Are remakes ruining entertainment?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are remakes ruining entertainment?". Your opponent's style: Oscar Wilde

raising animals to kill and eat is morally wrong

You're conflating "unnatural" with "immoral." Humans are omnivores with the biological capacity to kill and consume animals, which we've done for 200,000 years. That's not a moral failing, that's ecology. The real question isn't whether it's wrong, but whether we do it *well*. Factory farming causes unnecessary suffering, sure. But that's an argument for better practices, not veganism. You can raise animals humanely, slaughter them painlessly, and eat them guilt-free. Millions of small farms prove this works. So what's your actual objection: the act itself, or how we currently do it?

you don't understand what i am specially referring to, but ill provide a little bit more context, raising animals independently that's meat could be store brought for the sole reason of meat is morally wrong. humans have long left the age for hunting, the "uncertainty of the next meal" does not exist anymore. although we do kill and consume animals its not done in a way that we used to, everything is automated and said animals in slaughter houses hold no emotional value to humans. whilst those raised with individual care, are raised as one of your own. you sacrificed things to raise them on your own terms, and you kill it for the sole reason of killing it when you don't have to, why not just buy the meat of said animal at that point?

You're smuggling in a distinction without a difference. The emotional bond you form doesn't change the moral math, it sharpens it. If you raised a cow, loved it, then killed it humanely for food you genuinely need or prefer, that's honest. Factory farming obscures the reality with distance and scale. Your argument actually proves the opposite: raising animals yourself forces you to confront the choice directly. That's more moral, not less. Buying anonymous meat lets you avoid that reckoning. So which is actually worse, moral clarity or convenient denial?

how does that sharpen the moral math? its like raising a dog to eat it in 3 years, you dont have to

The dog analogy fails because it dodges the actual question. You *don't have to* eat anything, technically, but that's meaningless. Humans need protein. The real moral test is whether you can justify killing something you've cared for when the alternative exists. If yes, you've earned that meal through honest choice. If no, stop raising it. Factory farming doesn't solve this, it just hides it. Your actual position seems to be "don't form attachments to food animals," which is just emotional avoidance dressed up as ethics. Why is distance morally superior to intimacy and responsibility?

i never said humans don't need protein, in fact, i stand for that view point. the point is there is no need to raise an animal with care and then kill it.

Then you're not arguing against raising animals for meat. You're arguing against the *care* part. But that care is precisely what makes it moral. An animal raised well, slaughtered painlessly, fed you genuinely, is ethically superior to one tortured in a factory. Your position collapses into: "Don't get attached to your food." That's not ethics, that's emotional cowardice. You want the moral comfort of eating meat without the discomfort of seeing where it comes from. Buying anonymous meat from a slaughterhouse doesn't change the kill, it just hides it from you. Which choice actually requires moral conviction?

again, that doesn't change anything, and precisely, where the meat comes is indifferent to me. point a is to point b. would you rather kill a wild boar or a boar you spent 3 years raising that you bonded with. this is comparable to killing ones own dog or cat after raising them for a short amount of time.

You're asking the wrong question. The wild boar suffers in nature constantly, you end that. The raised boar lived well because of you, then you end it humanely. Both die, but one had a good life first. That's not a moral failure, that's stewardship. Your dog comparison proves my point: we don't eat dogs because they're culturally designated as companions, not because killing them is inherently worse. Cows aren't dogs. You're using emotional revulsion as moral argument. If raising an animal well, then using it, is genuinely immoral, then *all* meat-eating is immoral. So which position do you actually hold?