Hey guys,

Rajat is making merry in Canada enjoying maple syrup and Terrence and Philip ... so we continue the debate on this post. We have the final constructive speech from the opposition below.


How will this debate end now?

If you have some ideas, do mail me at pranaybhatia02@gmail.com. For now, here's the plan - After this, each team gets the opportunity to make a final closing speech. No new points are allowed in the reply speeches.

We then invite all of you to judge this debate and vote for one of the sides. Put in a comment with the side you think won and do explain your decision as well. Vote on the arguments presented by the teams, not your personal opinions! The winning team members get these delicious foreign chocolates from me. So your vote is very very important!


Funda of the closing speech :

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased adjudication. A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case. It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your own team and to show how these contributed to a logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same time the flaws in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments.


Funda of judging a debate :

The team which presented a better argument for its side of the debate did the better debating. Better arguments can be presented with better style or more logically appealing, but the substance of the arguments should outweigh purely superficial style. A team which looked good did not necessarily win.
Please note, that the Judge does not have to agree with the side which did the better debating, the judge merely has to recognize that their arguments were superior. If someone decides to propose the case "Abortion is immoral," the judge may dislike that debater. The judge may know of twenty reasons why abortion is not immoral. But the judge must decide if the Government's arguments for the case statement outweigh the Opposition's arguments that abortion is not immoral.
The judge should adopt a convention known as tabula rasa, the blank slate. A blank slate perspective means that the judge has no preconceived notions about the round and brings no knowledge or arguments to the round. The Government does not lose because the judge can beat their case. The Opposition does not lose because they did not beat the case as well as the judge could have or in the same way the judge would.
The only time the judge should use any outside knowledge would be when one side asserts bald-faced lies or when one side makes arguments which are so illogical that no ordinary person would believe them. Otherwise, the debaters must tell the judge why something does not make sense or why one argument outweighs another argument. The judge makes their decision about who won and who lost based on whether the arguments made in favor of the case statement outweighed the arguments against the case statement.



And here's the opp3 speech by Ishan Shrivastava -

Ladies and gentlemen, my speech primarily comprises of how the proposition is playing with morality and science to justify a completely illogical move of banning non-vegetarianism.

The prop, according to its own convenience has justified the reason for discriminating against plants as 'emotional pain'. Hasn't the same Creator who has given us the 'responsibility' of 'guarding the weak', given life to them? Plants, being the weakest of them all should be given A+ security then. But the opp does not believe in such baseless theories and considers our survival to be the top most priority, hence we defined meat as a 'luxury' food item. Thus, our point on the prop's hypocritical morality still stands. They are hopping about Science and Morality to suit themselves alone. My competent friend here says that Bose's claims were philosophical, then what are yours?

'...and then the opposition expects the government to waste more land resources for the animals! '- Proposition
and we thought that animals were equal to us... Shouldn't they have an equal right to these lands? Here I would bring into light the 'toddlers and aged' example again. These are members of our species, who will contribute or have contributed to the society in one way or another. Therefore, it is govt's duty to ensure their protection.

How can the govt. impose its interpretation of the Creator's will (if we are to believe in any) and intervene in an individual's acceptance of the fact that He/She did not make certain species as anatomically superior as others and wanted us to enjoy some 'flesh'? But the government sees blood and considers animals as our brothers. The govt's sole purpose is to ensure welfare of their own kind. Therefore, the only debatable point of the proposition I see is the damage caused to the environment.

If we are to agree to the facts presented to us by the proposition-Let us for the time being! Some more facts, which do not need any source citation include the use of vehicles, manufacturing of each and every product, celebration of festivals and many more, which are sources of pollution and most of them come under the category of 'luxury'. Will the govt. go ahead and ban them too? No! It wont. It will rely on technology to come up with solutions as it has continued to do so throughout the ages. An example here could be 'The Green Revolution', which solved the problem of food scarcity across the globe. Where it failed, the major causes included corruption and the unwillingness of governments.

The govt. cannot go ahead and just ban something when there are measures to ensure a balance. Rules and regulations to ensure that there is a healthy balance is the need of the hour. Just because we are expecting a gloomy future for this planet due to way more hazardous causes than non-vegism, the prop sees the ban as a rebound option for a positive step. But what the prop fails to realize is that abolishment of an industry, which supports millions and has religious sentiments as pointed out earlier is an insane and illogical step. Too many cars. Ban them! Too much of furniture. Ban it! Too much of electricity. Ban it! I will not stretch my point and once again emphasize on the fact that the government has the power and resources to ensure balance. In this case, the law-framers can ensure a cap on the production of packaged meat, mark-off lands, provide education to the livestock farmers, ensure quality standards at industries with penalties for the wrong-doers. Such steps can be carried out in every sphere (e.g. promotion of public transport) to get things into a smooth scenario. Resources are bound to deplete, now or some time in the future. What the govt. should ensure is that it does not pass baseless laws, practices healthy economic and social methods, and supports the scientific researches.

Also, according to the 10% logic which the proposition put forward, the govt. should go ahead and ban all the veggie food products also, which give lesser energy/vitamins/minerals/

proteins/etc. than the ones, which give the maximum. Also mentioned earlier, the need of the hour is balance and not outright ban as most illogically suggested by prop.

Even though, our stand is based considering food as a 'luxury' item, we would like to bring into notice that in certain parts of the country/world, it is not possible to ensure an adequate protein intake without meat.

I would like to conclude my speech by re-emphasizing on the hypocritical morality of the proposition, as rightly done by my fellow opposition members. Also, the scientific facts are not at all conclusive for an outright ban on such a massive industry. The previous speaker/writer started his speech by being amused at the 'appalling' justification of the 'meat-eaters' statement. The highly narrow - minded pre-conceived notions of the proposition are evident through the title given to us. We could all be vegetarians for all you know.

-----------------------------------

Prop and opp each get one last speech to recap their case. Opp reply is furter down.

Here's the reply speech for the proposition by Pranay -

It’s been a long debate. Take a breath, relax, and let logic guide your thinking.

Allow me to show you why we on side prop have made several substantive arguments that more than discharge our burden, while the opposition has been too scared to take a stand and have responded to all our arguments with irrelevant, illogical or inhuman arguments.

Firstly, let me remind you of the assumptions of this debate. The opposition conceded that meat was a luxury, that it is not exclusively required to survive or for any other special dietary requirements. In other words, for the purposes of this debate, the only reason you might eat meat is because you enjoy the taste.

We made a very simple argument. We proposed criteria regarding what qualities a living thing must possess to merit moral consideration. Animals, as sentient beings, that feel pain, and have cognitive abilities that often exceed those of young children, deserve some consideration. To inhibit all their natural instincts, make every moment of their life excruciatingly painful, and then mercilessly kill them at the end is inhuman and frankly, pathetic. The opposition response? They rejected our criteria, but never once gave you their own criteria. That’s because they had no logical criteria. Their only statement on this matter was that we as humans owe nothing to animals. The opposition affords absolutely no moral consideration to animals! They say, and I quote, ‘we do not have a duty towards them.‘ If you feel like killing your cat, Opp says go ahead. Opp does not believe that breeding conditions in factory farms should be regulated. If you want to torture animals and charge others a fee to watch the ‘fun’, Opp says sure, why not. If you want to keep zoo animals in pathetic conditions, Opp says okay, your wish, the govt. shouldn’t stop you! In a world where the courts do not even allow the BMC to cull stray dogs; this is clearly not the will of the people in society.

We further told you how the practice of non-vegetarianism severely affects ecosystems and causes the large scale loss of animals’ lives. We told you why this is fundamentally more unsustainable than vegetarianism, and how it will come back to bite us as humans, if we do not stop destroying the environment for reasons as trivial as ‘I like the taste’. We also told you why these steps are depriving the poor of food because they are so wasteful. We do not pretend that the step we propose will solve all problems related to the environment or related to the poor, but it will be a huge step in the right direction. We have seen no rebuttal on that point. The funny part is that Opp doesn’t want species extinct, but it doesn’t mind their numbers getting severely reduced and that ecosystem destroyed. What benevolent moral principles guide this stand of side Opp?

Opp claimed that vegetarianism also causes pain to plants. We showed you why that is simply scientifically wrong. Moreover, plants are not tortured and inhibited from living their natural lives. Let’s not kid ourselves; there are orders of magnitudes difference between the two cases. Even if we assume for a second that plants do feel some significant pain, we should still make the choice to inflict lesser pain, a choice that obviously leads to vegetarianism.

The opposition has hidden behind lofty principles of ‘freedom of choice’. Opp talked about the ‘right to choice’ and how the government must respect individual morality and ‘religious freedoms’. Allow me to repeat myself - If that were so, Sati would still be prevalent, and I would be permitted to torture goats for fun. To this Opp says – ‘If you speak about Sati, it was never moral, it continued because it was enforced on women.’ Yes, and non-vegetarianism is enforced on countless animals who are made to suffer, just like those women were. But of course, Opp sees nothing wrong in that. Opp has ‘no duty’ towards animals. Opp also talks about cigarettes, drinking and the right to choice. In neither of these cases do you force the torture of animals in the manner you do while eating meat. Where cigarettes harm others through second hand smoke, the govt. does step in and make laws regardless of your ‘right to choice’.

Opp has no morality, no ethics and no sense of righteousness. They also have no case. The Government, considering the clear logic of the issue of unnecessary animal suffering, as well as the serious repercussions of non-vegetarianism on feeding the poor, on the sustainability of ecosystems and hence on our own environmental surroundings, can either take the right step or impotently turn its eyes away.

Remember, we are a rational people. Arguments like ‘It’s always happened that way’ or ‘I like that so I won’t stop’ or ‘I will accept arbitrary divisions that have no logic’ are not valid. That’s all Opp has offered, while we have given you several substantives. We rest our case.

-----------------------------------

Here's the reply speech for the opposition by Ravi Bhoraskar -

Ladies And Gentlemen,

As we come to the conclusion of the debate, the result must be fairly clear, and the opposition has clearly won the debate. During the course of my speech I shall list down the major issues around which the debate has revolved, and I shall show how the opposition's arguments have been far superior on each of the points, and hence how the opposition has won the debate.

The debate has revolved around the following points: One, the environment and how non vegetarianism harms it. Two, the economic viability of eating meat and the sustainability of non vegetarianism. Third, the effect of meat on health. Fourth, the right to choice and whether the government has sufficient justification to ban meat. And finally, morality and how non vegetarianism is cruel and unjust. I shall discuss each of these points and show how the opposition's arguments are stronger on each of them.

Let us begin with the environment issue. The proposition argued that consumption of non vegetarian food detoriates the environment. The opposition show that this fact alone does not justify a ban. Environmental degradation is caused by use of vehicles, manufacturing of each and every product, celebration of festivals and a lot more. However it would be preosterous to think of banning these. The fact is that excess of anything becomes an evil, and the aims of the government should be directed towards enforcement of moderation, and development of technology to find solutions. Enforcing indiscriminate bans can never be a solution, and when the government begins to interfere into each and every aspect of the affairs of its citizens, the society detoriates into anarchy, which should never be allowed.

The point on which there has been maximum debate and discussio n has beeen that of morality. The proposition has constantly shifted stance and has tried to conveniently frame a model of morality which proves their point. Under this morality, it is not okay to kill animals for food because they feel painand because it is wrong to take the life of one of God's creations, but plants(though they too are God's creation) are excluded because after all it is a matter of survival. Under this morality, humans are given weighty titles like “guardians of the weak” but we conveniently forget that plants too are weak and need protection. In this morality, it is okay that millions of humans lose their jobs and source of livelihood, so that animals can be saved from pain. Obviously it is a farce and hypocritical morality which they are talking about.

The opposition believes that people do not have a filet mignon because they want to prove their dominance over other species, nor because they want to show they are powerful. They have it merely because it is scrumptuous and they love to eat it. The opposition further believes that people should be allowed to eat what they want to. Morality is a matter of personal faith, and the government cannot and should not impose a collective morality on its citizens(unless there is a loss to the society as a whole, which in this case there clearly isn't).

The next area of the debate has been the economic viability of meat. The proposition has raised questions over the sustainability of non vegetarianism and has harped on about the harm injustice being done to the world's poor. The opposition believes that the government is trying to push forward a communist ideology. Following the same logic, the government would ban all luxury items in the world including strawberries, mangoes, vanilla and saffron. This would after all bring justice to the poor, which is what the proposition is looking for. They would also have us all eat plain steamed rice, for breakfast, lunch and dinner as this would reduce the hunger in the world. Totally ridiculous, ladies and gentlemen. The opposition has shown throughout the debate via arguments, rhetoric an analogies the fatal flaw in this approach of the proposition which is that the government has no right to control my mind and to tell me what to do.

The proposition also gave health as a reason to ban non vegetarian food. While it may be true that eating meat increases cholestrol level, there are equally dangerous problems with vegetarian food, if not worse. Fertilizers, pesticides and contaminated water have been scientifically proved to be carcinogenic. Also it is a matter of choice for the citizens whether they want to risk their health or not. The most the government should do is to print mandatory health warnings on the meat packets. A very effective example given was that of cigarettes, which shows that the individuals righ tot choose supercedes any health concerns which the government may have for its citizens. The proposition gave many fact and figures and arguments to prove their point, but no graph can beat the sheer common sense which says that the right to choose must prevail.

Ladies and Gentlemen, on each and every point discussed in the debate, the opposition has come on top and has exposed the baselessness and frivolity of the weak case put forward by the proposition. On these grounds, the debate has clearly been won by the opposition.

-----------------

And that's it. Now we await your verdict! See the judging fundae at the start of this post, think logically and tell us which side you think wins the debate and why.

Gotta say, this has been fun.