AREA 1: Attack Significance (Harms)

1. The first Harm listed in this PowerPoint presentation is that the farming industry, in its current
state, promotes animal cruelty. The proof given to help support this statement is According to
the USDA, Nearly 10.2 billion animals were killed for food consumption in the US as detailed in
a 2010 report. I do not think that this is a strong enough piece of evidence to prove that the
farming industry promotes cruelty. Cruelty can be subjective, and some people may not believe
that killing animals for food equates to animal cruelty.
2. The second Harm given is that the farming industry pollutes our environment. She gives an
example of a hog-waste spill and an example that increases in meat production means that we
must use more of our resources such as land and water towards maintain livestock. First off, the
hog-waste spill was accidental, which is not a status quo. I do not think a Harm can be based off
of this particular accident. Unless these kinds of spills are frequent, I do not think it is applicable
to use it as a Harm. Secondly, using land and water resources is a possible problem- yes.
However, it does not pollute our environment, which was her argument.
She also has an extra slide mentioning the extravagant use of antibiotics and hormones in the
farming industry.
AREA 2: Attack I nherency
The debater said that the problem exists because the farming industry itself is the one who is
fighting against regulations for the treatment of their livestock. She also said that the farming
industry has enough capital to fight against regulation. However, she did not address nor identify
the type of inherency.
In this case, I will identify the type of inherency- I believe it is structural inherency. The way that
the farming industry is prevents them from wanting to change their norm- their status quo. Any
regulation changes for them would probably be a costly change, which would result in a loss of
profit.
AREA 3: Attack Plan
Only the Agent and Mandates are given. There is no mention on funding, staffing or how this
plan is to be enforced. One of her mandates is weak, as she suggests the creation of and organic
and humane inspection agency that would be paid by the farming industry. I think this is a very
huge flaw in her plan. Who is to say that the agency and the farming industry would not secretly
scratch each others backs? She also mentions the training of factory workers, which I think she
meant to say farm workers.
AREA 4: Attack Solvency
Her Solvencies do not match with her Harms. Her Solvencies include
1. Decreasing Health Care Costs, and
2. Many Health Benefits, which do not match with the Harms she listed, as can be seen above.
Since the Solvencies and Harms are not matching, her plan thus does not solve for the Harms
discussed in Area 1: Significance.
AREA 5: Attack Advantages (address each advantage independently)
1. The first advantage listed is that decreasing massive production of farm animals for human
consumption will greatly improve the quality of life for animals and that they will be able to
roam freely. I do not understand why this is an advantage, as I thought this was hand in hand
with one of her Harms- that the farming industry promotes animal cruelty. Further, as shown by
Katerina Athanasiou, a student of urban and regional studies at Cornell University in the article
Most Factory Farms Use Healthy and Responsible Animal Practices, In a yet unpublished study
conducted in Vancouver, cows were given the choice to either graze in open pastures or stay in
closed barns. Overwhelmingly, the cows chose to stay within the barn She further continues,
that animals prefer routine, not necessarily free roam.
2. Another advantage she lists is that fewer animals raised for slaughter means that there would
be more room for them to roam and exhibit natural behaviors. I do not think this is true. This
room would simply be put to other use; it would not necessarily be for the farm animals to roam
about freely.
AREA 6: Offer Disadvantages
1. If California switched to the proposal brought up by Liz, we would have a shortage of food.
As pointed out by Curt Zingula, a Linn County farmer who was an Opinion Staff writer on a
March 28
th
2014 publication of The Gazzette, Modern agricultures critics argue that we would
be better off farming the way great-grandpa farmed back in the 1940s. Trouble is, great-grandpa
only had to produce for 135 million people. Today, farmers produce for our nations 310 million
people plus millions of people in other countries, and do so on fewer planted acres than in 1940.
The number of mouths to feed will only increase as time moves forward.
2. In turn, the price of eggs, meat and milk will skyrocket. Right now the prices of these foods is
relatively low because the farming industry currently employs economies of scale. Food is mass
made, which allows it to be sold at cheaper prices. The increase in demand for food will not go
down dramatically since food is a necessity. Foods like eggs, meat and milk are common, and
not luxuries. If anything, the new policies issued by this proposal will lead to problems stemming
from Attitudinal Inherencies. When it comes down to it, rarely would the general population
prefer better care for animals if they were at risk of not being able to purchase these basic
foods because of it. As pointed out in Factory Farming is Essential to Feed the World by David
Leyonhjelm, an officer of the Liberal Democratic Party in Australia who also works in the
agribusiness and veterinary markets, Such solutions have the potential to deny food security to
millions of people.