this verse from a famous poem, which refers to the holocaust. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. By, Martin Niemoller . http://en.wikipedia.org...... The poem doesn't really work when you put the word chicken in it instead of Jew. Protecting the rights of chickens does nothing to protect my rights. Con, "--My opponents' remarks about my other debates are pointless, and I find them extremely rude. My opponent goes on to imply that I lied about my personal experiences, and that my debate was terrible. I do not have to waste time defending my other debate. " Con said she was going to pull arguments from your other debates which opens the door for me to make a reference to them. I was merely trying to discourage her from using the same arguments in these debates because they are nothing but red herrings and appeals to emotion. I wanted my opponent to give me a good fight. My remark about a completely unverifiable and quite frankly unlikely event ( I have been out to dinner with black relatives several times and never seen the stuff you describe) that she mentioned in her other debate was an attempt to get her to use only relevent arguments. Giving my opponent fair warning that arguments she has stated she plans to use in this debate are irrelevant to this debate. I'm not sure how trying to get a tougher fight out of my opponent is pointless. Maybe rude but definitely not pointless. In my oppinion it's actually the opposite of rude, but that is beside the point. Con, " my opponent dropped the arguments that humans are similar to nonhuman animals except. .. .. .. " This is one of those red herrings I was referring to. It doesn't matter how similar to other animals humans are. This argument is irrelevant, but let's briefly address it. You took several different traits from several different animals (as already mentioned) and put them together to make animals seem more human like. Since con is insinuating that animals are like humans I asked for her to further elaborate on 2 of her examples. She has elaborated and reinforced my point that animals are not like humans. " my opponent dismisses all of my arguments about the suffering of non human animals" Because they are red herrings and appeals to emotion that do nothing to show why humans shouldn't eat meat. "My opponent says that all of my sources are bad, but only listed one example. " After looking through 3 at random then I stopped. There is a reason I used the word biased instead of bad. I encourage the voters to look at a few of her sources at random for themselves particularly in round 1. You'll see sources from animal rights groups containing facts, that aren't sourced. There is a few sources that are obviously reputable like ASPCA and Brown. edu, but for the most part the sources aren't very trustworthy. " here's a video that puts into graphic reality" If you guys haven't watched the videos yet then don't. They are just another red herring and appeal to emotion, intended to guilt people out of eating mcdoubles. " my opponent concedes that meat is the #1 source of food related illness" No I didn't. Ecoli and salmonella clearly come from meat. Ecoli is from fecal matter, and salmonella is ussually found on the skin of chickens and Luther poultry, so obviously those 2 specific types of food related illness are typically from meat. I also pointed out properly cooking and handling your food is the best way to avoid food borne illness. As my opponent has pointed out deaths from food borne illness are extremely rare. Foodborne illness is caused by more then just ecoli and salmonella though, and an interesting thing happens when you click on my opponents CDC link. Just a few clicks away under the heading sources of Foodborne illness is a chart that shows that produce is the number one source of food related illness. . http://www.cdc.gov... Being a non meat eater is unsustainable. Con, "There is a biological drive for things high in calaries and fat, like ice cream. This does not make it impossible to resist, and does not make it good for you. It is hardly futile" My opponent admits to a biological drive that craves things such as meat, though she doesn't directly say meat. She mentions this drive is not impossible to resist. It's also not impossible to run the 4 minute mile, but that has really no merit. What I have shown is it takes a sort of heroic effort to resist our biological urge for meat. " many Hindus do not eat meat" Most Hindus do eat meat even in a culture that looks highly favorably on vegetarianism it is still hard to resist the biological drive to eat meat. Puskar-Pasewicz, Margaret (2010). Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism. ABC-CLIO. p. "39. ISBN"978-0-313-37556-9. Brunk, Conrad Grebel; Coward, Harold G. (2009). Acceptable genes? : religious traditions and genetically modified foods. State University of New York Press. p. "168. ISBN"978-1-4384-2894-9. Environmental concerns Con, " my opponenent does not contend that factory farms are bad for the environment, but only that agriculture is also bad for it. I am willing to concede that it is bad too. " My opponent concedes that the only realistic alternative to a meat based diet is also bad for the environment. Animals taste good My opponent has not refuted that animals taste good. Health, I have made several arguments for why a meat based diet is healthy and a vegetarian diet is unhealthy. My opponent has done the opposite. I'm running out of space, so I just want to add that both types off eating have benefits for health and have specific negative impacts on health. We can both go on forever listing the benefits and drawbacks of each diet but in the end everyone will likely conclude it's a draw. Agricultural farms kill too Con, " However, agriculture kills far, far, far fewer nonhuman animals then factory farms. " The only alternative to killing animals to directly eat them is to kill animals to eat something without flesh. Even the alternatives to killing animals is to kill animals. I want to point out that my opponent has recently taken to the comment boards to extend her arguments. In the comment boards she discusses how hitler ate meat and that ecoli comes from fecal matter. Points meant to undermine my arguments with people in the comment section and give her an unfair advantage. Summary, My arguments for meat eating can be boiled down to humans should eat meat because it tastes good and because most attempts to not eat meat are typically futile. Refraining from meat eating requires a superhuman effort. My opponent concedes that these 2 points are correct. My opponents arguments have all been refuted. Her moral arguments have been showed to be both red herrings and appeals to emotion. Her environmental arguments have been showed to apply nearly equally as well to agriculture ( the only reasonable alternative to not eating meat). Her arguments about the effects on health have been mirrored by my arguments on health which are equally as valid. Her arguments about public health have been shown to be extremely weak, and could be applied even more to agricultural practices. I urge voters to also give me conduct points do to my opponents attempts to win this debate in the comment section.