Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical.

"I did not, for instance, argue that humans and other animals should be given equal rights" Thats interesting, because organizations like PETA which is similar to your cause, are saying such things. And this is the problem. Where do we draw the line? Who decides where the line is? You never thought to occupy such terrain because it evidently never occured to you that there are people who, like you, are advocating the same thing, but with more extreme consequences. Contention #1. This is the problem. You havent provided any guidelines as to which animal should receive such rights, and which should not. Escargot, for example, are eaten purely for pleasure, and undergo the same conditions as Cows and Chickens. So, my question is this: What exactly is your criterion for including some animals, and disregarding others? My opponent has failed to answer this question, which was, by the way, posed in my contention. It was the question before the "How much pain should an animal be able to feel". As for pain, that is also the problem. Currently, we have no method of detecting exactly how MUCH pain one animal can feel over another. It is not "Manifestly true" that chickens cows and pigs feel more pain than snails or insects. And this is the point. If my opponent wishes to argue that the suffering of these animals are what make their captivity and slaughter, unethical, then clearly this should apply to all animals, including that of insects, which people do eat. "This isn't arguable if you know anything about the physiological or neurological makeup of chickens and clams." Thanks for that bold assertion. Any sources? Any evidence? contention #2 "Where exactly did I make this claim?" You didnt. I was merely mentioning how absurd claiming that just because one can substitute a food group, they should. We can substitute anything in our diet. This doesnt mean we should, and this doesnt, in most cases, mean we can. Which is what i said at the end of the paragraph. Why dont you start reading my entire paragraphs, instead of taking snippets? Contention #3 "I'm only concerned about human consumption of meat at the moment." So you dont care if we slaughter animals just for the heck of it? Contention #4 "What on Earth does this have to do with whether or not it's ethical for humans to eat meat?" You are claiming that some rights should be extended to animals. And, that eating meat, when suppliments can suffice, is unethical. Yet, clearly other animals can eat meat purely for pleasure. We feed our dogs meat, even though we can provide suppliments. So, how is this irrelevant? Youre still slaughtering animals for unnecessarily reasons. And this is your main argument, is it not? Contention #5 "Meat supplements are not a vital component of any diet." Wow. Really. So, people who are vegetarians, can just eat whatever plants they want? Contention #6 "meat is pretty expensive." Yes, thats why all fast food restaurants use vegetables in their burgers, instead of meat. First off, i agree that the degree of meat can increase the price. Too bad, it isnt so with the cheapest cuts of meat. Secondly, theres a reason why were called a "Fast food nation". That is, these fast food chains provide cheap food, and in most cases, nevermind, in all cases, the meat is actually more expensive than the vegetarian alternative. "If someone were locked in a dungeon and all they had access to was meat I wouldn't be opposed to them eating it in such a circumstance." If i were you, id probably say "What the hell are you talking about, i never mentioned a dungeon." Contention #7 "They can find a new line of work." Brilliant. So youre trading in the suffering of animals, for the suffering of human beings? Clearly you are the most ethical man of all! Im convinced! First off, again, read my entire paragraph. I asked you who would pay for teaching and providing the farmers with different equipments. If youre simply claiming that "Well, the farmers that can afford it, great. If they cant, then too bad, theyre gonna be homeless". Congratulations. You are trading in one suffering for another. And although id love to go along with the "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", clearly you are raising the level of rights regarding animals, to the same, or above, that of humans. So all my previous arguments regarding the rights of animals, and what rights should be implimented upon animals, now become valid. So, my next question would be, is it ethical to disregard the sufferings of a human in favor of an animal? And yes, this has everything to do with the topic. Secondly, are you not opposed to them becoming homeless? If not, then again, answer my question. Who will provide the money for their retraining? Who will provide them with the tools necessary to achieve a new job? Contention #8 "They would either go out of business or sell something else." You still havent addressed my question in Contention #8. You have this uncanny ability to disregard the entire paragraph in favor of snippets. Is this how you debate? If so, then i am not surprised that you win your arguments, as we are almost out of rounds, yet you fail to address most of my arguments, and answer most of my questions. Contention #9 "Wow, you really didn't read what I wrote did you?" And neither you, mine. I asked you clearly, in order to understand WHICH rights you wanted to impliment, what your CRITERION for which animals receive such rights is, and furthermore, how you determine WHICH rights apply to such animals is. I still havent received an answer. Contention #10. You have stated before, in round #1: "How would you wish to be treated? Would you wish to be eaten? Would you wish to be ruled over? Wouldn't you wish to be free?" I am assuming that you are talking about animals here. And this is the problem. Being free, allowing to live, among other things, are the basic rights applied to humans. Yet, clearly, you are not opposed to eating animals by people who require, or cannot choose otherwise. So, animals dont receive the same rights, yet, you make an advocation that animals should have the same rights? Your contradicting yourself. Contention #11 "But since humans don't usually sit down and eat large plates of flies at dinner time this point is more or less irrelevant" How is it irrelevant? Your main argument, infact, the title of this debate is, "Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical." Well, by eating, youve talked about how the slaughter and treatment is what is wrong. Therefore, killing a fly, slaughtering and treating it, purely for pleasure, should also be unethical, no? Clearly this is relevant. You are still killing something for your pleasure, without necessity. "I'm very curious where you got that from." Sentience is the ability to feel pain or pleasure.(2) My original source for flies feeling pain, is here(1). It was cut off due to the word limit, being 40 letters or so short. Contention #12 "However, it's completely irrelevant to the debate." Actually, it is not. Animals can suffer and be treated the same amount when being cultivated for Eggs and butter. So, the question is here again. Case pro: "It is unethical to make a living in an industry that perpetuates so much needless suffering." Again, flies. There is an industry dedicated to killing them. How is this irrelevant to our discussion? I am merely asking what animals are under the umbrella of unethical killing. Source: (1) http://www.sciencedirect.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...