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

I am not 100% certain about the etiquette of this, but my opponent simply copied and pasted his argument from an earlier debate [1]. I just thought this was worth noticing. My opponent opens with a tragic anecdote highlighting the darker aspects of American history. I agree that these actions were terrible atrocities. However, my opponent commits the logical fallacy of false analogy. I think most people would agree that, though humans are animals, animals are not humans. My opponent's comparison is invalid. Oddly enough, my opponent even notes this, realizing that in order to dehumanize something, it must first be human. Animals have never been considered humans and thus have never been dehumanized. There have always been recognized differences between humans and animals. Back in Ancient Greece, Aristotle viewed the difference between man and animal as the ability to perceive the difference between "good and evil, just and unjust, and the like" (Politics, 1.2) [2]. Another key difference between man and animal is the capacity for faith. Animals cannot recognize a concept of God or an afterlife - religion, for better or worse, is a characteristic of humans. Now, the immediate response to this is that some animals can discern right from wrong. A dog, for example, can be trained not to pee in the house. However, the operative word here is trained. Animals can be taught, but humans already are capable of perceiving those differences even before instruction. Regarding the value of animals - in the United States (and elsewhere), these values are culturally determined. Most Americans value a dog more than a cow whereas in India, the opposite might hold true. Animals gain the value humans prescribe to them. Essentially, all comparisons made between humans and animals in the previous round (up to this point anyway) commit the logical fallacy of faulty analogy because a human and an animal are not comparable things. A human has more worth than an animal does. My opponent has made one critical error in this debate, and though it at first seems like a tiny error, it is the one I can center my argument around. The concern of this debate is with the practice of humans buying and eating meat being unethical. Thus, in order to win this debate, I only have to counter this position. And my basic point is this: while a significant amount of meat comes from factories, by the time consumers purchase the meat, it has already been slaughtered and prepared. The ethical issue arises before the point of purchase with the mistreatment some animals experience, as my opponent demonstrates with the chickens and turkeys. But because this mistreatment occurs before the point of purchase and consumption, it is irrelevant to the resolution. Remember, the resolution is not "vegetarianism is superior to meat consumption" nor is it "animals in factory farms are mistreated. " The resolution deals with the purchase and consumption of meat after its preparation, and thus the shocking ethics involved in that preparation are not a part of the resolution. In fact, since the meat has already been prepared, it would almost be more a disservice not to eat it. If ignored, the animal's entire existence will have been in vain, and the meat industry will lose a significant amount of money. Now, my opponent might argue that we encourage the continuance of this unethical system by buying meat. However, there are alternative methods of buying meat. Again, my opponent's resolution is not limited to the purchase of factory meats but any meat. If I can provide alternative instances where purchasing and consuming meat is more ethical, then I have successfully disproven the resolution. In the future, I ask that my opponent link his sources with his arguments so that I can better locate which is associated with which. The United States Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation Service have been working to maximize production for farmers and hospitality for animals. Additionally, both note the important role of both livestock in the American diet and the products made from animals [3]. This represent a large-scale, national effort to promote a system of obtaining meat without using unsavoury methods. Also associated with the US Department of Agriculture is the National Organic Program, which places high standards upon the raising of livestock for public consumption and ensures that the animals are treated well [4]. Businesses also have the option of providing better meats. The Environmental Stewardship Program has paired up with various cattle ranches to promote environmental conservation and sustainability [5], part of which includes better treatment for the animals. Whole Foods is paired with the Global Animal Partnership to offer organic meats on a welfare rating system. This rating is based upon how the animals were treated, including outdoor access, as well as preventing the usage of growth hormones and other such chemicals [6, 7]. Grassland Beef is another example of local market situation where people purchasing their meat can rest assured that it was treated comfortably and naturally [8]. Home Grown Cow is another example of this [9]. The Institute for Self-Reliant Agriculture promotes self and sustainable farming done naturally and without torturing the animals to sustain families with food and income [10]. Unless the purchase and consumption of all these meats is just as unethical as that of factory meats, then I have successfully disproved the resolution. Again, my opponent's points regarding the mistreatment of pigs and cows is irrelevant to the purchase and consumption of them. Furthermore, I have demonstrated several other avenues through which they are protected and provided for consumption in a natural manner. Remember, the resolution concerns the purchase and consumption of meat, not the raising of it. Even if it did, I have listed several alternatives to factory based production. "One symbolically places humankind above the other creatures. .. " humankind is above the other creatures. Humans have the capacity for faith. Humans have the capacity for complex reason and thought. Humans have the ability to distinguish just from unjust. That factory farms may cause environmental and health problems is irrelevant to the resolution. I will now respond to my opponent's links to vegetarianism/veganism. 1 and 2 place animals on the same level as humans. I have proven why this is false. 3-5 are valid, but I have demonstrated sufficient alternatives to factory-produced meat. Again, this debate is not centered on the ethics of factory farming but of purchasing and consuming meat in general. 6. commits the same fallacy as the first two. 7. How does buying more meat draw attention away from a large source of that meat? 8. Humans do not solely eat meat for pleasure. Humans eat meat because of biology, because it satisfies their hunger. Humans are at the top of the animal food chain, and as other animals in that chain eat other animals, so too do humans. 9. Irrelevant to the resolution. 10. This needs more explanation and backing. I won't pretend that the Food and Drug Administration is the most effective agency in human history, but it does exist. Even if I grant you this point, the diseases stem not from the production of meat but from the unsanitary state of the factories and their willingness to cut corners rather than follow federal regulations. 11. Meat is a necessary aspect of the human diet. In fact, without meat, humans would never have evolved the brain capacity we have today [11]. Meat is incredibly nutritious and provides us with needed vitamins, such as vitamin B-12 which is impossible to obtain from plants [11]. Meat also provides us with Creatine, something vegetarians are deficient in, and there are no proven health benefits to avoiding meat [11]. Even Medical Daily recommends eating meat because it is rich in protein, iron, zinc, and selenium, all of which help your body function [12]. While I'm thinking about it, can we still call PETA a reputable source after they attacked Pok"mon for animal cruelty [13]? I think not. Let the voters note that my opponent placed some sources in the comments section. Meat is a necessary aspect of the human diet, and the purchase and consumption of it has not sufficiently been proven unethical. I remind the voters that this is not a debate about the preparation of the meat nor the ethical conditions of factory farming. My opponent is attempting to force me into a straw-man argument against the resolution whereas I am negating the resolution as written. Even if this were not the case, I have listed several viable alternatives to factory farming where consumers may purchase meat products from well-raised animals. For all these reasons, I ask the voters to vote CON! I anticipate my opponent's response in the final round! [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://classics.mit.edu... [3] . http://www.nrcs.usda.gov... [4] . http://www.ams.usda.gov... [5] . http://www.environmentalstewardship.org... [6] . http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com... [7] . http://www.globalanimalpartnership.org... [8] . http://www.grasslandbeef.com... [9] . http://www.homegrowncow.com... [10] . http://feedtheworld.org... [11] . http://authoritynutrition.com... [12] . http://www.medicaldaily.com... [13] . http://www.mcvuk.com...