The practice of humans' purchasing and then eating meat is unethical (Copy #2)

My opponent begins with strong emotional appeal - so strong, in fact, that it is a fallacy of appealing to emotion. Many murders are not pre-meditated, but legal definitions of murder are not what we are talking about. My opponent continues his faulty comparisons. I did not drop these points, as he falsely claims, because I argued that they were a logical fallacy. I listed 3 criteria that people have used to disguise humans from animals. I will repeat myself here: humans are animals but animals are not humans. This argument is similar to those used by people who then committed terrible atrocities, but it is not the same, because animals have never been considered humans. When animals can distinguish right from wrong without prior training, reveal the capacity to have faith, use reasoned speech, or even have the ability to buy a house, settle inside, and start paying taxes, then I may consider an animal human. When animals are biologically like humans, then I may consider them human. Does this justify their mistreatment in factory farms? No. But I am not arguing in support of factory farms - I am arguing in support of purchasing and eating meat. Again, the treatment the animals went through prior to this is irrelevant to the resolution as written, and my opponent never really responds to this point, so he drops it. Again, I do not drop any of the arguments in my opponent's comparison. The entire concept is still a logical fallacy. Given a choice between shooting a squirrel and shooting a best friend, pretty much everybody would shoot the squirrel. The lives of the two are not equivalent. My opponent condemns my use of Aristotle because Aristotle also supported slavery by nature. Should we also condemn Thomas Jefferson's arguments because he had slaves? Should we condemn Vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian? I never said people had to believe in God to be human. This is a vicious straw man fallacy. What I said was, " another key difference between man and animal is the capacity for faith. " The ability to believe is not the same as believing. My argument is not the same as the Europeans, making his source 2 invalid. Again, I did not drop the price tag argument. I argued that man does determine the worth of an animal cross-culturally. The owner of something certainly has the right to determine its value. My opponent cannot realistically argue that people do not own animals - the entire concept of pets and farms, for example, disprove that idea. Again, the reason putting a price tag on slaves was unethical was because slaves are still humans. This is not an argument I make out of some sense of discrimination or species-ism. I have listed several criteria differentiating humans - all humans - from animals. Even biology does this. It was wrong to equalize animals and humans, and there is no logic in doing so. Many of my opponent's points are just fallacies appealing to pathos, or emotion, and are thus not useful tools in a debate. I do concede that vegetarianism is detrimental to factory farms. So is buying meat from other sources. I listed several other methods, including Whole Foods, a well-established store. Again, I am not defending factory farms. They are not the only source of meat, and they are vastly overstated by my opponent. Organic farming is spreading throughout the states and is certified by tons of sources, only a handful of which I listed above, including the US Department of Agriculture, which is more credible than my opponent asserting that the benefits of these places are myths. By eating meat, one is not purchasing the assassination of an animal. The animal is already dead. Not eating it would be wasteful and inefficient, and there are plenty of other ways to buy meat without funding factory farms. I thought I posted a counter-source to my opponent's 99% claim. It would be unfair for me to post a new source here, so I will just point out that the 99% is misleading. Aside from the margin of error all percentages come with, that number refers only to chicken. Other types of meat have lower percentages in factory farming. I do not drop the argument regarding poultry on free-range and non-factory farming. My opponent accuses me entirely too many times of dropping arguments I never did. This leads me to believe my opponent did not pay much attention to my debate. I mentioned how the Welfare Rating System and the US Dept. of Agriculture do not permit growth hormones and other such chemicals. Thus the weight of the animals is normal and natural, not enhanced. Non-factory farms are not as small as my opponent would believe. They are growing more and more, especially as both large businesses like Whole Foods and the government itself take notice of them and take steps to encourage their continued development. I have proven how much better animals live on non-factory farms for human consumption. My opponent's entire argument for the treatment of animals being unethical is not only irrelevant to the resolution - the purchase and consumption of meat, not the treatment of it - but it also centers around the idea that animals are equivalent to humans. I have used logic to prove this false while my opponent can only respond in passionate fallacies of emotion. My opponent then switches from saying non-factory farming is not any better to admitting that it treats animals more compassionately. I urge the voters to note this. Again, non-factory farming is growing and being encouraged, thus providing a more ethical manner to purchase and consume meat. I never said humans are allowed to live because they are smart. I do not even know where my opponent got this idea. My opponent continually misrepresents my arguments and attacks ideas I never purported, and I urge the voters to notice this. Calling an argument irrelevant is not dropping it. That is my refutation of your argument. Global warming has nothing to do with a debate about the ethics of buying and eating meat. I remind the voters that all this entails is: walking into a grocery store/non-factory farm, handing over some money, walking home with dinner, and cooking it. I cannot specify enough that, based on the way my opponent phrased the resolution, the treatment of animals is not a central aspect of this debate - only the purchase and consumption is. To cover my bases, I have provided alternatives as well. Sickness also has nothing to do with the ethics of buying and consuming meat. Especially when I have continually demonstrated the wide range of alternative options. I reassert: dismissing an argument as invalid is not the same as dropping it. If I had written "I like ice cream" in the prior round and you ignored it, or called it irrelevant, that would not be you dropping that statement. By the way, my opponent actually does drop an argument in conceding that the animal is already dead and thus would have lived in vain if not eaten. I counter my opponent's statistics; thus I do not drop them. It was also against conduct for my opponent to use sources in his final round when I am not permitted to. I move that all sources in round 3 should be disregarded. If I attack PETA as a source, I attack everything about it. I responded to every one of my opponent's 11 points - not a single one was dropped. My opponent has said this so many times incorrectly that I again have to wonder how much of my argument he bothered to read. My opponent drops my arguments proving the benefits of eating meat, including those citing the detriments of vegetarianism. He simply asserts that "not eating meat is good for you. " I have used sources and demonstrated otherwise, and my opponent does not contest these. We must conclude he concedes them. My opponent also concedes my second response to 8 regarding the place of humans on the food chain. Again, on 9, saying something is irrelevant is not a concession. I asked my opponent for clarification on point 10, and he said I conceded it without clarification. I find this incredibly rude and misrepresentative of my arguments. I have demonstrated many alternatives to factory-farming where I have proven the animals are treated with compassion and permitted to live naturally. I have demonstrated sufficient ethical alternatives to factory-farms. I have demonstrated how the resolution applies only to the purchase and consumption of meat, not the treatment of animals, and my opponent has only refuted this through logical fallacies. I have demonstrated the health benefits of eating meat, and these have gone uncontested, save for the equivalent of "nuh-huh! " This is not a sufficient rebuttal. I have demonstrated (and do not have to prove, as it is the status quo) that animals are not equivalent to humans. Additionally, my opponent has straw-manned and misrepresented many of my arguments. He has furthermore falsely accused me of conceding many of his and unfairly utilised new sources in the final round where I cannot well respond to them because I cannot use new sources of my own. Debates are about logic and reasoned discourse, not fallaciously appealing to emotions.