Vegetarianism

In this round, I will have some quick refutations and then summarize. 1. Legality of inhumane treatment. "Whether they consider it common farming or not, they are subject to inspection. If it is ruled inhumane, it will be ceased. " However, many inhumane practices are legal. It is perfectly legal to castrate cows and pigs or debeak chickens without anesthetic or to keep animals in cages so small they can't turn around[1]. We can all agree this is inhumane, but it is common knowledge and legal. Sure, the USDA is supposed to ensure inhumane treatment. However, they are still fine with leaving it illegal. Secondly, why does it even matter if something is legal or not? You are still supporting inhumane practices by buying illegally inhumane meat. It does not follow that by buying illegal meat, it is somehow not inhumane or you are not supporting it. My opponent has only said that it is illegal, but not how that somehow refutes my syllogism. Thirdly, there will always be suffering when raising animals. Animals will always feel pain during slaughter. 2. By buying something you are supporting it. "People do not give their money to these companies to support raising animals or killing them inhumanely. People give their money in exchange for a product" And by exchanging their money, they are supporting the inhumane raising and slaughter of animals. "If these animals are in fact raised or killed inhumanely(which I have proven is illegal), it is not the duty of the consumer to stop it, as this would be impossible. Rather, it would be the duty of the company itself to stop this. Firstly, why does it matter if it is illegal? Secondly, it is the duty of the customer to stop this. Businesses make money by fulfilling the customers wants and needs. If the customers don't want the cheapest possible meat, businesses will switch to humane farming. Businesses don't raise animals in torturous conditions for their own sadistic pleasure. They raise them that way because customers want cheap meat, thus if the customers changed their wants, businesses would change to meet them. "Let's say everyone did stop eating meat. They would then be buying something else to replace that. Most foods do contain animal products. So, the number of animals killed really wouldn't change, it would just change what these animals' products are actually used for." Vegetarianism is following a plant based diet and abstaining from animal by-products. If the foods contained animal products, vegetarians wouldn't eat it. If no one was buying them, businesses wouldn't produce them and animals would be saved from a life of torture. By buying something, you are supporting it. By buying something, you are giving your money to the meat industry. This is most definitely support. Even if it doesn't effect the amount of animals being killed, it is still supporting the meat industry. 3. The animals wouldn't be around without farmers. My opponent presents an apparent contradiction. "It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers." "Pro argues that if we did not raise the animals they would not exist. Humans did not create these animals, they exist on their own. " Is farming necessary for the animals to survive? Not only that, is it better that the animals live a life of torture or don't live at all? Without humans, the animals would not be alive. Humans gave the animals a home, food, water, and protection. I do not see how if we stopped giving animals food, they would suddenly go out into the wild and begin breeding. Nature can support a certain number of animals. Humans are supporting these animals by giving them food. If we stopped giving them food, how would nature suddenly support them? "Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo." Does it matter? If you look at round 1, it states that this debate is solely about how the morality of diets. Vegetarianism is solely concerned with what you eat. 4. Cultivating crops kills animals. Yes, but cultivating crops kills much less in a more humane fashion than farming. If a combine chops a mouse up, it dies a sudden death. However, chickens are raised in torturous conditions and often killed horribly. Not only that, you stated that if all the farmland in the US was used for crops, 500 million animals would die annually. Over 9 billion chickens are slaughtered annually[2]. This certainly means that vegetarianism kills less animals than meat eating, thus vegetarianism is much more ethical than eating meat. Summary The reason I feel that I should win this debate is because my opponent has not offered any real opposition to my syllogism. If my syllogism stands, then the conclusion stands, then vegetarianism is more ethical than a meat based diet. The opposition my opponent has offered is as follows: P1. Animal farming causes suffering. "(illegally, yes) Animal farming results in the killing of these animals, for food. All animals that are not primary consumers, also eat animals. It is not wrong for humans to eat meat. If we did stop eating meat, these animals would simply die of natural predators, which would increase vastly." My opponent has not shown how the fact that some inhumane farming is illegal somehow means that it doesn't cause suffering. This does not in any way reject my syllogism. The other opposition he offered is that if we humans did not feed the animals, nature would somehow. I ask my opponent how this would happen. Humans provide the animals with plants to eat and protection from predators. How would nature suddenly produce more plants for the cows to eat? If there was tons of extra plants to be eaten, the deer population should be exploding. P2. Meat is unnecessary. P3. By buying something, you are supporting it. "I have disproved this. I have shown that people buy it for food. It is not wrong to eat meat. Humans are apex predators. I have also shown that if(in Pro's opinion) buying animal products supports it, then vegetarians also financially support it. Also, I have proved that animals are still killed while farming crops." By buying something, you are giving your money to the meat industry. If that is not support, then I don't know what is. My opponent only said that they were buying the meat for food, but he has not shown that they are not giving their money to the support of the meat industry. His second objection is that if vegetarians are buying leather, then they are also supporting it. The first round stated that this debate was about the more ethical diet. Clothes and soap are not things you eat. The third objection my opponent offered is that growing plants kills animals. However, it kills less animals than raising animals. If we compared all the animals killed by growing plants to all the chickens killed for meat, we would find that 18 times more chickens were killed. Thus, vegetarianism would certainly be the more ethical diet. P4. Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided "This falsely assumes that animal farming causes suffering(which is illegal). Animal farming causes death of animals, for the purpose of manufacturing food or products. Which vegetarians also purchase." The only opponent my opponent has offered to the fact that animal farming causing suffering is that it is sometimes illegal. I ask my opponent how this somehow makes animal farming not cause suffering. His second objection doesn't pertain to the more ethical diet. C Eating meat is wrong and something to be avoided. If my syllogism and conclusion stand, then vegetarianism is certainly the more ethical diet. Sources [1] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...