Legalize dog fighting.

Pro does not address that factory farming is beyond the scope of the resolution. The fact that factory farming is legal has no bearing on the resolution whatsoever, because the status quo is not necessarily the ultimate normative end. I'm not necessarily advocating for the status quo. In the world of informal fallacies, this is called an "is/ought conflation," in that what is the current state is not necessarily the desired state. So even if factory farming is immoral, it has nothing to do with dog fighting: I have no problem with ending factory farming. I also agree with Pro that eating meat is not necessary for survival from a biological perspective, but Pro doesn't address this from a socioeconomic perspective, which is what I argued. Banning factory farming will cause meat prices to go up, and there's incredible uncertainty with regard to the negative impacts of that. I argued that it's possible that this could endanger food security - one more argument that Pro doesn't address. So the reality is, the negative impact of banning factory farming far outweighs the negative impact of not allowing dog fighting (and Pro lacks any offensive case, further strengthening this point). With regard to "arbitrary distinctions," I agree that distinctions between dogs and pigs are arbitrary. From a perspective of my personal ethics, I think dogs and pigs are equal. But my values don't decide what society, as a whole, values. Pro doesn't dispute that the role of the government is to aid the function of civilization, and to promote social order, and concedes (by omission) that social order is promoted best by legislating according to what each society values. American society, for instance, values dogs as "man's best friend." The value extended toward dogs in American society - and in multiple other societies where factory farming is legal - is greater than the value extended toward pigs and chickens. Regardless of whether this "value" is accurate, the sad fact is people hold that as a value, and in societies with relative cultural homogeneity, the values of the majority should be upheld, to promote social order. Political decisions have to acknowledge the realpolitik of the scenario, and shouldn't be based merely on moral impulses of individuals. Indeed, 74% of Americans don't support legalized animal fights, including dog fighting. [3] But even otherwise, I've proven that animal welfare should be valued from a more objective perspective - another argument that Pro doesn't dispute outside of the irrelevant response relating to factory farming. So, in conclusion, this debate isn't close. The factory farming example is an is/ought fallacy; regardless, the harms from factory farming are outweighed by the harms from dog fighting. Dog fighting goes against societal values of multiple homogeneous societies, and against universal values of pleasure/pain calculations. The argument from economic benefit is outweighed by the harm posed to animals, and to social order, by dog fighting. There's no dispute that the status quo reduces dog fighting. Dog fighting is brutal and torturous, and causes harm to animals which far outweighs benefit from "maintaining churches". The harm caused to social order, and values of society, also outweighs any non-quantified benefit from Pro. For all these reasons, vote Con. Sources: 3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...