a long time ago in a server far far away i debated with an even more intense level of cringe than i do now also this is DEVILS ADVOCATE I AM NOT VEGAN!! I have debates arguing against Veganism
@Morbid Angel is better than Death 😂not really but even if that was the case how would a community be fun without some toxic people and everything was just peaceful
@Morbid Angel is better than Death you really just kept getting ratioed, you got slammed so hard by the other guy that your points devolved into purely opinions and just saying "I know you are but what am I" type of insulting, holy shit you generally almost stood a chance at debating this man well until you just started going for insults and opinions and just completely lost.
9:06 "if we're starting with the assumption that human beings are valuable...." Ah yes if we start with the assumption that I am already right and don't even have to prove that I am, then I am right. What a great argument.
@@ruppelspoopels Yeah but if you make that principle the conclusion you're trying to reach you haven't actually made an argument. You've just presupposed your conclusion. In order for such a principle to work both participants have to agree on it.
That's an easy argument to make, all you have to do is establish humans as the apex predator and establish less sentient creatures as more of a resource than anything
This is the saddest "philosophy" chat I've ever heard. They had vocabulary and ZERO rhetoric, they didn't even know how to properly identify a false equivalence.
what? seth was misindentifying the false equivalence. noone was making an equivalence relation they were giving hypotheticals to demonstrate the common trait.
@@jovonn8303 I was referring to Seth's use of them saying that it was fine to harm animals to if they tasted good, to his, "Then if you taste good, could I eat you?" Humans are biologically considered animals, so it applies.
@@jovonn8303 You are trying super hard to sound like Jack right now. Anyways, Dionysus mentioned Asian people dying in the process of making cars, which isn't a hypothetical. Moreover, he was attempting to appeal to the a.) unnecessity and b.) no killing features Seth laid out. Seth said that some people dying in making cars isn't the same as meat as one requires you to kill animals, implying that car production might create accidental deaths.
@@STKHub yeah but in all honesty most of Seths arguments aren’t even that good and can be easily rebuttaled, he just happened to walk into a chat where these philosopher debaters are complete garbage
@@_MaximumVoltage Ngl that facts because for a philosophical discord most of these people can't understand that just because something is morally incorrect and unnecessary doesn't mean that u have to defend it just because u eat meat like it isn't morally correct but saying it taste good isn't a valuable argument because that means basically I like the dress your wearing so imma just take it like that isn't morally correct or ethical.
The fetus soup bit at the end was just to test the consistency, not a trap or anything, they were incredibly hostile but also had some genuinely good lines of questioning
God these people are amateurs. They didn't ask Seth to state his premise clearly. That's debate 101 You go after the premise first and if the premiseIs is logically consistent within itself then you bring in external arguments. Because if you don't nail down people on the premises then they just pass by you as a ship in the night.
They kind of attempted it at one point, personally, I wouldve went after him in a more hardline utilitarian way, as well as argue the definition of sentience, and push his consistency on the necessity portion of his arguement
@@noahlillis6602 I mean you could try that angle but the problem is whenever you use a positive statement in an argument the other side can reject your premise. So if you were to argue from and utilitarianist premise I could just reject it out of hand with moral absolute premise. I mean asserting an alternate premise can work if the other side accepts upgraments and a lot of amateur debaters do but if they know what they're doing like Seth they probably would just not engage with your premise especially if they can perceive that their argument is weak if they accept this new premise.
@@ThatGuy-mt7hq that's fair, though I'll also say, it was weird to me that no one tried to argue that humans being the earth's apex predator entitles them to the usage of all resources, which also includes animals. However, seth not bringing up the environmental impact of livestock farming and the direct negative impact that has on humans shows me he had some stuff left in reserve, because that's fairly common knowledge and honestly where I wouldve went first
@@noahlillis6602 Ah I see. That could work, though personally I would argue against the proposition by nailing down two things. that morality if it is to mean anything it must exist independently of circumstance. That regardless of the outcome of the action if is made immoral any positive actions made by the initial wrongdoing is morally wrong, Even in isolation it would appear on his face to be morally upright. for example if I pulled off a Ponzi scheme, and made out with millions of dollars defrauding all my investors and ruining their lives If I then turned around and became a humanitarian and helped thousands if not hundreds of thousands all the moral act would be invalid because of that original sin. If I could get seth to agree to those two terms, I would then suggest that if he asserted that human civilization itself because of its necessity ate meat for thousands of years and thus gained the mental capacity to have a human civilization is bad and immoral and that we should return to a truly primitive lifestyle to live the virtuous life. I'm not talking going back to tribes and hunting and gathering I'm talking going back to climbing trees primitive. Why this style of argumentation works is because it goes to his core premise and for him to be logically consistent He would have to join to a position that I do not think he would accept.
@@ThatGuy-mt7hq that's actually a concept I've been trying to work on in my endeavors to get better at debate. I have a bad habit not going for the throat and being very passive and not going after their premise strongly enough
And so it is foretold that from the darkest depths of the figurative vegan debate iceberg it shall come, many will deflect, many more will sperg out, but none can escape the all powerful F e T U s S o U p line of argumentation.
15 minutes in and most of these guys are really off base. Seth is running circles around them and none of them are even grasping his arguments to refute them.
Me the entire first part. "But Dietary Needs differ for different people. Red Meat has saved lives, is that not a moral right or at least neutral to eat to live? Also sustaining humanity on plants only would cause environmental stress and thus likely induce famine."
It isn't necessary for most people and Seth's arguments apply to people who don't need to eat meat. Also, factory farming causes environemental strain and we still haven't endured a famine. You realize feeding a cow requires producing food far outweighing the sheer mass of the cow, right?
Seth is Madara when he took down the shinobi alliance. I am a vegetarian because my ex girlfriend wanted me to eat healthier, although that is a preference. The hypothetical makes sense if aliens were to come to Earth and they ate us humans is it morally correct? Most would say no because it involves our species. Now if humans eat animals it isn't wrong? Murder whatever the case is always wrong. What if the social contract in a society said stealing from others was okay? Along that line of logic in this hypothetical question I just gave is the act of stealing okay now just because this hypothetical society accepts it? The answer is no.
Honestly, i just think people are above certain other animals. Mainly herbivores/omnivores that are made to be eaten by carnivores. Such as the giraffe being hunted by the lion. It's nature for animals to eat other animals and as a human who believes that most animals are below me. I wish to be included in eating those animals too. That's why I can eat a burger and not feel bad for Betsy the cow because if I had a choice to save a random cow or a random person, i choose the person. Though i do feel cows are below me, i still feel a bit for them if they suffer. If they are killed quick then I'm fine with it. The reason why I wouldn't eat a monkey is because I see them as an animal that can evolve past pure instinct. They can do more than eat, sleep, poop, breed, and care. They have ideas and such that really brings out something special. The animals I mainly see below me are ones that live to eat, sleep and breed. I do like how pinpin wrecked these guys in the discord though. That was awesome and some boys got mad.
Let's be real tho. If the topic of ur debate was about morality of eating animals then the discussion should have just been morality alone. U kind of put yourself in a toxic situation by debating morality with veganism. Those debates never go smoothly at all. Love to see ur takes on other topics in the future. Perhaps something like "what is happiness" or my personal favorite "are things progressively getting worse than the eras before us?".
I do agree tho that you should probably stay away from the phrase "no reason" like I know you're being hyperbolic, but depending on why you talk to, hyperbole can lead to misinterpretation
These are not philosophers by any stretch of the imagination and very average debaters. P.S. Why doesn't anyone expand the argument with Seth? They get trapped in his myopia and repetition, then crumble.
P.P.S. Any of them could have won the first argument if they bothered to answer Seth's 'why' humans have rights over animals. Humans have a CONCEPTUAL faculty, are able to think long range, enjoy the benefits of and even think of morality. We can command nature to our bidding, not be killed by it.
"If I make you explain that your premise is 1 and not 2 separate reasons until you get annoyed and want to start over and explain to me in a simplistic wat that I'll understand, then I WIN"
Almost all of them are hyper defensive and retarded. Just because youre in a psuedo intellectual philosophy discord server doesnt suddenly mean youre a genius who is always right on said genre of topics. Mad cringe from these guys, fun as hell watch though.
So seths claim is that we don't need to eat meat because we can eat plants instead. Wouldnt the argument against that be that we have hunger shortages, many climates across the globe can't sustain growing crops for food, not to mention water shortages which is needed to grow the crops, and (this is an assumption) animals take up less space then what would be needed to harvest crops (would have to do maffs). And then it comes down to what do we value more starving humans who need to eat, or the animals we are eating which I would assume is an easy argument to win.
Imagine thinking arguments of morality are simply just the consensus of society... No one would ever have an argument of the morality of anything because they'd literally just take a survey Argue the morality of veganism? Well 87% of people aren't vegans, therefore it's immortal to be vegan...because...we live in a society 🤭
its funny seeing ppl CONSTANTLY disregard the good points he makes, they’re In denial cuz they just cant accept being wrong😭😭 its funny how calm he manages to stay, call me weak, but I cant remain calm when ppl do this shtt lol
For one there is a human way to eat meat, we don’t need factory farming to eat meat. If you hunt animals in the wild and kill older larger animals towards the end of their lives you are preventing Inhuman suffering. What is unnatural about an animal be killed by its natural predator in it’s natural environment. If you have a have a farm you can raise chickens eat the eggs which are unfertilized and would never grow up to be chickens unless they where fertilized. You can eat the chickens towards the end of their life. You can raise goats and cows for milk and when they are old you can either let them die of old age or put them out of their misery and eat them either way. Meat is a high energy food that has many nutrients that are hard to replace. I would argue that vegan food does a very poor job at replacing meat because it is highly processed and or low in nutrition. The net impact of every person becoming vegan would be negative. It would be a waste of natural resources to not eat meat. Should a lion be stopped from eating a lamb. Also about his argument about animals having sentient life what about fish. Honestly tho I just think people should let other people live how they want to live. I have a cousin who is vegan and I’m not gonna tell him what to do it helped him lose weight. We live in a society where obesity is one of the highest causes of disease. Consumerism has led us away from or natural ways of form meets function. We have so much food and are so secure we have the time to debate the morality of eating meat while someone starves to death In the street and nobody looks at him. Things are safe and secure now but you don’t know what the future holds, you don’t know when a meal could be your last sometimes and that is how it is in nature. We are so divorced from how survival is in nature. If your starving and you have a steak and a salad in front of you and you can only eat one and it’s potentially your last meal what are you eating. May answer is eat both and kick whoever’s ass said I could only eat one or the other.
My biggest problem with vegans is that most of them are moral relativists or subjectivists. not all of course, but most of them are. If you are a relativist in anyway, you couldn't possibly begin to claim that killing animals is bad and that we are morally obligated to not kill animals. It's a massive contradiction. Their own interpretation of morality doesn't even support their claims. Now, if a vegan is a moral realist, than their arguments become way more consistent, and the conversation can get a lot more interesting.
I'm a vegan and a moral realist; however, subjectivists are fully capable of evaluating particular actions as bad coherently. They just don't believe it's factual; they typically believe it's simply some opinion they have.
@@STKHub The major problem that they face is that when they utter a moral proposition (i.e. speciesism is wrong) it merely reflects approval/disapproval for a given agent, and it wouldn't contradict their interlocutor. If Seth argued that speciesism was wrong, then he'd merely be claiming "I disapprove of speciesism", whilst his interlocutor (Tom) would hold that it's not wrong (which would translate to as "Tom approves of speciesism). These propositions do not contradict one another. Someone like Vegan Gains constantly espouses propositions like "it's wrong to needlessly torture a being ...", and he even claims that speciesism is wrong, but his subjectivism would undermine his objections since he's merely arguing that these are things that he disapproves of.
The debate is based on human morals and not natural morals. If I'm an animal and I want food imma eat you, yes seth if you think I'm tastey go ahead and try and eat me but don't be surprised if I try and eat you back homie. Thats natural morals, survival should trump all else. The issue is people separating themselves from natural evolution because of our complicated brain structures bringing forth values beyond survival. Ultimately morals run counter to survival in many instances and should be attributed to a quirk in human evolution when we transitioned over from being hunter gatherers to living in settlements. (look at people hugging lions and other wild carnivores, didn't some lady recently go try and take a picture with a gorilla and get absolutely fucking ragdolled? Holy shit! some other lady had her face and hands removed by a pet chimp in australia in 2019. Human morals hard at work ladies and gents) Also the argument we don't have to eat meat has some holes, not everyone can afford a nutritionist and supplements or to go buy overpriced non-animal whey based protein byproduct from Whole Foods. (seriously not eating animals or animal byproduct can be prohibitively expensive if you want to keep a balanced diet) You can seriously fuck yourself up if you're not careful about your nutrition when you deviate from eating a wide variety of foods. So the "you don't have to eat meat" argument falls flat as soon as you take the human out of suburban america. You think poor people in a third world country can afford to not eat ANYTHING when survival is on the line? Why are we killing all these plants that make our oxygen just to save animals that would eat our faces and livers the first chance they get? Your alien line was good these guys are kind of fucking stupid to not see that and I would of immediately conceded. If a technologically superior alien race came to earth and started eating people they have every justification because of said overwhelming power. Why should they care if we don't like being eaten when their species survival was/is potentially on the line? Morality is a luxury plain and simple, it's the basis for human society and laws which we employ for survival because it's more evolutionarily beneficial for the species, but that doesn't mean it's the end all be all for every argument.
Woah you have to agree on multiple things before having a debate? It's almost like everything isn't just A or B It's almost like there's stuff before those options are presented...almost like language and the thought is complicated
These people were so annoying and don't know how to debate properly. Jesus. Edit: it got slightly better at the halfway mark because of that guy who joined in.
In my opinion this could've been solved easily. Once seth said that we kill animals for no reason. instead of just bringing up consumption they also should've bought up the dependence of the death of animals on other products like leather and fur. Knowing seth and the nature of the topic this would be were he makes that alien comment about aliens torturing us. All you would have to say is this "so you're saying that if higher creatures come to earth to torture us for food would that be correct". He would probably say yes than you retort with "that would just be the food chain in action"
If sentience is the only important factor, that soup would technically have to be on the menu, so I'm assuming their argument was against sentience as an absolute argument in favor of veganism. No one outright said that at the end tho, which is mystifying.
Yes because being a Vegan is the same as not driving a car because killing animals is the same as using a product from a sweatshop, as both are unecessary things we choose to do, but Ariana's bluntly mentioned that she is the only one going to be a long day for you to come back to the house 🏡 and I will be there at the same time as the same is not nice 🤠.
a long time ago in a server far far away i debated with an even more intense level of cringe than i do now
also this is DEVILS ADVOCATE I AM NOT VEGAN!! I have debates arguing against Veganism
Scale naruto
Hey, dude. Thanks for all the entertainment you've given me throughout the years. You're fuckin great man!
Nice video
Seeing you more on edge and at a disadvantage is weird af
Always fun to watch
LMAOOO "It doesn't need to be a one on one I'll slap all of you"
Seth's weeb side came out a little when he said that
It's so bold, I love it
Only Seth
Seth really walked in like "Would you like each of my arguements to use Susano'o?"
😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂
@@BlueCosmo369 bro why tf do you have my name?
When he said "I'll slap all of you", I got HEAVY Madara saying the 5 kage is nothing to me
"just pretend that we're stupid"
seth: you are
He literally got a vegan to say he would eat a baby fetus to help slow down the meat industry 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣☠️☠️ we need more debates from this server
“Stop with the fake laughing” LMAO
Lmaooooooo
@@rememberme3762 cringe
@@SIRAJPRODUCTIONS Cringe
@@rememberme3762 cringe LOL HAHAHAHA 😆 😬 😅 🙃 🤣 💀 😆
time stamp
boys...we’ve been eating a damn buffet worth of content of today 🙏🏽
WE FEASTING
@@flashtras107820 on god
@@debunked2923
Hey we're not eating seth
@@debunked2923 oh NVM seth is multi universal +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@@ras445 AcTuAlLy ThAT iS a LoW bAlL.🤓
Madara vs the shinobi alliance irl
Fr😂😂
Hero hunter Garou vs A class heros
Mirio vs Class 1A
My dads belt vs my heinie
😂😂😂😂😂
Seth not debating non anime topics feels next level asf.
Seth? This is PinPin my guy
@@sds8733 comedy ha
Actually it’s Seth Pinpin is his master and is training him to become the first ever Super Saiyan Hokage
Seth should debate Destiny that would be a shit show 😂
@@keys5595 Seth actually has had a whole debate with someone about whether he's better than Destiny
PinPin came in with the Aizen energy
@Maurice Johnson fr
He came in with pimp energyXD
This is a a battle that hasn’t been replicated since that 3rd raikage vs 10,000 shinobi
LOOOL
since the broly wars
“I just like to argue with people”😂
@Morbid Angel is better than Death 😂not really but even if that was the case how would a community be fun without some toxic people and everything was just peaceful
@Morbid Angel is better than Death he could get sponsors also
That is something Goku would say, if he was an intellectual instead of a martial artist.
@@amanraijandial Pakistan already has the Hydrogen bomb.
@Morbid Angel is better than Death you really just kept getting ratioed, you got slammed so hard by the other guy that your points devolved into purely opinions and just saying "I know you are but what am I" type of insulting, holy shit you generally almost stood a chance at debating this man well until you just started going for insults and opinions and just completely lost.
“It seems your bf needs help” Lmao 😂
😂😂😂
“It doesn’t have to be one on one I’ll slap all of you” I’m dead that shit was hilarious 🤣
22:47 “Why are you apart of a vegan server if your not vegan”
Seth: “I thrive off negativity”😂
This is the most toxic debate I have listened too i love it
Broly wars
Really? This was Barley toxic at all.
this wasnt toxic.....
He. Won't. Stop.
Seth debating 7 people at once
Some guy: “if you’d stop talking for two seconds!!!!!!!!”
And dear God their bad faith interpretations
“So if you taste good can I eat you”
As soon as he said that he immediately lost🤣🤣🤣
@@Justin.ol9 How?
@@STKHub I’m not talking about Seth I’m talking about the guy he was talking to
@@Justin.ol9 W.
Yes
9:06 "if we're starting with the assumption that human beings are valuable...."
Ah yes if we start with the assumption that I am already right and don't even have to prove that I am, then I am right. What a great argument.
To be fair he’s not wrong with that
You need a first principle that exists without justification. It's something we can't possibly know
@@ruppelspoopels Yeah but if you make that principle the conclusion you're trying to reach you haven't actually made an argument. You've just presupposed your conclusion. In order for such a principle to work both participants have to agree on it.
I reject that assumption assuming we are talking about a universal statement.
That's an easy argument to make, all you have to do is establish humans as the apex predator and establish less sentient creatures as more of a resource than anything
This is the saddest "philosophy" chat I've ever heard. They had vocabulary and ZERO rhetoric, they didn't even know how to properly identify a false equivalence.
what? seth was misindentifying the false equivalence. noone was making an equivalence relation they were giving hypotheticals to demonstrate the common trait.
@@jovonn8303 I was referring to Seth's use of them saying that it was fine to harm animals to if they tasted good, to his, "Then if you taste good, could I eat you?" Humans are biologically considered animals, so it applies.
@@jovonn8303 You are trying super hard to sound like Jack right now. Anyways, Dionysus mentioned Asian people dying in the process of making cars, which isn't a hypothetical. Moreover, he was attempting to appeal to the a.) unnecessity and b.) no killing features Seth laid out. Seth said that some people dying in making cars isn't the same as meat as one requires you to kill animals, implying that car production might create accidental deaths.
@@STKHub yeah but in all honesty most of Seths arguments aren’t even that good and can be easily rebuttaled, he just happened to walk into a chat where these philosopher debaters are complete garbage
@@_MaximumVoltage Ngl that facts because for a philosophical discord most of these people can't understand that just because something is morally incorrect and unnecessary doesn't mean that u have to defend it just because u eat meat like it isn't morally correct but saying it taste good isn't a valuable argument because that means basically I like the dress your wearing so imma just take it like that isn't morally correct or ethical.
The fetus soup bit at the end was just to test the consistency, not a trap or anything, they were incredibly hostile but also had some genuinely good lines of questioning
Agreed but still lost the debate
Man that was hectic. And keep in mind this was when seth was like week 1 of philosophical deabting
Damn Seth feeding us tonight
I mean PinPin
@@hoodie7257 seth is fodder infront of pinpin
@@sds8733 they are the same person though
@@Azuritron it’s a joke bruh
@@Azuritron who told you such lies
God these people are amateurs. They didn't ask Seth to state his premise clearly. That's debate 101 You go after the premise first and if the premiseIs is logically consistent within itself then you bring in external arguments.
Because if you don't nail down people on the premises then they just pass by you as a ship in the night.
They kind of attempted it at one point, personally, I wouldve went after him in a more hardline utilitarian way, as well as argue the definition of sentience, and push his consistency on the necessity portion of his arguement
@@noahlillis6602 I mean you could try that angle but the problem is whenever you use a positive statement in an argument the other side can reject your premise. So if you were to argue from and utilitarianist premise I could just reject it out of hand
with moral absolute premise.
I mean asserting an alternate premise can work if the other side accepts upgraments and a lot of amateur debaters do but if they know what they're doing like Seth they probably would just not engage with your premise especially if they can perceive that their argument is weak if they accept this new premise.
@@ThatGuy-mt7hq that's fair, though I'll also say, it was weird to me that no one tried to argue that humans being the earth's apex predator entitles them to the usage of all resources, which also includes animals. However, seth not bringing up the environmental impact of livestock farming and the direct negative impact that has on humans shows me he had some stuff left in reserve, because that's fairly common knowledge and honestly where I wouldve went first
@@noahlillis6602 Ah I see. That could work, though personally I would argue against the proposition by nailing down two things. that morality if it is to mean anything it must exist independently of circumstance. That regardless of the outcome of the action if is made immoral any positive actions made by the initial wrongdoing is morally wrong, Even in isolation it would appear on his face to be morally upright.
for example if I pulled off a Ponzi scheme, and made out with millions of dollars defrauding all my investors and ruining their lives If I then turned around and became a humanitarian and helped thousands if not hundreds of thousands all the moral act would be invalid because of that original sin.
If I could get seth to agree to those two terms, I would then suggest that if he asserted that human civilization itself because of its necessity ate meat for thousands of years and thus gained the mental capacity to have a human civilization is bad and immoral and that we should return to a truly primitive lifestyle to live the virtuous life. I'm not talking going back to tribes and hunting and gathering I'm talking going back to climbing trees primitive.
Why this style of argumentation works is because it goes to his core premise and for him to be logically consistent He would have to join to a position that I do not think he would accept.
@@ThatGuy-mt7hq that's actually a concept I've been trying to work on in my endeavors to get better at debate. I have a bad habit not going for the throat and being very passive and not going after their premise strongly enough
Bro that fetus soup argument was kinda yikes
Even using the sentience argument is questionable but yeah that was a pretty 1head argument
“Well, I’m bit of a nihilist myself.” Favorite quote so far.
that fake laugh was so cringe lmao
had to mute that shit for a few sec omg
Time stamp
Time stamp please
PLEASE WHATS THE TIME STAMP
Time stamp
Damn 4 times yo boy pippin never stops
Such patience! These guys were a bunch of smooth brains, Micheal was reasonable though.
Except for like the last three minutes
Man.. I bet this dogpile would've clapped Seth. Another god tier debate as usual, Pinpin, you've earned that Seth Slayer title!
damn im retarded cant tell if this a joke or not
@@drollerschalk3986 its a joke
Me personally i don't think we need a moral justification to eat meat but i do agree we shouldn't torture them either.
Same
Yea he said that he didn’t even believe in this he just likes to argue 😂
@@OATHSPACE LOOL
This must have been how Jiraiya felt battling all the paths of Pain.
Nah the Paths were strong. This is how Jiraiya felt while clapping Hanzo's fodder
“It’s arbitrary” “THATS A RED HERRING”....that’s literally all I heard the whole arguement.
I love how Seth actually stays consistent with the teachings I learned in my English and philosophy, college and high school classes
"it doesn't need to be a one on one I'll slap all of you" gold
And so it is foretold that from the darkest depths of the figurative vegan debate iceberg it shall come, many will deflect, many more will sperg out, but none can escape the all powerful F e T U s S o U p line of argumentation.
Thanks PinPin-sama!
Damn papa Pinpin feeding us good tonight
10:30 yo I kid you not, I was legit blurted out laughing 😂💀
listening to this gives me the same vibe as when madara challenges all 9 bijuu
12:01 "we don't live in order to stay alive"
*HUUUUHHHHHH?????????*
Seth I thought you mostly stuck two anime stuff glad to see you're branching out I really enjoy this
The clicking always gets me for some reason 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I’ve never heard so many big brains in one setting in my life 😫
I find it hilarious this devolves so quickly into Jonathan Swift levels of meme.
Dude said "fetus munchies" 😂😂
15 minutes in and most of these guys are really off base. Seth is running circles around them and none of them are even grasping his arguments to refute them.
very hard for these duded to understand what "for no reason" means
You slap them all , they all back each other up and they all sounded dumb 😂
The guys in this chat are dumb like they are just not good they won't listen enough.
"His boyfriend needs help" IM DYING 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
“If you taste good can I eat you?” 😂😂😂
But but but.. *Fetus soup* 😂
Me the entire first part. "But Dietary Needs differ for different people. Red Meat has saved lives, is that not a moral right or at least neutral to eat to live? Also sustaining humanity on plants only would cause environmental stress and thus likely induce famine."
It isn't necessary for most people and Seth's arguments apply to people who don't need to eat meat. Also, factory farming causes environemental strain and we still haven't endured a famine.
You realize feeding a cow requires producing food far outweighing the sheer mass of the cow, right?
Producing food off cows hurt the environment by 10x than plants
Seth is Madara when he took down the shinobi alliance. I am a vegetarian because my ex girlfriend wanted me to eat healthier, although that is a preference. The hypothetical makes sense if aliens were to come to Earth and they ate us humans is it morally correct? Most would say no because it involves our species. Now if humans eat animals it isn't wrong? Murder whatever the case is always wrong. What if the social contract in a society said stealing from others was okay? Along that line of logic in this hypothetical question I just gave is the act of stealing okay now just because this hypothetical society accepts it? The answer is no.
I really want to debate on that fetus thing because it got me really invested for some reason
Honestly, i just think people are above certain other animals. Mainly herbivores/omnivores that are made to be eaten by carnivores. Such as the giraffe being hunted by the lion. It's nature for animals to eat other animals and as a human who believes that most animals are below me. I wish to be included in eating those animals too. That's why I can eat a burger and not feel bad for Betsy the cow because if I had a choice to save a random cow or a random person, i choose the person. Though i do feel cows are below me, i still feel a bit for them if they suffer. If they are killed quick then I'm fine with it. The reason why I wouldn't eat a monkey is because I see them as an animal that can evolve past pure instinct. They can do more than eat, sleep, poop, breed, and care. They have ideas and such that really brings out something special. The animals I mainly see below me are ones that live to eat, sleep and breed. I do like how pinpin wrecked these guys in the discord though. That was awesome and some boys got mad.
100%.
You would get clapped in a debate
I heavily agree with that, but even losing would be fun.
what i just stated is a sloppy way of why i can eat a burger and not feel bad
Let's be real tho. If the topic of ur debate was about morality of eating animals then the discussion should have just been morality alone. U kind of put yourself in a toxic situation by debating morality with veganism. Those debates never go smoothly at all. Love to see ur takes on other topics in the future. Perhaps something like "what is happiness" or my personal favorite "are things progressively getting worse than the eras before us?".
EAT ME SETH. FLAVOR THOO
Damn you were actually wrecking so hard
Id love to see more of stuff like this from you 👍
I do agree tho that you should probably stay away from the phrase "no reason" like I know you're being hyperbolic, but depending on why you talk to, hyperbole can lead to misinterpretation
It’s actually crazy how well you held your own when you have never debated it before. It shows your competence in debating itself.
What's his sucide claim his boyfriend obviously needs help" XD HOLYSHIT I loved that
As someone with very little debating experience I'd like to debate Seth
@DannyDaDuffyDucking Daffer I'd want to try and not get bodied
@@ajacosta4369 lol
So they get hit with something they can't argue with and sperg out for an hour
Was NK on your side the whole time 🤣
Vegan side, basically.
@@STKHub oh for sure for sure 🤣 I forgot about the whole clan battle thing but it was hype to see you clap niggas back with Seth lolol
OH FUCK YEA! we need more debates like this and btw can we get a non-equivalence counter next time... lmao
They had to play symantecs 😂
No reason? Well I think you mean no morally righteous reason😂😂😂
This arguement made me want a burger
so it didn't feed you?
@gary Wilhelm O_O
These are not philosophers by any stretch of the imagination and very average debaters.
P.S. Why doesn't anyone expand the argument with Seth? They get trapped in his myopia and repetition, then crumble.
P.P.S. Any of them could have won the first argument if they bothered to answer Seth's 'why' humans have rights over animals. Humans have a CONCEPTUAL faculty, are able to think long range, enjoy the benefits of and even think of morality. We can command nature to our bidding, not be killed by it.
I’ve genuinely just seen people debate about foetus soup, this is a first for me.
You know he had Seth when he called him a Moron over and over.
And when they laugh at you.
These people hurt my brain. Such a heavy injection of stupidity at such a frequent rate.
"Foetus soup" what the fuck is wrong with some of these guys LMAO
My man just made becoming a vegan logical
Pipin the best no cap
"But flavor tho"
"If I make you explain that your premise is 1 and not 2 separate reasons until you get annoyed and want to start over and explain to me in a simplistic wat that I'll understand, then I WIN"
Man, I wanted to see the vegan war. Specifically the part you mentioned in your loses video.
Almost all of them are hyper defensive and retarded. Just because youre in a psuedo intellectual philosophy discord server doesnt suddenly mean youre a genius who is always right on said genre of topics. Mad cringe from these guys, fun as hell watch though.
So seths claim is that we don't need to eat meat because we can eat plants instead. Wouldnt the argument against that be that we have hunger shortages, many climates across the globe can't sustain growing crops for food, not to mention water shortages which is needed to grow the crops, and (this is an assumption) animals take up less space then what would be needed to harvest crops (would have to do maffs). And then it comes down to what do we value more starving humans who need to eat, or the animals we are eating which I would assume is an easy argument to win.
Also to clarify I only watched the first 13 mins perhaps this was touched on
we back
Imagine thinking arguments of morality are simply just the consensus of society...
No one would ever have an argument of the morality of anything because they'd literally just take a survey
Argue the morality of veganism? Well 87% of people aren't vegans, therefore it's immortal to be vegan...because...we live in a society 🤭
Guy goes on a tangent about fetus soup -Seth "And you guys are calling me stupid"
its funny seeing ppl CONSTANTLY disregard the good points he makes, they’re In denial cuz they just cant accept being wrong😭😭 its funny how calm he manages to stay, call me weak, but I cant remain calm when ppl do this shtt lol
For one there is a human way to eat meat, we don’t need factory farming to eat meat. If you hunt animals in the wild and kill older larger animals towards the end of their lives you are preventing Inhuman suffering. What is unnatural about an animal be killed by its natural predator in it’s natural environment. If you have a have a farm you can raise chickens eat the eggs which are unfertilized and would never grow up to be chickens unless they where fertilized. You can eat the chickens towards the end of their life. You can raise goats and cows for milk and when they are old you can either let them die of old age or put them out of their misery and eat them either way. Meat is a high energy food that has many nutrients that are hard to replace. I would argue that vegan food does a very poor job at replacing meat because it is highly processed and or low in nutrition. The net impact of every person becoming vegan would be negative. It would be a waste of natural resources to not eat meat. Should a lion be stopped from eating a lamb. Also about his argument about animals having sentient life what about fish. Honestly tho I just think people should let other people live how they want to live. I have a cousin who is vegan and I’m not gonna tell him what to do it helped him lose weight. We live in a society where obesity is one of the highest causes of disease. Consumerism has led us away from or natural ways of form meets function. We have so much food and are so secure we have the time to debate the morality of eating meat while someone starves to death In the street and nobody looks at him. Things are safe and secure now but you don’t know what the future holds, you don’t know when a meal could be your last sometimes and that is how it is in nature. We are so divorced from how survival is in nature. If your starving and you have a steak and a salad in front of you and you can only eat one and it’s potentially your last meal what are you eating. May answer is eat both and kick whoever’s ass said I could only eat one or the other.
My biggest problem with vegans is that most of them are moral relativists or subjectivists. not all of course, but most of them are. If you are a relativist in anyway, you couldn't possibly begin to claim that killing animals is bad and that we are morally obligated to not kill animals. It's a massive contradiction. Their own interpretation of morality doesn't even support their claims. Now, if a vegan is a moral realist, than their arguments become way more consistent, and the conversation can get a lot more interesting.
I'm a vegan and a moral realist; however, subjectivists are fully capable of evaluating particular actions as bad coherently. They just don't believe it's factual; they typically believe it's simply some opinion they have.
@@STKHub The major problem that they face is that when they utter a moral proposition (i.e. speciesism is wrong) it merely reflects approval/disapproval for a given agent, and it wouldn't contradict their interlocutor.
If Seth argued that speciesism was wrong, then he'd merely be claiming "I disapprove of speciesism", whilst his interlocutor (Tom) would hold that it's not wrong (which would translate to as "Tom approves of speciesism). These propositions do not contradict one another.
Someone like Vegan Gains constantly espouses propositions like "it's wrong to needlessly torture a being ...", and he even claims that speciesism is wrong, but his subjectivism would undermine his objections since he's merely arguing that these are things that he disapproves of.
"Okay don't ppl understand about a 1-1 b/t--"
Seth: "it doesn't need to be 1-1 i'll slap alla you"
You were definitely out matched on this one bro. Enjoyable as fuck tho
Nah, he won for the most part.
If they admitted that aliens could eat us because we taste good, wouldn’t they have won the debate?🤷🏽♂️
Low key if Seth was a vegan protester and brought up these points I'd be scared
The debate is based on human morals and not natural morals. If I'm an animal and I want food imma eat you, yes seth if you think I'm tastey go ahead and try and eat me but don't be surprised if I try and eat you back homie. Thats natural morals, survival should trump all else. The issue is people separating themselves from natural evolution because of our complicated brain structures bringing forth values beyond survival. Ultimately morals run counter to survival in many instances and should be attributed to a quirk in human evolution when we transitioned over from being hunter gatherers to living in settlements. (look at people hugging lions and other wild carnivores, didn't some lady recently go try and take a picture with a gorilla and get absolutely fucking ragdolled? Holy shit! some other lady had her face and hands removed by a pet chimp in australia in 2019. Human morals hard at work ladies and gents)
Also the argument we don't have to eat meat has some holes, not everyone can afford a nutritionist and supplements or to go buy overpriced non-animal whey based protein byproduct from Whole Foods. (seriously not eating animals or animal byproduct can be prohibitively expensive if you want to keep a balanced diet) You can seriously fuck yourself up if you're not careful about your nutrition when you deviate from eating a wide variety of foods. So the "you don't have to eat meat" argument falls flat as soon as you take the human out of suburban america. You think poor people in a third world country can afford to not eat ANYTHING when survival is on the line?
Why are we killing all these plants that make our oxygen just to save animals that would eat our faces and livers the first chance they get?
Your alien line was good these guys are kind of fucking stupid to not see that and I would of immediately conceded. If a technologically superior alien race came to earth and started eating people they have every justification because of said overwhelming power. Why should they care if we don't like being eaten when their species survival was/is potentially on the line? Morality is a luxury plain and simple, it's the basis for human society and laws which we employ for survival because it's more evolutionarily beneficial for the species, but that doesn't mean it's the end all be all for every argument.
"If I only take one part of your argument and ignore the other part where you actually explained then that's actually me winning the argument"
Woah you have to agree on multiple things before having a debate? It's almost like everything isn't just A or B
It's almost like there's stuff before those options are presented...almost like language and the thought is complicated
These people were so annoying and don't know how to debate properly. Jesus.
Edit: it got slightly better at the halfway mark because of that guy who joined in.
In my opinion this could've been solved easily. Once seth said that we kill animals for no reason. instead of just bringing up consumption they also should've bought up the dependence of the death of animals on other products like leather and fur. Knowing seth and the nature of the topic this would be were he makes that alien comment about aliens torturing us. All you would have to say is this "so you're saying that if higher creatures come to earth to torture us for food would that be correct". He would probably say yes than you retort with "that would just be the food chain in action"
I'm not saying that I would've won. Just saying that. Turning seth words on himself is one of the only ways to beat him
The philosophy server seems like a giant hugbox. lol
If sentience is the only important factor, that soup would technically have to be on the menu, so I'm assuming their argument was against sentience as an absolute argument in favor of veganism. No one outright said that at the end tho, which is mystifying.
Yes because being a Vegan is the same as not driving a car because killing animals is the same as using a product from a sweatshop, as both are unecessary things we choose to do, but Ariana's bluntly mentioned that she is the only one going to be a long day for you to come back to the house 🏡 and I will be there at the same time as the same is not nice 🤠.