"Livestock" slaughter is acceptable

Pro’s advocacy Vagueness Pro does not specify her exact alternative. I cannot be expected to debate against every possible world; Pro needs to please clarify her position next round. Currently, Pro’s shrub and insect alternatives seem mutually exclusive. I have arguments against both, but ask Pro to clarify so I don’t waste space. Theme 1: Choice “Is preferred” The original framing of the debate and wording of the resolution were my own [http://www.debate.org...]. My opponent asked me to clarify the meaning of “ought to,” which I did, providing a philosophical definition: “the preferred of the two possible worlds.” In other words, if one debater can show that one possibility is better—that is, merits ‘preference’—then that possibility ‘ought to’ exist. The reason I did not say ‘better’ is that doing so implies that there is a particular system of ethics that the voter must follow, instead of voting on the overall preferable advocacy. Unfortunately, my definition seems to have mislead Pro. I am very sorry about that; I had tried my best to make the wording clear. That being said, I wish my opponent would have messaged me to clear up this potential confusion beforehand. My opponent has interpreted “preferred” to mean that whichever side most people agree with wins. This odd interpretation has many problems. First of all, popular preference is not a synonym for “ought to.” We know that simply because an action is popular doesn’t make it right. Secondly, appealing to the population is not a debate—it is a poll. Having whichever side is more popular win the debate means that our problem solving and rhetoric becomes completely pointless. Thirdly, in a debate it is the voter who decides the winner, and not a survey. Naturally subjectivity is involved in the final decision, but that feature is inherent in persuasive discourse. The “preference” is the voters’. We try to show that one world is better than the other—whichever side the voter “prefers” wins. This type of debate follows “ought to” more closely, follows the framer’s (my) intention, is more fair (otherwise a poll outcome renders one side impossible to debate), gives the voting power back to the voter, and allows a debate to occur. Finally, popularity contests (unlike debate) do not bring education or change, which is the whole point of debate in the first place. Thus, the debate ought to follow the definition of “preferred” in the definition of “ought to” that I presented. I apologize for making the wording open to misinterpretation. I hope I haven’t made my opponent waste much debating space. Not relevant to debate Pro has continued to talk about how any government enforcement of slaughter prevention would be illegal and undemocratic. However, this debate does not discuss any form of government intervention, and therefore such concerns are off topic. Evolution We seem to agree that evolution does not dictate current action and that vegetarianism is not unnatural. Theme 2: Health Diseases Pro concedes that livestock is the #1 source of diseases. Millions are affected, and hundreds of humans dead from livestock farming. Pro claims that some of the diseases can be reduced by treating the animals better (how?), but the diseases are increasingly common in livestock—treating them better will not eliminate these diseases if they are eaten by humans. Besides, new diseases may develop. Heart failure/disease All the sources show that vegetarian diets strongly reduce the risk of heart disease/failure. Pro concedes this fact. More Americans die from heart disease than anything else in the US. This makes heart disease have the biggest weight in this debate. 600,000 Americans die from heart disease every year. Significantly reducing this will save hundreds of thousands of lives [19] [19] http://tinyurl.com... Nutrients Vegetarian diets do not compromise one’s vatimin intake compared to meat-inclusive diets. Obviously, meat is not vital for one’s diet, and in fact makes one worse in terms of vitamins according to my uncontested sources. Theme 3: Environment Global Warming Factory farms contribute 25% of all greenhouse gases. That means that if people suddenly decided not to transport themselves, the amount of greenhouse gases reduced would be less than if the meat industry were halted. These greenhouse gases cannot be fixed by making farming “better.” To the disappointment of the industry, animals have to be alive before they are dead; their bodies have to release CO2 and methane per their biology before being rendered motionless. The only improvement to the meat industry in terms of greenhouse gases is a lack of meat industry. Furthermore, any attempt to reduce global warming would be more effective without the meat industry. Global warming due to greenhouse gases poses eminent threats, including of dangerous weather, worldwide starvation, worldwide lack of clean water (due to flooding), risk of life to disenfranchised humans, and extinct species due to migration changes (marine and aquatic) according to the IPCC [20]. Because global warming risks the life of everyone on earth, its impacts ought to be weighed most heavily. [20] http://www.ipcc.ch.... Pollution Pro does not contend any of the pollution statistics I gave. Millions of fish will die, diseases spread, drinking water lose its integrity, and ammonia and low altitude ozone will flurish, despite the industries attempts to prevent pollution. Biodiveristy The livestock industry poses a direct threat to biodiversity. Pro has failed to mention HOW the alternative fixes biodiversity. The endangered species could easily eat game meat. Pro gave no reason why they need to feed on livestock. Theme 4: "Livestock" My opponent would have us ignore the livestock themselves. However, the idea that the victims of violence are irrelevant to the discussion of acts of violence boggles my mind. Death slaves The meat industry is an industry of death. It seeks to sell death and in the meantime reduce life—an expensive commodity—as much as possible. Life in the industry thus becomes merely a means to more death. Like the sex industry, the death industry buys and sells individuals and reduces them to their bodily utility. A sex slave is reduced to her/his potential to pleasure—a mannequin for assisted masturbation. Likewise, the death slave is reduced to ‘its’ (is not the consumer is oblivious to the slave’s sex?) ability to pleasure the tongue. The consumer sees a dead body in living individual. Like her/his other possessions, the consumer owns the death slave’s body, heedless of the slaves’ own claim to life. The bodies of these slaves killed in one year stack higher than the worst human genocide (x 500). Perhaps most sickening part is that these slaves’ deaths are measured in pounds. Bad faith claims We know animals feel pain, and we know they make rational decisions. Shall we claim that the nonhuman animals are unintelligent? However, what then should be done with unintelligent humans? We know they have the right to life, and a good life. Surely low intelligence is not a death sentence. Shall we claim that might is right? However, we know that this very claim has justified the worst genocides and crimes in history. Surely the power to kill does not establish the right to kill. Shall we claim that if the animals are treated well then they do not suffer under bondage? Then surely we forget that this was the argument against the Abolitionists in America. Shall we say that the other animals should be killed because they do not have a tax system, a government system, or a religion? Then surely we forget the European genocide of the “un-Christian” Native American “savages.” Summary Ending the slaughter of livestock would save hundreds of thousands of human lives, keep millions more from getting sick, radically reduce pollution, reduce more greenhouse gases than ending all transportation, and help end the system of violence and death slavery.