Veganism and Animal Rights

An Analysis of the Claim: "Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet." Because the debate lacked a proper resolution on which we should focus our debate, I took my opponent's thesis statement to be the resolution. Then in my first round I wrote in bolded text: "As you read, keep in mind that the proper debate is whether or not veganism is the most morally correct lifestyle." It would be foolish to assume that up until now we've just been ambiguously debating about animals and things about them and human biology. My opponent must uphold this system. I don't have the duty of proving that eating meat is more morally correct than veganism. That wouldn't make sense. My goal isn't to say veganism is bad. I admire someone who has the resolve to keep up a healthy lifestyle despite all of the hoops one has to jump through in order to grow a body without using meat. In fact, I personally eat vegetables more than I eat meat. When I eat meat, I try to go for the healthy stuff like fish. My point is that my opponent expects something ridiculous of me. My opponent set the debate in the first round, and I intend to hold to that debate topic. Now onto the rest of the debate: All of My Evidence is Completely Dropped: In fact, in the last round my opponent seems to concede that these animals are not people nor do they possess any elements of person hood or emotional traits. If I may take it a step further: I posit that they do not actually care if they're eaten as meat. Not in the way that we understand it. When we're about to die we would think of all of the things that we're never going to accomplish and all of the people who will miss us. A cow would want to survive but only from the instinct to survive that brought them through thousands of years of survival of the fittest. Is this really what earns them the right to not be killed? An instinctual response? What I mean to say is that these animals are more complex but of no more moral value than a venus fly trap. I'm going to put a heading up so the skimmers can follow along: Sentience: Yes I conceded sentience, but it also doesn't matter. Under my definition, a venus fly trap is sentient, because it interacts with the world through physical touch when a insect lands in one of its mouths. Does that give it the right to not be trampled or swatted with a machete? No that's ridiculous. It's a plant. A plant doesn't have person hood or emotions. If you give it a name it won't care. It just has an instinct to do the things it does. That sounds strikingly similar to something I've been saying this entire debate. Obviously a cow is more complex than a venus fly trap. Even a housefly is. However, according to my opponent, the question of intelligence is meaningless. Why does intelligence matter with these things? Intelligence isn't a metric for the possession of moral rights. So what is? I would say that person hood is. Plants are alive. Plants are not people. Plants do not get rights because they are not people. Cows are alive. My opponent and I both agree that cows are not people (do to that load of evidence I provided right off the bat). Cows do not get rights because they are not people. Just because it's distasteful doesn't make it false. Don't get me wrong, I love animals, and I would easily be attached to an animal like a cow. But I'm also very attached to this blanket I like to put on when I'm watching TV. It's really warm and fuzzy, and it has a name. That seems like a ridiculous comparison to draw, but it proves how easy it is to anthropomorphise. It's so easy to get caught up in a complex structure like a cow and admire it. Why wouldn't you? However, even some farmers who love their cows to death will nourish them until the end of their life, then slaughter them and use them to feed their family for a year. I know because I go to a school that's like 30% aggies. On the Human Part: I would like to point out that my opponent is ignoring the advice of a fellow vegan who actually studies biology and a vegetarian organization that devotes itself to being vegetarian. However, they agree with me. I'm still going to address the counter arguments, but I want you all to know that I came at my opponent with evidence, and my opponent responded with none. A. Fermenting vats: Actually, fermenting vats are quite essential to an herbivore. Especially one of our size. I presented evidence that even an animal as small as a rabbit needs them or they will go without the proper nutrition. My opponent needs to provide an example of an herbivore with significant comparisons to humans (and by this I don't mean a frugivore) before this counter argument can be taken seriously. B. Intestines: Like I said, the intestine length doesn't matter. My opponent didn't post a source that says that my source is wrong. He just posted a source that said how long an American Black Bear's intestine is. To remind you of the analysis, the real difference is in cell types and crypts (source in the last round). In other words, my opponent has ignored my evidence and just thrown the same argument back at me. This is the argument I already disproved. C. Jaws: Again, my sources say that our jaw movement has nothing to do with a specialization towards certain types of foods. My opponent probably doesn't know this, but a human moves their jaw when they eat meat as well. It's just how the jaw chews. D. Claws: I do not have to find evidence that certain carnivores don't have claws. I have to find evidence that certain omnivores don't have claws. I found evidence that certain omnivores don't have claws [1]. In this article, you will also find evidence that humans are hunters, like our eyes being placed at the front of the head (like a carnivore) as opposed to the sides of our head (like an herbivore). In fact, our sensory perception that leans mostly forward would point more to use being carnivores than anything else. I don't know why I forgot to bring that up. It was on my zoology test today. E. The baby won't eat either one because the baby can't eat an apple, and the baby can't eat a rabbit. That's not a valid example. Morality: Once again, my opponent has appealed to emotion to prove morality. If my opponent wanted to run an emotive argument for morality, he should've presented an ethical system that is based on what we feel. However, he has not. I have given you a moral argument. I'm going to go deeper into my argument of person hood. Person hood: Obviously intelligence has nothing to do with person hood. I've never said that because other animals are less intelligent, that we are morally superior. All I've said is that the other animals don't genuinely care. My opponent wants you to think "How would you feel?" I'm going to put in some more in-text headers for the skimmers. The problem is a logical fallacy called a false analogy. Comparing our thoughts to the animal's thoughts is logically fallacious. It cannot be accepted as a valid reason for supporting veganism. It operates under false pretenses. Again, the animals in question do not relate things to emotion. They don't care. As stated before, they have instincts that they follow. These instincts can sometimes cause them to look emotive. They're not. The animals in question so far do not feel: sad, happy, afraid (emotively like we do), worried (same as the last one, it's all about instinct), love, peace, or anger. My opponent has conceded this all the way through the debate, yet he keeps relying on arguments that assume these are all true. My opponent admitted my analysis of the brain was correct. We cannot have a world where animals both don't feel any emotions and should be pitied because of their emotive state. It doesn't make sense. Con is the only side that makes sense throughout this debate. So when it comes to morality, the question after all of this should be why does an animal deserve the rights my opponent wishes them to have? They're not people. They don't personally identify as unique individuals with a depth of personality. They're not emotional. The troubles of the world don't tear at their heart, and the instincts they have are agreed to be just a conditioned response from millions of years of evolution. They don't ponder morality or their self-worth or rights or anything that we may think they do. They don't actually care. And if an animal doesn't care, isn't a person, and doesn't have emotions, then why should we starve low-income households and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs? I don't see a reason. I think the morally correct choice is obvious: do the thing that is natural. Let's look at it another way, since I doubt my opponent will find that sufficient. What moral obligation does a lion have to an antelope? Well, the lion has to eat, and an antelope is its natural predator. But if they're both animals that both deserve equal rights, then the lion should just figure out how to justify itself as an herbivore right? Of course not, it's natural for the lion to kill the antelope and eat it. A lion has no moral obligation to that antelope. But my opponent, who still believes that all of these animals are equal in right, should not be able to agree with that. We can't assign a moral right to all animals then allow them to breach it literally their entire lives, but humans have to uphold it. Humans are omnivores. All of the evidence in the debate points to that. I've presented that with completely unbiased, informed evidence. My opponent has refuted it with his own words. So when a human needs to get the proper amino acids to complete proteins, especially during the growing years, why shouldn't a human do the natural thing and eat some meat? Given everything that's been said. Humans are omnivores. Animals aren't people. We don't have a proper way to establish a moral right to that animal. There is nothing wrong with eating meat. Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com...