Full transcript
0:07ladies and gentlemen in probability this evening when you're handed a delicious steak or Thai food or whatever your contingent dinner is you don't fully understand the consequences of your action of either ordering that meal or eating it it' be very easy for me to get up here and tell you you know Indonesian live exports and all these sorts of
0:25things are really bad we should feel sorry for the cows of all these individuals but the fact is that even in Australia today even with the best like meat code practices you still have inhumane procedures and people do not know about them one of the most common ways to slaughter a cow in Australia is a process known as exanguination what
0:44happens is that you strap a cow into a large metal Tib and what you do is you get a big spike and drive it into its skull now this is the interesting bit it doesn't kill it straight away what it actually does is it just paralyzes its spinal cord this means that heart keeps beating for another hour to pump the
1:03blood out of its body because stale blood makes meat taste bad that is how far we are willing to go as Australians to make sure that the steak on the barbecue tastes nice and to be honest we think that's a little too far or moreover we want people to fully understand the consequences of what they're getting themselves into when
1:22they go for the steak challenge at the HB ladies and gentlemen and that's why we have this model we are going to be showing ads that show graphic footage of how meat is sarted how it is produced and the after effects of the consumption as my second speaker will discuss later in his speech we believe this is
1:38consistent with past government programs on how like social utility should be measured against individual freedom and freedom of choice we think this is very consistent so with this consistency in mind let's discuss two main issues firstly why is the role of the government to force individuals to understand like the broader ramifications of their actions and
1:59secondly how are we going to denormalize meat culture specifically in Australia so firstly why is the government's role to infringe on freedom there are two reasons for this firstly if there is a lack of information out there in the very first place the fact that some of you look surprised when I told you about the exanguination thing as I did when I
2:18first heard to tells us that not many people know about how Australian meat is done and how me in the world practices are done like that specifically the government also has a role intervene and tell people things when the decision causes great significant harm we acknowledge that individuals on this side of the house have a right to eat
2:38meat if they wish but because of the social ramifications of that action they need to validate and like legitimize that decision by making sure that they've made the calculus themselves there is no calculus at this point ladies and gentlemen unless you are a particularly keen and active person in like seeing how your food has gotten to the dinner table ladies and gentlemen
2:58now we are happy to like make sure that individuals think about this limitation of their freedom when you have such great social utility to to like consider and quantify as I will later in my speech and as Tom will in his substantive so as I said already we respect individual's right to like choose what food they get and also their
3:17respect to like differentiate Things based on their cognitive capacity we're not saying that cows are you know warm and feing and intelligent as humans or anything as such however it is true to say that an adult Pig has the same IQ as a 3-year-old adop again these are facts that simply aren't out there in the mainstream media and there is a myth
3:36like a myth that is propagated out there that these animals you know this abrahamic myth of like these animals were put there for Humanity to use and for Humanity to exploit and this is something deeply ingrained particularly in Western culture and something that we want to change with the behavioral advertisements that we're putting out there to make sure that people this
3:55shock to these sorts of things in the very first place um now we're going to educate individuals about the consequences of their actions let's think about chickens for example why restrict ourselves to the world of Bine products let's have a look at how chickens are farmed intensively going the world's most successful animals because they taste delicious and we want
4:17latter battery HS ladies and gentlemen are one of the most cruel and callous bles on the modern food processing industry what you have is dozens and dozens of layers of H stuck together in cramped conditions that their wings are Mal formed because they're unable to exercise most of the chickens no longer have feathers because of the fact that
4:35if you're on the bottom run the feces of the other chickens fall on you and the acidity of that means that not only do your feathers fall off but your legs wither away into stumps ladies and genten and no one cares because in the end they can be manufactured and processed for other some you know good or something like that we want to alert
4:52people to do significant harms that these sorts of things cause if you see that and go look it doesn't outweigh the benefit I'm going to get from having make nugget tonight that's by us but we think that a vast majority of individuals who are rational who are compassionate will reconsider their eating behavior and their dietary requirements and that is exactly the
5:10sort of behavior and incentives that we want to change on this side of the house in the very first place that is for we also believes that we as people seeing these advertisements can have significant advantages in a number of areas the number one CCT Australia surprisingly enough is not starvation from a lack of meat it is problems
5:28associated with an over consumption particularly of red meat we look at things like the stunningly High bow and stomach cancer rates and heart disease and the excessive results of eating fatty meat can provide for these individuals again if you value your state that much you want to cut some years off your life fine think about it before you do it first that is our
5:46stance on this side of the house we believe this principle is already established for instance in the regulation of cigarettes and tobacco smoke like a chimney for all we care but it is the government's role to let you know what exactly you're getting yourself into because the cigarette company sure as hell I'm going to tell you and the me industry sure is going to
6:01tell you how it got to your table in the very first place I John so moving on to this next Point Let's have look at the idea of denormalizing meat culture in Australia we've got this around it the fact that it's so inbuilt into our national identity that like our national day involves cutting up live animals and
6:22then searing them on like a hot place this is something that perhaps should be changed at least reconsidered quite bizarre let's have a look at the status quo we live under a veil of political ignorance and we want to tear that apart and show people where it came from it's particularly important in modern society because you don't like Generations past
6:41you had an acute realization of where your food came from either you or your family members participated in the process of gathering it or hunting under the status quo you can never even know that you know State comes from a cow and still enjoy the benefits of a Big Mac ladies and gentlemen and this you know disparity between where me comes and
6:59where people know we want to fix with our model by giving people a dis reaction or at least filling in the gaps that has been persisted under the status quo you know the odd internet advertisement from Peter isn't really going to cut it you need continuous advertising like we're talking about on this side of the house that will do the
7:16changes that we're looking for and the changes that we serve We Believe for instance the shock and controversy that we saw when Four Corners decided to air that program the fact that the government back flipped on its policy two days after that was done shows how people respond when they truly understand the consequences of their actions and this can create L that is
7:35the microbehavioral change that will cause like the macro effects that we're discussing on this side of the house and that's what we want to talk about and that's why we want to change again if they say it's too hard and we can't do it absolute rubbish ladies and gentlemen their lives look at cigarettes in the 60s everyone smoked look at what we have
7:52now we have some of the lowest cigarette smoking that we've ever seen in human history and this is particularly important in circumstances where like individuals change behavior that is so ingrained in society and we can change that not through Banning them from smoking or Banning them from eating meat but simply alerting them to the consequences of their actions and that
8:11is the of Education we want on this side of the house because in the end it comes down to you do you want to make the calculus that eating meat is worth the pain and the suffering that we're talking about or do you really will understand that you have like an imperative as a person who has the
8:27higher functioning power to consider because if you do you will listen to our model thank you very [Applause]
8:54much if it is true that meat is an essential part of Australian to the built up in nationalism either of a country or a particular ethnic minority Italian German Indian like weird like Ohara whatever that it is also true that individuals are not capable of appreciating the ramifications of what
9:15is occur what the negative team doesn't understand is that when you eat meat every single day and it is on your dinner table it is very easy to disassociate that consumption from the way in which it got onto the table in the first place that's what Alex told you and that's why a government policy a is going to change things but e b even
9:32if it doesn't change think it's important to force individuals to consider those appications two questions first do individuals have a right to clothe themselves off from the social harms they do to other people in society and how does that sit with the general right to consumate secondly will we actually denormalize and Achieve change are we seeing change under the status
9:48quo firstly what is the actual rights that individuals have here we had a lot of rhetoric from the negative team that we are basically like it's the government coming along and saying to you you shouldn't eat meat you you should not me because you're an immoral ineal whatever we don't think the education campaigns are necessarily going to be like that right like showing
10:05a cow being slaughtered in a brutal way doesn't necessarily involve a government Ro judgment but in any case who the cares if it does right if that means that people have more information about the choices and the what the effect their choices have upon other people that is what is great and that's what Alex told you at first right just
10:21because people have a gender right to consume me and animals are not of the same sentinent as humans are doesn't mean you can close yourselves up to those options when you know about the practices that go into them you have a more informed decision because of the social harms that occur to third parties in a way that you can't ensure happens
10:36under the status quo the government has a role to step in here that's why it's very similar to gambling and cigarettes when we saw with cigarettes is huge amounts of individual HS yes but also social Harms in terms of passive smoking the problem was you had a culture of smoking in brain with the Marval man walking along with the winie blues or
10:52champion in the top pocket and going hey smoking is the best and you cannot change that you cannot give people information unless the state steps in and forces that information onto people even if it involves a like subjective moral judgment about eating meat fantastic that's great that's the problem with the status quo awesome secondly if there was going to be a
11:09massive backlash and no one's going to respond then who cares right like we prefer to get some marginal benefit in talking to some people about these issues and forcing the meat industry to actually respond to these claims in a systematic way rather than just every couple of years when four cides animal rights are awesome then we think that's
11:23really important that's one of their analysis about like the TD and other things weren't true right it was exactly the same sorts of issues secondly let's talk about denormalization we had a lot of material on that the first thing we heard is that Alex oara just made up words in the dictionary ladies and gentlemen I wish I could say that was
11:39true it's not what that indicates though is that there's only very rare peoples like Alex and some people in society and certain segments in society who understand how these processes work I learned a lot in prep about how it goes from the consumption to the table the reason why that's the case is that no individual wants to know that what
11:57they're doing is morally wrong right you don't want to think about the ration that's why every time I debate vegetarianism with my friends Jess and Emily I think but it's this really tasty I don't want to think about the practices that go into it so when you think to yourself I'm morally like illegitimate because of this you close
12:13yourself off to those Ops is there going to be a massive public backlash we just don't think it's true that the media industry is going to be able to run this awesome PR campaign pointing out the importance of land to Australian culture firstly that is the status quo that's why Sam K still has a do having no
12:28actual skills in second response though is that even if the med industry has to run a public campaign they have to respond to the claims made by the government and this is why the fact that it's image is actually really important it is so easy to disassociate yourself from the words on the page I did a debate about animal
12:45cruelty like 10 years ago when I was in school and still young and actually should be debating a tournament like this what that indicates is that the public hasn't changed in its information level what we heard well and then we heard well the Four Corners example proves that the media can get engaged under these things what we saw as result
12:59of that I'm going to talk about that in subst is people engaged for a split second when there subsequent or like intermittent media response to these sorts of issues but people switch off after that what we saw was government policy being able to back flip from the original back flip of the back flip and go away and continue practices of
13:14parting of like um and continue those practices and sending lab exports overseas just relying upon the media to occasionally do it doesn't actually get the information out there in the public that's why there's a role for the state in terms of the market value information yeah I use an economics word State secondly in terms of St I want to talk
13:31about why this improves practices both in terms of what happens to the ethical treatment of animals and secondly why in practices with respect to things like usage of land and carbon and all of those sorts of things because we think there is a role for meat to still exist in a way that Val as individuals liking of meat and consumption of meat with
13:48environmental HS and I'm going to tell you why that's going to be better unable firstly effective and cruel treatment of animals in the 21st century we still see processes like battery H and the really big word that Alex used to explain a really horrible process regarding CS I'll add one more example when I was in Paris I enjoyed consuming shitloads of
14:05quag which is one of the most unethical things you to do he s a tube down a duck's neck forc can stay that position for days and days on end and for to fat liver so you could eat the tasty tasty qura at the end of the day what that means though is that we haven't seen any
14:20change under the status quo despite there being some information about their being problems with the ethical treatment of animals that indicates a problem in getting that infection out there is that the case Lobby groups like Peter are very easily to demonize by the meat industry who is now going to demonize the government as well according to the opposition's logic it's
14:37much more difficult for these relatively small groups given the vegetarian has to F against to meat culture to establish themselves and advocate for particular change that's why I think Peter are a bunch of cranks secondly though right public attitudes switch off in those things and I've already flagged a lot of this issue in substan when I told you why people
14:53stopped paying attention to live exports as soon as it was about 3 weeks after forers decided to talk about them what does that mean then it means that despite there being in commer you can't change practices for Animals we don't think you necessarily have to stop everyone eating meat in order to get a better outcome for animals you can do
15:09things like not have battery hands have all the free range movements that they wanted to talk about even though that's a very widespread thing and some people still consume like battery head eggs because because the technology is there is more cheaper at the status quo to do so that's why you need to change people's perceptions and change their
15:24buying habits and none of that happens under the S where that information doesn't reach out to people when you have advertisements that tell you exactly what is going on that increases public pressure that increases support for groups like Peter who now can actually engage with people as well as the government stepping in and talking about it secondly let's talk about the
15:40environmental and kind of physical HS we think if you showed an advertisement of a starving African Child and said to someone your consumption your over consumption we is using up the world's resources and leading to that person not having enough food put meat on to eat maybe Me Maybe not to actually eat day-to-day basis that indication shows
15:59us that the global food crisis is a big deal when is much more inefficient to consume meat as where you use grain crops and is 90 90% more inefficient than other things other science facts that my great team managed to tell me in preparation for this debate what that means though is that under the status quo there's no reason for those
16:15practices to change in in Australia where there a natural advantage to grazing lands and you can just graze cattle rather than feed them gra we see better usage of methane we see better usage and limitation of environmental damage occurring what you need to do is encourage other countries like the United States to engage in these practices so as I said before you can
16:33build public support for these sorts of lobbies environmental groups have a really hard time explaining exactly what the things are when you have images about the consequences of that happening you can explain through government advertising campaigns that gives these groups the resources to take their battles to the Public's need and it puts pressure on the State political parties
16:49to recognize these ideas ladies and gentlemen I don't have an unlimited right to close my eyes and turn around and count to three and then hope that the cow's being sted and pres presented into a wonderful medium ni for all these re I'm very proud to [Applause]
17:19[Music] [Applause]
17:39[Applause] I recall saying this in a debate before ladies and gentlemen what we need now are some facts we need some science the
18:02science of decision- making it's called economics the science of how cows are terrible for land they they salinate the fields and they destroy it the science of how meat is harmful to Consumers and the science of the fact that people do not know what is going on knowing something comes from an avire is completely different to knowing the word
18:20exanguination which is like absolutely a brilliant word as well as like a completely criminal process that we need to get knowledge out about we need these facts and we don't just need them to exist ladies and gentlemen we need them to be known to everyone and that is why we need this advertising program that why we having this debate today so there
18:39have been three issues in today's debate firstly did Alex actually say social engineering and regardless of that is it secondly the impacts on the calculus of consumers and I might mention their help in there and thirdly the environmental and agricultural impacts have also labeled it
19:02science did Alex say social engineering we're pretty sure he didn't their lack of responsiveness indicates they weren't really listening so we'll assume that right but aside from the fact that their quasi model of Regulation is even more social engineering we think there are some important points here that need to be discussed so they've told us we shouldn't force people to see the things
19:22they don't want to because the government is presenting a biased moral view the government is telling its citizens that something is is bad and like pursuing that sort of agenda first of all let's ask the question can a government make moral decisions yes we think it does that all the time particularly when it made the moral decision that it was unethical to ship
19:40cows to Indonesia and kill them like that the government who moral judgment on these issues is perfectly fine and we'd like to know if you're fine with them Banning the exports to Indonesia or why it's at all different secondly can you have biased information you cannot have biased facts unless they are false facts however you can have selective
20:01info and we concede that and the government will be presenting one side of this argument but why is that all right it's all right because the other side that meat tastes great is known to everybody in our society whereas if I were to ask the opposition at their third to tell me the CO2 equivalent of carbon emissions of a
20:18cow every year they will not be able to tell me that it is four times of methane which is equivalent to 12 tons of CO2 in the field no that is why the government is able to Target specific knowledge that is why this is Justified being told they sort of like proposed regulation without saying it was a sort of model really unclear but
20:41is regulation also good well first of all we don't think it's mutually exclusive so if regulation is this beneficial we can also do it as well as educating people about me but moreover we think that regulation cannot be the only answer because people will still be making these choices informed or rather uninformed by a lack of information in
21:00the society that we have demonstrated throughout our Tex moreover we think that regulation is not the best way nor is leaving it up to the industry to do this through like free range packets on eggs saying this is good for chicken but we don't think this will be enough we can do that anyway ladies and gentlemen ultimately it is all right to social
21:19socially engineer in these circumstances because all we are doing is presenting information to people and they haven't told us why that information is dangerous in fact beatric said a few times that is all we need and we agree completely with that that is why we are proposing that model so that's why it's perfectly Justified to have this sort of
21:36like social engineering concept occurring okay so what are going to be the impacts on consumer calculus we've been told that this model simply will not work it won't change anyone's Behavior so first of all they told us that we already know all about this what they fail to see is the distinction between the sort of knowledge we have
21:54and what we don't so at the moment we have general knowledge I know that a cow to an avire I know it is killed I know that I eat it and I know that it tastes brilliant however what we don't know is how it is killed we don't know how it is fair we don't know how long it is in
22:10that avar before it is killed we don't know if it's trusted up before it's killed we do not know a lot of things ladies and gentlemen until alexara brought them out at first so that is the distinction that's important in this debate this specific knowledge about the process is what's important to the treatment of animals because it does not
22:26reflect at all in the treatment of animals to say they go to an avire avire is just a word under the a section of the dictionary do not mean anything without this specific knowledge diction EV it's great so they secondly told us that people will be persuaded more by people they agree with and we think that if you agree with someone yes that will
22:47not change your mind because you also agree with them but that's not what we're saying we are saying that it is fine for these people to have polarized opinions if there are like 10% of the population who like revert to meet and only eat meat and want to eat like 20 kg a day well firstly we think that can't
23:02increase too much you can only eat so much meat ladies and gentlemen look at the steak challenges moreover for the rest of society presenting this information allows them to make this choice and we think those 10% who choose to eat more meat because they have some fetish like animal cruelty that is perfectly fine if that is what they
23:17ethically think is all right this is why we're not making Emeral judgment anyway so why will this actually work so we've been told that since people know enough already which I've told you they don't then there's no problem because we've got this discourse at the status quo like I go around to my friend's dinner party I'm just like how is this cow kill
23:35the point is we do not we do not get an understanding or a discourse in our society except every like 15 years when Peter can afford one ad because only then can we have like some small discussion about it but because it's coming from an organization like Peter which is affiliated with some sort of what people view as crazy people we
23:58think think that that is where it loses legitimacy whereas if it's from the government it comes across as information that is clear that is concise like when they tell you that your lungs will rob the alioli in your lungs will be blocked by the guitar in the cigarettes that's the sort of specific knowledge we're all right with
24:14and that's why we think it is so similar to smoking as for it all being about the practices of killing me so it's all right to do it if you do it the way the opposition want although haven't told us which way that is it's about the motivations of individuals let's look at the like decision making calculus they
24:30will take so when we give them this information they'll be like okay exanguination apart from being an awesome word is terrible so I'll will no longer follow like I will look for a company that does not do that companies will have an economic incentive to be like this is how we do it we will get like journalists from 60 Minutes the
24:47pveers of facts we'll get them in to explore our Factory and understand what is going on because they have an economic incentive to like convey their Market to the people we want your influence in this debate and that's how we will be more effective in changing practices in the industry so that is the effect we'll have on consumers T ladies
25:06and gentlemen and because that is so good for them so good for them to this information and also good for their health we think that is great okay on to this third issue of the environmental and agricultural impact so we've been told every family needs a farmer by the opposition but what they don't understand is that we're
25:25not abolishing farming and if people stop eating meat they will have to eat something and it's not plastic ladies and gentlemen they will it's called creative destruction in economies and while people are B uh attack for it all the time it is when we are telling Farmers for instance that their environmental impact of cows is actually making them worse off in this situation
25:44when the feces of the cows is destroying the ground when it is going into the subsoil and getting into the trees the trees are dying there open the trees are cleared with a massive amount of land of 3 acres per cow and then you have salt coming up from water table and destroying that agricultural land that can never be used again this is massive
26:03problems in our society and we think that they are bigger problems for problems and we want to know how you're going to solve them apart from like having really salty meat okay so because we need to create this economical cost to change and the reputational damage to Farmers we think that this is so important as the meet being for export
26:18markets we think internationally we imp froment our model and we're like we're sending this message internationally as well we think it'll get quite a bit publicity ladies and gentlemen this is why we need this [Applause]
26:39[Applause] think [Applause]
27:01ladies and gentlemen we all heard the first speaker's intro about how cows are being killed in spinning metal dishes and how the legs of chickens are withering into stumps now as bad as this may be I noticed that not many people in this Auditorium fell off their chairs in Surprise this demonstrates the fact that
27:21all of you are in here have already heard these things before and that people are actually informed this shows us that the content of this hro in itself is ineffective and to further demonstrate that I'm going to ask a further question how many people here after hearing that intro at the beginning of the first big of speech are
27:41not going to eat me tonight how many the point is here that money that is spent on these advertising campaigns can be better spent on regulation and reform to actually improve the processes how is any of us here knowing about
28:02these facts going to directly lead to improved conditions that the first Speaker spoke about so I'm going to ask two questions of the affirmatives case today firstly will this policy in any meaningful way actually change the amount of people that consume meat and then secondly even if it does does It ultimately have any meaningful effect on
28:24change so beginning with the point about that this very little information out there I've already covered this in my intro but the fact that uh no one knows anything about these atrocities and people naturally don't want to know now we have all ladies and gentlemen heard these statistics before it is simply a lie to say that people do not know that
28:47animals specifically beef and chickens are harmed everyone knows what a battery hand is everyone has heard of the problems in Malaysia the point here is to recognize that the direct way of improving that situation is by putting money into regulation and reform and not simply indirectly doing it by other
29:08means by informing everyone first and then pushing it back onto the government to do something why not just do it in one quick step they then spoke about how incredibly effective these types of ads are and tried to and he tried to draw an analogy between cigarette campaigns and this issue that we have here now this
29:28analogy is completely unfair because in the case of cigarettes the government is trying to stop something uh stop people engaging in something that they can't consent to they are addicted ladies and gentlemen whereas in the case of eating meat we all make a free choice although we all may love black bean beef noodles I'm not going to rush out of his
29:49auditorium at the end of this debate and see if there are any left on the lawn because I'm so addicted to meet so it's completely ridiculous to say that those two situations are analogous moving on to what they said about how currently it's too easy to be removed from the way the meat is killed when we see it on our table Now ladies
30:09and gentlemen this is fundamentally absolutely ridiculous because the affirmative are trying to tell us that when we sit down at home and look at a steak we have never considered the fact that it comes from an animal surely when you see it next to your vegetables and you think these vegetables have come from the ground we've never thought we
30:28it's just completely ridiculous to say that we've never considered where that other thing on the other side of the plate has actually come from and it's ridiculous to say that we've never considered how that thing actually might come to live and come to die so these are natural things that we like to inquire into and the worthwhile thing
30:43here is putting that information towards reform and regulation not just some vague notion of everything being everyone being informed and that leading to direct action also uh they spoke about how despite reducing use these won't actually result in a moral judgment that eating meat is bad they tried to remove they tried to claim that these ads are
31:05not actually putting a moral imperative on people to not eat meat now do any of us expect to believe that after the first speaker's intro we were not meant to think that eating meat was bad he was saying that they were going to be churned up in some sort of blender and apparently we were actually meant to be
31:20indifferent as to whether that was okay or not that so clearly the purpose of putting these ads on TV is to make people think that meat is bad so it's ridiculous to say that it's morally Imp in this case the third speaker just got up there interestingly and brought out all these fancy statistics about CO2 and
31:40cows and the amount of methane gas that they produced Etc and he seemed very happy with himself after this the first thing here is that these statistics will not be in the ads it it'll be the kind of stuff that the first Speaker brought up about Meats in
32:01blenders it will not be the statistics that were brought up about 10 times to C I can't even so even if they are if these statistics are in the ads they'll have absolutely no effect how many people in this auditor other than the Queens who appli I said before actually understood what he was saying those statistics so
32:23if they put in the ads ladies and gentlemen they will not have the effect that the affirmative team claims was a great thing the second speaker spoke about the general harms of the meat industry in general and how we're currently using up space that could otherwise be used for crops Etc now the idea that these this land could be used
32:45to grow crops that could be somehow sent to Hungry people in need in third world countries as they tried to characterize is a really wonderful idea but it's more akin to a Disney movie than an actual serious debate about this issue it is not easy to collect and transport crops and it is not viable to collect and
33:03transport crops to those who most need it secondly it is simply not possible in many cases to transfer the land that meet grazes on to land that can be used to grow CRS because much of that land is in Rocky and tree grown areas lastly here on a point about the structure of the ads and how information desperately
33:23needs to get get out the speakers uh the affirmative has spoken about how it's actually they're not actually telling people what to do it's all about providing information and it's this information that's the important thing however in reality ladies and gentlemen they are effectively telling everyone not to eat meat their inform is not just to inform people but it's actually to
33:44put an imperative onto everyone not to eat meat now the reason this is fundamentally unfair is because it's extremely misleading in informing everyone about what is going to lead to change by telling everyone that's simply not picking up to stake at the supermarket will not lead uh will lead to change is absolutely ridiculous because it is a fact everyone ladies and
34:04gentlemen it is a fact that meat will be a part of our future and simply by a few ads motivating some people not to eat meat that doesn't mean that there will be no meat practices at all and so this is the last point that I want to focus on today it's about the discussion the discussion that the affirm claim that
34:23these ads will promote and about how beneficial that it will be now the s of discussion that we require ladies and gentlemen is not the one that has happened in the past and is happening now about why eating meat is bad which has been going on for a long time and may be separately a very valuable discussion but when we're talking about
34:41these practices and the bad ways that we kill meat and the possible harmful effects of the meat industry the important discussion we need to have is one that recognizes that meat will be a part of our future and the affirmative team today have simply failed to recognize that this is a certain situation it's not just a plausable
35:01situation meet will be a part of our future and considering that ladies and gentlemen what is the best way to proceed it is regulation and reform of the meat industry not just simply informing everyone about something they already know a lot about we're proud to [Applause]