Vegetarianism

I will use this round solely for refutations. 1. Inhumane farming is illegal. "Slaughterhouses are held to certain standars because of the Humane Slaughter Act" First off, the Humane Slaughter Act only mentions cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep and swine, even though over 9 billion chickens are slaughtered annually[1]. Secondly, it does not mention the raising of the animals. In fact, it is actually perfectly legal to raise animals in any manner possible as long as it's relatively common due to "Common Farming Exemptions"[2]. This has made it perfectly legal to put live chicks through grinders[3], castrate millions of pigs and cows without anesthetic, keep animals in cages so small they can't turn around, and kill thousands of animals to stem disease outbreaks[2]. My opponent's point on "I am aware that there are certain situations where animals are not killed humanely, or treated humanely. Please note that this is illegal" is rendered moot. Not only that, the raising and slaughter of animals will never be fully humane. No matter what steps are taken, the animals will always feel pain and suffer during slaughter and will always suffer in cages from a variety of factors-we can only mitigate it, but never fully solve it. 2. Meat is unnecessary "Pro's next argument does not actually pertain to this debate" My argument was not that vegetarian diets should be taken because they are healthier, it was that meat is most definitely unnecessary if vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters. Sorry if that was misinterpreted. 3. By buying something, you are supporting it. "Buying meat or animal products does not cause the death of these animals. If you were to stop buying animal products, this would not stop the animals from being killed." While one person refusing to eat meat would most definitely not stop the animals from being killed, if everyone refused to eat meat it would most definitely stop the animals from being killed. However, one person can damage the meat industry. Though his support may be small, it is still there. He is giving his money to support the companies that are raising animals in inhumane companies. My opponent's point can essentially be said as "they are supporting it, but they aren't supporting it a lot" Remember, by buying and eating meat you are giving your money to meat producers, or supporting them. Though it is debatable that you will save lives, you are still supporting meat producers by buying meat. "If you were to stop buying these products, there would not be any less amount of products made" One of the laws of supply and demand is that if demand falls, the quantity sold falls[4]. When this happens, meat producers will produce less, because they do not want to produce an excess. 4. "It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers." Though animals may be dependant on humans, that does not mean that they would otherwise die in the wild. Rather, it means that they simply would not be alive. If humans had not decided to raise the animals, then the animals would not have been born. What is better- that the animals were born to live a horrible life and then die, or that they were not born at all? 5. "Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo" That is because vegetarianism is solely concerned with what to eat. Though I have not met many vegetarians, most I have met also abstain from leather and soaps that came from animals. Because we do not eat clothes and shampoo, these are not associated with vegetarianism. Conclusion My syllogism still stands. The two objections my opponent has brought up are a) It is illegal to raise animals inhumanely and b) By not buying something you won't have an effect on how many animals die. However, I have shown that Common Farming Exemptions make it perfectly legal to raise animals in torturous conditions. My opponent's second objection does not reject my syllogism precisely because it does not matter if you have an effect on how many animals die, as you are still supporting it. Not only that, my opponent did not prove his claim, and the law of supply and demand shows that it is likely that by not buying something, you are saving animals from a torturous life. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] http://arnoldkling.com...