 You're not going to like what I say. Okay, we follow nature, we're killing each other, we're turning into vicious tribespeople. You're doing that because it's in your economic interest to look up to your stock, not because you care about the rights of these animals, otherwise you wouldn't be chopping them up into pieces and selling them to people. Okay, so let me just explain my position a little bit more in detail so you understand what I'm saying. Of course. I'm saying that there's no difference between the koala that people care about and the five different other species that they pay to be murdered on their plate. I'm saying if you care for one, morally you're a hypocrite. Sorry, define the five species that you've suggested. All the species of animals we exploit for food, products. Okay, so that's cattle, sheep, chickens, pigs. Yeah, fish and animals we use for clothing as well. Okay, why do you feel that this is morally wrong? Because we share the same things in common with these animals, sentients, they feel pain and suffer, they want to live. The same as a koala sentient, they feel pain, they suffer, they want to live. So I think animal rights is an extension of human rights in the way that just fundamentally we deserve not to be subjugated, enslaved, raped and killed. I think that we should extend that same fundamental, those fundamental rights to animals too, across the board. Okay, these fundamental rights you say is mainly the purpose of them is designed to prevent other humans from exploiting each other. Because overall, have you ever heard of the concept of egotistic altruism? No, explain it to me. Interesting. So it's the idea that usually to help another person is also to help yourself. For instance, someone in a third world country struggling to even feed themselves isn't going to do anyone else any good, they're suffering and nothing good is coming of it. However, if they are in a better position, they'll start wanting more similar things as in sort of what you would call more developed countries such as better medicine, healthcare, technology, etc. If they're on that sort of similar level, then they will, oh, to help each other, when they're... To saying if we help these people that are like in a bad situation, then it helps us as a whole because they're on their feet and they can contribute more to society in positive ways. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. That's the main reason why human rights are extended to other humans. Okay. However, between species, they... Hang on. So... Are you sure that's the only reason we don't subjugate and kill each other because of this... What do you call it? Egotistic altruism? That's a reason not to. Yeah, yeah. But what... I'm talking about like if I want to take you and enslave you and make you do things for me and tear the flesh off of your bones and eat your body, those rights that you have protecting you would mean I'd breach those and be charged with murder, kidnapping, torturing. I'd be imprisoned. So we have those to protect each other fundamentally individually, don't we? We have those rights, fundamental rights, yeah? So why don't we extend those two animals that share similar sentient capacity for suffering and, you know, the things we share in common? Why don't we extend those basic rights to them? Because they are different species, yeah. In nature, it's very... It's not kind. Animals constantly kill each other in very horrible, destructive and inhumane ways. For instance, wild dogs, they attack sheep in... If you've ever seen an image of what a wild dog can do to a sheep, they have been recorded to hunt and tear out the kidneys of a sheep and leave it to die and just go on and chase another one. However, we have legislation in place that ensures that any animal that is designed or that is processed in a way for human consumption is not tortured. If it is, however, if it is, however, that is illegal and immoral. No, it's not. It's actually legal. Sorry, you're displaying your lack of information on animal agriculture in Australia. It's actually legal to torture animals, to mutilate them, to snip their tails off as a piglet, to snip their teeth off, to rip their testicles out without anesthetic, to smash piglet's heads on the ground, it's called blunt force trauma when they're not growing fast enough, to keep mother pigs in farrowing sheds, to lay on top of dead piglets. This is all legal practice to take calves away from mother cows, kill the boys and to exploit her for her milk and then chuck her in a slaughterhouse. This is all torture. This is all legally sanctioned torture. What you said before about wild dogs killing sheep horrifically, but this is nature. Are you going to use that as a reason for the same reason that what we're doing is just basically operating under the same, in the same way that all these animals in nature are? That's why we kill animals? So you're suggesting that humans are on some sort of higher superior level of morality? I'm saying that you're a moral agent. You can tell right from wrong. You don't torture and kill animals because of some reason. Why don't you torture and kill animals yourself? Because usually that doesn't help anything. So we're doing it for no real justifiable reason other than you want to eat a chicken burger, you want to eat a pig sandwich when we have other things to choose from. The thing is meat and protein is a very strong and reliable source of essential nutrients. You disagree? Reliable source? I think you can obviously eat plant-based 100% and be completely healthy and all protein originally comes from plants. You would have been taught that, yeah? Yes. However, animals, they are able to process this in, actually, however, plants, animals or mostly herbivores, their gastrointestinal tracts, they contain bacteria which are able to process these sort of basic molecules into proteins or into energy which it uses to fuel itself. And then the bacteria is then sort of digested by the animal itself. So they turn the plants into their flesh and we go and shoot them in the head and eat their flesh. You're saying that this is a reliable source of protein, this is why we do it? The second hand protein, by the way, we're herbivores too, so we can process those plants into flesh as well. Actually we're omnivores, we're able to both eat meat and plants. Just because we're able to do it doesn't mean that we're biologically designed to eat meat and plants. It means that we're opportunistic eaters and we ate what we could back in the days and now that we're, you know, obviously in a civilized society we don't have to go hunt. You don't have claws, you don't have predatory instincts, you sweat out of your paws like other herbivores, you have flat blunt teeth and pathetic little canines. How do we justify a mass holocaust of animals because of this protein argument? And obviously you think animals feel pain and desire a life without suffering because otherwise you'd be fore-torturing. I think how you describe this as torture is quite inaccurate. So my family have a lamb and beef farm in the Blue Mountains and when we're raising them we ensure that they are well looked after. For example, we don't have them in cage farms or these sort of compounds as you described. We make sure that they are free from predation. We make sure that they suffer from no diseases. We give them regular drenches and vaccinations to ensure that they don't contract any sort of diseases. I wouldn't contest any of that by the way. You're doing that because it's in your economic interest to look after your stock. Not because you care about the rights of these animals, otherwise you wouldn't be chopping them up into pieces and selling them to people. So just going back, you feel these animals deserve, sorry, you feel we should be extending them to animals because we have some sort of higher superior intellectual understanding of morality even though they would have little to no concept of it themselves. Because you do. And if a human being didn't have no concept of morality, which there are marginal case humans with a mental capacity of less than a pig, we would still protect them with rights even though they can't conceptualize rights. But you are against torturing animals because you believe that they suffer. So why don't we extend those fundamental rights of freedom of life, freedom not to be enslaved and used as property to those animals because you agree that they deserve to be treated well because you have a farm and your parents have a farm where you treat these animals well. So you agree that they're sentient beings deserving of good welfare. Yeah. I agree on that second point. The implication that you suggested beforehand that they so far deserve some sort of they deserve rights per se, a right not to be killed and enslaved and treated as food and property and products. Yeah, that right. However, I sense that should they should they realize that they would be able to should they find themselves able to consume me and suddenly finding there's a bunch of really slow, unfit, squishy ape things that seem to be happened to be really rich in protein. We could live off this really well, grow nice and strong and have lots of babies. That's essentially that's essentially the drive for survival. Are you saying that if these sheep somehow realize they could eat meat and then they would start to look at us and use us as a protein source instead of us using them as a protein source? Is that what you're suggesting? Is that the hypothetical you just gave? Yeah, if any animal was able to discover a means of surviving, chances are it would use it if necessary. Otherwise, it would die out. That's a reason why we decide to eat meat in that place. That's not why you eat meat. You don't eat meat for survival. You eat meat because of convenience, habit and tradition. And you're not trying to survive right here in New South Wales right now. That's the difference between you and an animal in the wild. So, hence, what is the argument you're putting forward in this sentence? I'm saying that when you choose animal foods, you're consciously putting them in slaughterhouses, denying them of their rights. And when you choose plant foods, you boycott that. So, if you're going to use the argument of survival, which we could have used before civilization, no problem. You can use that, not now. You're saying we're doing it for some other reason that doesn't justify denying them the right to life and not to be slaves. Okay, would you say that would account in also in third world countries and lesser developed countries in which perhaps these animals are the only or useful source of protein? I don't know whether livestock farming isn't something for the affluent for the people with more resources. So, if you go into the third world country, they have less resources to feed to these animals. So, rice and bananas and things like that are much more attainable to them. However, animal, these cattle or sheep, herbivores, they're able to convert, say, inedible grass into edible protein. I get it. I get I get that point. I get that point. How does, okay, we can talk about scenarios where they're in a survival situation in some island or some tribe situation. How does that justify your contribution here in Australia to animal abuse and murder for a sandwich you don't need? Well, first of all, it is not animal abuse because we tried our best to look after these animals. And when it is time for them to be marketed, it is done so inhumanely. So it's not abuse to treat someone as a product, to treat them as property and to cut their head off and sell their flesh. That's not abuse to you. If it's an animal, if it was a human, obviously. Contradicting, I feel, you're contradicting yourself here. So, okay, so why can't you abuse an animal? What is different, so different about them that we can't abuse them? You agree that they shouldn't be tortured? So why can't if you did the same act that you just said, I looked after you, I put you in a slaughterhouse, I cut your head off real quick, real humanely, sold your body to someone else, that would be abuse. If I did the exact same thing to a sheep, that wouldn't be abuse. We are both sentient. You agree with that? Yeah. Well, I am aware of my existence. Yeah, as a sheep aware of their existence. Go on. Do they suffer, feel pain, want to live? Are they conscious, intelligent? What are you trying to make here? I'm trying to suggest that you're contradicting yourself here. You're saying that we can't abuse a sheep for some reason. I want to know what that reason is, because you agree shouldn't be tortured. They didn't matter. They don't matter. Why would you care if they're tortured or treated humanely if they can't be abused anyway? I'm saying you're contradicting yourself. I don't understand. Sorry, I don't understand the question. You treat your livestock humanely because you agree that they deserve to be treated without torture and suffering. Yeah, it is also those points. Also, that is the Australian law. So you don't. So you agree with those points and the law. OK, you agree with the points that is made. They don't what they say suffer. They shouldn't be tortured. Do you agree animals shouldn't be tortured? Yes. OK. Why if they don't they can't be abused? You said they can't be abused because it's against the law. That's why the RSPCA is enforced to ensure that animals are not abused and mistreated. But you said that animals, it's you cannot abuse an animal because they're not a human. Because I said I said to you, OK, you treat them nice and you take them to the slaughterhouse and you turn them into meat and you sell them. And I said that's abuse. And you said, well, if it was a human, it would be abuse, but not if it's an animal. You understand why can't you abuse an animal but you can abuse a human in this way? Because that's the Australian law. So abuse is down to law or is it down to morals because it's got nothing to do with law. So I think fundamentally here is you see cattle, animals and things as equal to animals. So that's a straw man argument. No, no, that's not my that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's things we have in common, sentience, they feel pain and suffered. For these reasons, they should be protected with some basic rights to life and not to be enslaved and turn into meat like you guys do in your farm. We're not respecting their right to life. Well, sometimes. OK, so you feel that they have a right to life because they are sentient as humans are. So anything that is sentient should therefore be given the same rights as a human being. Now, that's what I'm saying. Fundamental rights, not the same rights as you. You've got you've got these pro rights to drive a car and you've got these other things. I'm saying fundamental rights not to be treated as property enslaved and murdered, the right to have their own. So you feel that any so anything that is sentient deserves to have a fund these fundamental rights you have described. I think they deserve a life without exploitation, abuse and murder. So if something is sentient, does it mean it should have these fundamental rights you have described? Yes. OK. What about parasitic organisms? They aren't sentient. Are they? Well, yes, they are such. There are complex animals such as ticks or macro parasites. OK, yeah, yeah, yeah, those type of parasite insects and things that burrow into your skin and you have to defend yourself from them. Those ones, is that what you're talking about? Parasites? Those ones, in addition to other insects, things such as insects, crickets, maybe spiders, spiders, any sort of less, sorry, any sort of more insignificant little creatures you're talking about, yeah? Generally speaking. So you think those fundamental rights should be extended to them as well? By your current rationale? Well, not to be exploited, treated as property sold off. Yeah, why not? If I had a big farm of spiders breeding them and selling their body parts, I'd still say that that was immoral. There's no reason to do that. Now, your burger that you eat, right? Hang on, sorry. So because you were our insects here, but you pay for for animals that you know are sentient, that you try to treat with this high welfare. Then you pay for them to be turned into burgers. Now you're creating a hypothetical about insects, right? Down here, which I'm happy to entertain, by the way, because I don't go up and crush insects or exploit them or pay for them to be exploited either. Hmm. But interesting enough, ants, they also farm insects. They grow. There's a specific type of ant that grow that. Well, harbours, caterpillars. Yeah, and consumes nectar, which they produce. Do you know the Black Widow Spider eats her mate after they've mated? Yes. Should we copy that behaviour? No, because I don't see how that's going to help anything. So why are you using ants behaviour as a justification for exploiting others? Because you're using, well, you know, ants, they actually exploit insects. Well, you know, Black Widow Spiders eat their mate afterwards. You know, lions eat their cubs. How does that justify our abuse and exploitation of animals in a modern civilized society when we have moral agency and we don't have a justification? So you think these animals are... You think the animals exploiting each other is OK? No, I never said that. But you're a moral agent and ant isn't. They're in a different situation to you. You're in civilized society. You can make a choice that doesn't involve an animal being enslaved and killed, can't you? An ant can't conceptualize what I'm talking about. So why would I go out and control that when we control each other when it comes to exploiting and killing each other? But for some reason, we disregard sheep because they don't matter for some reason. We don't want to torture them, but it's OK to murder them and turn them into meat. So animals kill each other all the time. You're saying, OK, so you believe that fundamentally, we are a moral agent. You are. Yeah, you are. That's why there's murder laws protecting us. There's no murder laws for lions. They're in a different scenario to you. OK, I'm placing the moral responsibility on to you. And you're pointing into nature. That's what you're pointing into nature, trying to find animals that do horrific things. So I can go do something horrific to a person over there and go lions do it, ants do it, black widow spiders do it. Yes, but you would be arrested. Exactly. Why? Because it would be immoral. And it's against the law. Why is it against the law? Because it's a moral issue, isn't it? Hmm, because society has come to the consensus that to kill each other is not only is wrong, but also extremely destructive. It's wrong on an individual level to breach someone's rights. And you think this should be extended to animals? To a certain extent, yes, like in the most basic fundamental way. Right now, we have mass breeding, 70 billion land animals on earth, raping them, taking their children away from them, killing their kids, turning them into leather, turning them into burgers by the billion. I'm not sure if bestiality is a part of this process. Can I show you? Can I show you the dairy industry? It's going to be graphic. Are you OK to see graphic footage? I'll go for it. So I think that. OK, here we go. So where's this video from? This is Australian footage. Australian footage of. This is the dairy industry. This is forcible impregnation. So artificial insemination? Well, you can call it whatever euphemism you make feel more comfortable. But if you put a human being in this position, they hold them down in a cattle crush. They don't want this done to them. This is going into her rectum. OK, now she's struggling. I would call this rape. Would you agree? This is that now that now they bear children because dairy cows, you know, about the dairy industry, they have to have a calf to produce milk. Yeah, they take the calves away because they don't want the calves drinking the milk because that's a product. Yeah, now you can look up standard practice across the board for the dairy industry. This isn't no secret. This is very easy to find out the dairy industry have their practices on, you know, whichever country website you want to check. This is all they might their excuse might be, oh, we don't want the mothers to hurt the cast, but really they don't want the calves drinking the milk. It's a product for them. Now, you said you're against. This is where the bobby calves go, by the way. The males don't produce milk for the dairy industry, so they're worthless. They're useless. They go to a calf slaughterhouse. Have their head cut off here. Humane slaughter. Here we go. They're in a knockbox trying to escape. This is how I don't know if you have followed your cows to the slaughterhouse. Have you? You have followed your cows to the slaughterhouse. Your parents' cows, your parent has a farm? Your parents have a farm? Mm-hmm. Have you followed them animals to the slaughterhouse before? We've seen the slaughterhouse before. Have you followed the animals in there and watched them die? That's what I'm asking. Hmm. I've seen footage of it, but not this. This is a dairy cow. They slaughter her because she just doesn't produce milk anymore. So why would they keep her? She's not profitable. This is what I mean. This is how we view animals as a resource. Hmm. OK. Do you know where this was taken? Yeah, this is Australian... No, this is what I was talking... This is standard practice, mutilations in the pig. This is their snipping their tails so they don't eat each other's tails in captivity. This is a gas chamber. This is what the RSPCA were backing as the most humane method for stunning pigs. They're screaming in their CO2 gas stunning. Now, these are rampant across Australia and the UK and Europe. Mm-hmm. Sometimes they rip their little trotters off because they're trying to escape. Mm-hmm. This is torture. RSPCA used to back this. Now, there's a lot of this stuff around. Now, this is a chicken slaughterhouse that hung up by their legs, treated like nothing and had their throat slashed open, turned into, you know, products. These animals don't want to die. Do you mind if you... So, who published this video? This was published by animal rights activists because the industry won't expose their own industry, will they? Who else will do this? Do you know which one... well, which group? This was by a bunch of it... Do you have to leave? Yeah, I do. Okay. Well... Sorry, what's your name? My name's Joey. I appreciate your debate etiquette. You're very interesting to talk to. I challenge you to find footage from farms that makes you feel comfortable about consuming animal products. A slaughterhouse that doesn't leave blood on the floor and scared animals in its line. I think it's exploitation. You still reject... giving rights to these animals, fundamental rights, before you leave. Do you still reject that premise or that idea? I'll have to think about it. Okay. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Joey. And you were... Charlie. Charlie. Nice to meet you, Charlie. By the way, I'm a vegan activist, so I ask people to go vegan if they're against animal abuse. So I believe if you're not vegan, you abuse animals. And the only way to not abuse animals is to be a vegan. It's no one or the other. Okay. Apparently, that guy is the... from the debating... He wins debates a lot in this school. The guy who sat down.