Factory Farming Should Be Banned

In response to your first paragraph:1) PETA is clearly a biased source and is known for radical and fabricated claims, if you could provide a neutral source such as a news article or report I will take this claim as true. PETA is the group that created a graphic flash game of a raccoon chasing a blood covered Mario (as in Mario Bros.) because they thought Mario Bros. supports the wearing of fur products. Please provide a neutral source. [http://features.peta.org...] 2) As for your second claim about the "mistreatment" of chickens, I would like to remind you and our readers that I have countered the claims of such mistreatment with the countless benefits of factory farming and even made a point of saying that human life is far more valuable than the life of a chicken or even a hundred chickens. -- You make a claim "1/58" factory farms are "reported OK", please reference. Without evidence this could be completely faboricated. -- "however this doesn't mean we have to use traditional methods of farming"If we do not use factory farming what else are you refering to? When I say "traditional methods of farming" I am refering to free range farming where animals roam across open land and in large pens. I think that this is what you are refering to. If we ban factory farming we will have to go to free range farming which is what causes the increase in cost and decrease in usable farm land. -- Yes some places mistreat cows however I do not understand how the cows are beaten and dragged about if you yourself have said that they don't move, so where are these cows being beaten and dragged if there is no room? These are things I can ask since you have provided no specific sourcing for this fact and I do not feel like reading through all of your some nine odd bias sources to find this one line, please in text citate. -- Cheap food: You cite a difference of a mere 40 pence, or around a dollar for my American readers, but once again provide no source for this information. But if an average family eats meat twice a day, and we assume all meat has a $1 price increase that's $2 a day for 365 days or around a $750 dollar annual increase on meat alone. Also you claim I did not source my claim on jobs when I clearly pointed out that it employs 700,000 people and provided a source. Also you are no judge of whether or not they are trained for handling animals or not. This leads me into my next set of points. BanningWhen you say "factory farming should be banned" I am going to assume that you mean for the entire globe. I have pointed out that the largest benefit from factory farming is indeed the cheap prices of grocery store food products. Now both of us have pointed out significant differences in price between "organic" (non factory farmed) and "average" (factory farmed) food. Now for people such as ourselves an increase in a dollar here or a couple dollars there may not seem like much but to much of the world it would be crushing. 31.2% of the world lives below the poverty line [1]Yes, nearly one third of the world's population lives in poverty, now if you ban factory farming globally then much of this 31% will feel the effects of the price increase. In countries such as India where poverty is extreme and defined differently the switch away from factory farming would prove disastorous. The US has been spreading and sharing its farming technology with the world. "According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way." [2] So as you can see the majority of average meat and dairy products are produced in this fashion meaning that all the majority of meat and dairy products would see an increase in price."India's official poverty level, on the other hand, is split according to rural vs. urban thresholds. For urban dwellers, the poverty line is defined as living on less than 538.60 rupees (approximately USD $12) per month, whereas for rural dwellers, it is defined as living on less than 356.35 rupees per month (approximately USD $7.50)." [3]As you can see people in India live on $7-12a month which accounts for 25% of the population [1] or roughly 300,000,000 people. These people would not be able to afford an increase in price for any goods much less things they need to survive such as food. Globally banning factory farming would prove disastorous to the less stable places in the world that are increasingly counting on expanding cheap sources of food i.e factory farmed food. Your proposition would potentially lead to mass starvation and the inflation of the global food market. ** "These animals are meant to be outside roaming free"You make this claim but I have to ask how do we know what animals are meant for? According to Christian beliefs humanity was given dominion over the earth and the beasts. "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." - Genisis 1:26 [4] So according to cultures who follow the Old Testiment of the Bible i.e Christians and Jews, we have dominion over the earth and over the livestock. As you can see your statement is subjective and the purpose of animals differs from culture to culture. ConclusionThings that factory farming does well: Low monetary cost — Intensive agriculture tends to produce food that can be sold at lower cost to consumers. This is achieved by reducing land costs, management costs, and feed costs through government subsidized agricultural methods.Standardization — Factory farming methods permit increased consistency and control over product outputEfficiency — Animals in confinement can be supervised more closely than free-ranging animals, and diseased animals can be treated faster. Furthermore, efficient production of meat, milk, or eggs results in a need for fewer animals to be raised.Economic contribution — The high input costs of agricultural operations result in a large influx and distribution of capital to a rural area from distant buyers rather than simply recirculating existing capital.Food safety — Reducing number and diversity of agricultural production facilities may or may not make oversight and regulation of food quality easierAnimal health — Larger farms may or may not employ greater resources to maintain a high level of animal health. Larger farms can potentially employ expert employees who devote their working hours to assessing animal health, a task which would be cost-prohibitive for most small farms [5] As you can see, the banning of factory farming would be murderous to the global population in poverty. It should not be banned due to this. The benefits it provides to the world are to great to simply eliminate it. Also in large industrialized complexes farming becomes more managable and easier to assess health risks and harm to animals. Please in-cite source this round so we can actually check on your outlandish claims. I urge my readers to see the benefits of factory farming to humanity as a whole and I point out that the sources provided by my opponent are clearly biased in nature. I urge for him to produce neutral or even slightly less bias sources. Thank you. [1] http://www.nationmaster.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://bible.cc...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...