UT vs PETA

I would like to believe that UT always wins, but that debate went to PETA for sure. Partly because the PETA-guy was a much better speaker than the UT State Champion Debaters... I have for the majority of my life been a vegetarian, so I was naturally inclined to support the PETA argument, however I never saw an argument against eating meat other than me seeing it as unethical. There is another argument as proven by the PETA spokesman and it's an economic argument. The UT team didn't refute this at all which sort weakened their support, and all they said basically was that eating meat isn't unethical but only natural. Maybe it's a little clearer now why the debate winner is crowned as PETA who actually debated with UT instead of agreeing with them.

A Pun that Would've Helped UT


So going into some form of detail about the PETA argument. First Point: There is no ethical meat. Even on farms where animals are cared for and killed "gently," the act of killing itself instills an environment of fear within the other animals, and with the EQ of animals, it's obvious that it's not a pleasant environment for them as they know they're not safe. UT would say that it's only natural state of being considering that chickens ans such animals aren't at the top of the food chain, and to that I say, "How much fun is it to be the buffalo in front of a pride of lions?" That's such a stupid argument on the UT Debate Team's part. They weren't debating; they were being diplomatic. "Umm.. PETA guy I agree with you but you can't say that..." I mean there was no tact in their argument whereas the PETA guy had charts, videos and statistical figures that gave the "legit" status.

Legit Status


Main Point: It costs more to society to raise and slaughter animals than to go vegetarian/vegan. Apparently in terms of food, animals are fed a lot, and for every pound of meat, the return on that investment is substantially less. Therefore, the slaughter industry is an expensive one at a macroeconomic level. Using alternate options for our nutrition (vegetarianism) would significantly increase the food supply in the world which in turn could save many humans who are dying from hunger. PETA guy argues that human life is more valuable than animal life. UT guys basically ignore this as they most probably agree with it. But this is the most economical and rational reason I have ever heard to go vegetarian and at this point I was blown away by PETA's argument. UT in my books lost right there... Sorry longhorns!

Human Life is valuable


The argument was still interesting, especially the questions that followed as some "got really heated" (quote from Maysie Ocera). UT lost which is sad, but the result was fair in my opinion. Members of the crowd that supported meat were more enthusiastic about defending the subject than the UT guys; I mean either they went there with the intention of bending over and pulling their pants down or they totally sucked. I doubt it's the latter since no one at UT sucks! PETA hats off to you for a great debate and great speaking; I learned a few pointers.