Question: Should Individuals Opt for a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

The debate on whether individuals should adopt a vegetarian lifestyle is a contentious one, with varying opinions on the matter. My stance is that there is no necessity for everyone to become vegetarian. This perspective is supported by the fact that cattle farming is one of the most productive methods of food production and a significant source of protein for humans. This is particularly crucial given the escalating global population, which necessitates the provision of ample nutritious food. It is, therefore, logical to acknowledge that vegetarianism is not a feasible option for everyone, as we must ensure food security for all, and cattle farming remains one of the most efficient means of achieving this.

= Disambiguation = Pro will argue that a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential. Con will argue that a vegan diet is moral by whatever paradigm he or she wishes. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate. If Con is in need of clarity, is should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate. I repeat posting anything other than 'I Accept.' will lose you the debate before it even starts. = Rules = 1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be on clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round. 2. The BOP will be shared between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast. 3. No semantics! = Definitions = [1]Circumstance: a condition that accompanies or influences some event or activity [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......

better-ADJECTIVE-comparative of good and well. oxforddictionaries.comgood-to be desired or approved oflook, your whole argument is relative of what people desire or aprove of. Also, your argument is plagarized via http://vegetarian.procon.org...;I like meat, Bacon tastes good and i like it, therefore bacon is good. Since Bacon is better than salads or other vegetarian food according to me and other bacon and meat lovers, meat eaters lifestyles are better than vegetarians. Vegetarians tend to be more concious about their weight and exercise, otherwise why would they be vegetarians. accounting for this, it can be safely assumed that a meat eater with similar lifestyles to vegetarians would have similar health. Our ancient ancestors were carnivorous since they have cave painting drawings of hunting animals and were they unhealthy after running around hunting all day? probably not. Sure Greenhouse gas emissions may be higher for producing meat. look there is more than enough food to feed the world, it's just that food distribution and economics make it so this food doesn't reach those who need it most. Eating animals is key to their survival as a species. Animals like the Dodo bird could have been saved if they were mass farmed and maybe we'd still see these beautiful creatures. Existence of these animals is very important and its more ethical to ensure their species survive and that we benefit from it as well. Honestly, a good hamburger in my opinion is worth all the drawbacks of animal cruelty, health, and the environment. A good bacon cheeseburger makes me happy and i think my happiness is more important than raising pigs for my benefit. Sure, animal cruelty is bad and all, but in the end, is it really the meat eaters fault? It's the corporation that you should be fighting, not the consumer. Yes, the consumer is paying revenue to the corporation, but they need to get their bacon cheeseburger for their happiness. Some people can't even afford to go all out vegetarian since meat is cheap and affordable per calorie.OK, your main points are complete plaigerism of a website you didn't even site. That is really unethical and bad for debate. We are here to debate a topic and formulate our own arguments, not to copy and paste the arguments of others. I think the voters should vote based on that single most incriminating fact. Plaigerism is bad for debate, if we were allowed to plaigerize, would i really be debating or commenting on an article that my opponent has posted? Judges, go to this link and look at the pro aspects and you will see stark similarities.http://vegetarian.procon.org...

1st no need to opologise we share some of the same beliefs like evolution in creation. I believe based on proof that micro evolution is an important part of what goes on in the earth. That is the only proven part of evolution. But that's for another debate. Many more people in foreign third world country's would go hungry with out the ability to eat meat. How bout the Eskimos or Inuits meat is a vital food source in a place that's unforgiving, what about tribes in Africa even more of there kids would be go hungry without meat, especially in the small untouched tribes. We still need to test a balanced diet of meat and vegetables against a all veggie diet to conclude that no meat is healthier. If we should not kill a living thing because it is 85 percent human then why should we be able to kill one that is only 15 that's a little bit discriminating if we are going to go to the point of 85 percent human DNA means a animal is a sentient bien. Yes we should rule over them with care not slaughtering them, but why would God require living animals as sacrifices if they were sentient. And Isaiah 65:25 is a prophesy of the 1000 year reign when animals will live together in peace and there will be no wars. But that again is another debate I will save escatology for later. :) I never said evolution was a guidelines of life but why would anyone who believes in it want to mess with the natural cycle of the earth. Yes we do breed lots more cows now but they would eventually get way larger in population then now and consume just as much water just like our population continues to increase. And you didn't really rebute my plant oxygen argument. My apologies for the hasty sound of this round this is a last minute debate on the last hour off the top of my head. Bed times in 10 minutes. School sucks. Will bring a more sourceful argument next round.

Thanks Con! Right out of the batting box, it should be pointed out that Con isn't arguing for Veganism, but for vegetarianism. While the two diets are similar, there is a necessary distinction between them in regards to consumption of animal by-products and the types of produce eaten. A vegetarian will eat animal byproducts such a milk, cheese, and honey; A vegan will only eat organic produce. With this in mind, the health argument is invalid as the Livestrong article that Con posts doesn't speak a word on the benefits of being a vegan. It talks about being vegetarian. And while we're at it, I'd like to point out that making a claim and posting a detached article is not legitimate argumentation. It's not my job to warrant my opponent's arguments for him, he has to decide which ones he believes to be the best and argue them for himself. The economic, health, environmental and abuse arguments are out the window until Con actually makes the arguments instead of just referring to them in a general manner. Aside from all that, can I just point how PETA is not a legitimate source? These are the people who waste millions of dollars a year on attack ads against irrelevant public figures[6] all the while killing 89.4% of the animals in their shelters[7]. Pretty immoral if you ask me. [6] http://features.peta.org... [7] http://www.consumerfreedom.com... Sorry Con, but if you want to debate, you'll have to write your own arguments. I'm debating you, not the internet. Going on to defend my own arguments, I'd like to point out that the waste is still a big issue in this Debate. As Con stated my burden is to prove that 'a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential.' So when we realize that a staggering 15% of the population goes hungry every year[8], insisting on eating only organic produce and no meat destroys human potential. We're wasting 48 million pounds of food every year at the retail level[4] in America alone. Depriving people of sustainable, affordable and nonperishable food is absolutely essential. [8] http://www.worldhunger.org... I'd also like to hear Con's answer as to how traditional fishing communities such as Japan, Alaska, and Kamchatka would be able to survive in the event they were told they could no longer eat meat. Moving on to the nutrition argument, we see that Con is making the mistake of posting detached articles again. Not only that, but many of these articles fail to address the arguments I originally make. The nutrition argument was a minor one anyway. On protein; while it is possible to obtain simple proteins from organic vegetables, it is not possible to gain complete proteins with all 9 necessary amino acids[9]. One could possibly use several different vegetables to get such nutrients, but this isn't a sustainable approach in areas where any kind of food is scarce. If you live in rural Alaksa, a single fish would do the job of several expensive vegetables. [9] http://thinksteroids.com... This is a similar principle with Zinc, Vitamin A, Vitamin D and B12. One may get some of these through vegetables, but a sustainable amount can't be provided to all people. I'd also like to point out my opponent's conduct here; Con isn't treating me with a whole lot of respect in his rebuttals, and that isn't cool. Finally as for the baby argument, Con isn't even responding to the claim I originally made. My argument was one of evolutionary adaption, and how the complex proteins in meat were essential to human evolution. In the absence of such proteins the human brain doesn't grow as much[5]. It's not an issue of 'is my baby fed?', it's an issue of 'am I doing what's best for my offspring?' Back to you Con.

"Also again depression, Alzheimer's disease, baby development and asthma have NOTHING to do with meat. I thought you count low brain function, constipation, diarrhea, pale skin... (In argument 1) as medical conditions. They are not diseases but they are bad medical conditions." I have never heard of any research to suggest that any of those disorders are in any way connected to vegetarianism. Since there are plenty of vegetarians out there and I have never heard of any of them suffering from those conditions I would conclude that they are in not connected. I am sure some vegetarians suffer from those conditions but I have never heard of any connection in the two. A Duke University study has shown depression is best treated by regular exercise. I do however see a connection in meat consumption and heart disease, obesity and multiple other conditions. I do eat all of those meats you mentioned. However I think I would be healthier if I did not eat them at all and ate a healthy well balanced vegetarian diet.

As I spoke before, "I will first state my information and use the next round to refute my opponents information." My opponent has failed to recognize this single sentence stating, "he has not argued that it is moral or provided counter-arguments to mine." Therefore, I will use this round to provide counter-arguments that I specifically said I would use this round to do. Implying that my opponent may have simply skimmed through my information.Let's begin with round two and refute round three afterwards."Suffering is bad Suffering, in itself, is a bad thing. This can be determined by simply asking any sentient, rational being the question: "in a world where there is only suffering and non-suffering, which would you prefer?" Some may argue that suffering can be good if it means to strengthen character, or if to suffer less in the long-run. However, without any kind of context, with this dichotomy, we can determine that no rational being would ever pick suffering over non-suffering. Thus, suffering is bad (unless there is reason to suffer). Animal suffering is bad Animals that have meat, like humans, have feelings. If it is bad that a human is suffering to an extent, than it is equally that if another animal is suffering to that same extent. It is irrelevant how intelligent the animal is, whether it did something silly to make itself suffer, or how much ‘better’ humans are than other animals (humans are animals too). It is the suffering that is bad, and as to whom or what is suffering is of no consequence. I will now argue that the suffering simply isn’t required. So, specifically, let’s look at Hilal meat were it is a requirement that the animal suffer before death (the slicing of the throat, followed by a draining of blood etc.). Clearly, the suffering inflicted of zero benefit (religious benefit, to be precise) and could be avoided by putting the animal to sleep beforehand. Thus, when it comes to the mass consumption of animal meat, suffering should never be a requirement in terms of both morality and practicality."My opponent has clearly established that suffering is bad. He seems to stray form the topic though, I would like to focus on those sentences as to where he explicitly stated in Round 3. "My opponent has committed the non-sequitor that if it should be considered to kill animals for their meat, that the farmers will lose their land and that they have to get rid of their cows." When my opponent speaks of committing a non-sequitor he has clearly done the same thing for an entire two paragraphs in which he states that suffering as well as animal suffering is "bad". I have experienced first-hand with my personal exposure to agriculture, that cattle do no suffer when they die. They are shot and instantly killed with no pain."Therefore, killing animals for their meat, under any circumstance, is immoral and should be considered as such."My opponent has stated that killing an animal for their meat is wrong under ANY circumstance. I would like to take advantage of that bold claim. I know that a carnivorous, starving sentient animal would without a doubt kill a human. So what is stopping us from doing the same? Did we give that wild dog permission to kill us and eat us? I would assume not. Also, since my opponent has failed to specify I would like to focus on another topic. You say it is wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat. I would find it extremely immoral if we killed sentient animals and not utilized as many body parts as we could like we do so today.Now I will examine Round three."My argument is that you don’t kill them to eat them because it should be considered morally wrong. Families that have been harvesting cattle for ages don’t have to give up their land, they just have to not kill animals in order to eat them."Like I stated earlier cattle would 1.Become overpopulated.2.Overgraze and die You seem to have a solution for that and I will examine it now. You stated, "The government of the country could help subsidies the cattle’s existence, and the cattle can be stopped from reproducing so that the problem does not become permanent." This sounds extremely immoral from my stance. Not being from a rural area you do not understand that a mass operation such as this would be extremely difficult. A cow is not going to stand still while it is made sterile. Take it from personal experience. My favorite part of the refutation to my statements is comparing raising cattle to slavery. It is stated here "In the past, people have been used as slaves for business. Would you honestly say that it would be wrong to stop slavery? No, because slavery is morally wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s a tradition or if a great amount of money is being generated, the business should be considered immoral. It doesn’t even matter if the solution is highly costly or somewhat impractical, killing animals so that you can eat them still should be considered morally incorrect." This is how slavery and raising cattle is different. We do not make cattle do work, we feed them regularly and keep them healthy, move them to different areas so they do not overgraze. Cattle are not abused and they die peacefully. Where as in slavery, slaves were forced to do work, fed very little and were unhealthy. Therefore, we are comparing an apple to an orange.My opponent has constantly my statements do not support the moral part of this argument. I do not see how they have not. I have pointed out how it is immoral to take away what an entire family's life has revolved around for hundreds of years. I have also pointed out that it is immoral to simply keep cattle from reproducing. My opponent has failed to specify on many parts of my argument that I will quote now. These statements were otherwise ignore, unread or avoided.1. That I gave all possible scenarios not just for animals being shipped into the wild, I also gave examples of what would happen if they were taken care of.2. My opponent has also failed to address the face that even will government funding no amount of money will keep these cattle from overgrazing. Even if this would happen isn't our government in enough debt where as they shouldn't have to keep cattle alive with no benefit whatsoever to the American people or themselves. It sounds immoral to fund a cause with no return profit.3.My opponent has again failed to address how it is morally right to let an animal die painfully by natural causes instead of being kept in a safe environment and being peacefully killed when it reaches it's mature age.My opponent has also spoke of an alternative method to get protein called "In vitro meat." He has failed to cite any sources for this so called vitro meat so I will cite. This method also is extremely costly to produce and we won't see it for another decade. So how do we get our protein for an entire ten years while we raise cattle for no reason and get lacking funds from the government to sustain them. Although it is inevitable they will overgraze and have nothing left to eat. Which no amount of government funding can prevent. Cattle that starves to death sounds completely immoral. Also, if an animal dies we should harvest it's meat not let it rot on the ground. Also, cattle usually do not die of old age. When they die of natural causes often they are diseased. Making their meat unhealthy for consumers.ConclusionI have address my opponents arguments in this round and will extend my refutations to the next round. I have addressed the immoral part of the subject in which I have addressed how it is immoral to let cattle be killed by: starvation, predators and disease. Where they may be killed humanely without suffering. Where as my opponent's only argument is it doesn't matter about money or people's entire lifestyle. All that matters is suffering is bad. Even though livestock is killed peacefully.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...

====== Case Con ====== Contention 1: Rights and Preferences "From where do rights flow? Clearly, there is no consensus on this. I agree with my opponent that suffering should be minimized, and I agree to an extent about the idea of preferences. But I disagree that animals can truly have preferences. Very few animals are self-aware (. http://www.wiu.edu......) (. http://www.americanchronicle.com......) (. http://earthtrust.org......); all other animals are incapable of having true preferences. They may have evolutionary directives, but that is a much more superficial concept. Self-awareness is necessary to have true preferences. Therefore by my opponent's ethical standard, it is ethically possible to eat meat purely for pleasure. " I completely agree with you. This doesn't detract from my argument in the slightest. It merely adds to the list of exceptions I have already carved out. There is nothing absolutist about my position and I've never claimed that all animals can hold preferences. The resolution is not "consuming meat for pleasure is always wrong regardless of circumstances". Snails probably aren't self aware therefore I wouldn't be opposed to eating them for pleasure. Chickens, cows and pigs however are self-aware, however primitively, and thus can be included in our moral purview. And even if certain animals weren't self aware, by your standards, they would still be capable of feeling pain insofar as they had evolved a nervous system. Contention 2: The Moral Imperative "Humans have no loyalties to members of other species. In survival of the fittest, we may do whatever we please to further our own goals. " A. )This is a very dangerous slippery slope that my opponent is going down. I'm reasonably confident that I could overpower my antagonist if not physically then certainly with the aid of a gun and take his money. Insofar as this increases my chances of survival then why shouldn't I do this? If my own selfish desires were all that's relevant to questions of ethics what moral boundaries would prevent me from subjugating the weak or using slavery to further my own goals? What's to prevent me from raping women that I find to be attractive? After all, I would be propagating my genes and thus acting naturally. Chimps do this all the time in the wild and even in captivity. [1] On top of all this my opponent also committed the naturalistic fallacy. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) In other words he posits that if X is natural then X is good. In this view survival of the fittest is a natural principle and therefore it is a moral principle for guiding our decisions about ethics. B. )My opponent apparently views membership in a species as being significant to questions of ethics. At the potential expense of your patience allow me to take you on a thought experiment. Imagine that a mad scientist took your brain and placed it inside the body of a chimpanzee. You would still be the exact same person with the same mind, desires and goals except now you would be trapped into the body of a chimp. Would I be right in locking you in a cage and treating you as my pet merely because you are now a member of a different species? I think not and unless my opponent is willing to defend the view that he should be removed from our moral sphere if he were in the body of a chimp then my contention stands. Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering "I can provide several cases in which eating meat for pleasure is not unethical, and in doing so I win this debate. " A. Come on stop playing around. You know full well that I wouldn't be opposed to eating meat if it didn't lead to the death or suffering of a conscious creature. I've already stated that there is nothing prima facie wrong with the consumption of meat if it doesn't lead to animal suffering e. g. (eating road kill), (eating tissue grown in a lab) etc. Insofar as an animal is incapable of suffering then I wouldn't be opposed to eating it. Ergo I wouldn't be opposed to eating ants because I'm fairly confident they can't suffer their own destruction in any meaningful way. Your casuistry does nothing to further the debate. B. The argument you brought up about painlessly euthanizing livestock is quite interesting but it doesn't reflect reality. Its first fault lays in the fact that it is flagrantly unrealistic. This just isn't the way factory farms operate. Its second, and more crucial fault is that it disregards the importance of animal's future abilities to feel happiness. The future potential to experience happiness, insofar as that ability had been previously present, is relevant to questions of ethics. If I were to painlessly murder everyone in a city in their sleep I would be acting in a way that did absolutely nothing to increase my victims suffering. Therefore by your own standards there would be nothing wrong with this action. I'm tempted to say Q. E. D. but I think I overuse it sometimes. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Contention 4: Source of Morality "Morality is but a code of conduct that is useful for communal creatures. These communities that we live in consist of humans, so morality relates to humans and humans alone. We do not cooperate with other animals (although sometimes we force them to do our labor), so conventional morality does not apply to them. " Contention number 4 makes the exact same mistake that contention number 2 makes. It views membership in a species as inconsequential to questions of ethics. So, allow my previous arguments to carry over. ====== Case Pro ====== Contention #1 Humans do not need meat to survive. Contention #2 It is wrong to cause a conscious creature to needlessly suffer. Contention #3 Eating animal meat for pleasure is unethical insofar as the animal eaten has the capacity to suffer. Contention #4 Membership in a species is no more relevant to questions of ethics than skin color or gender. Contention #5 We share a responsibility in the suffering and death of animals when we eat meat because we empower factory farms when we buy the meat they produce. Best, Freeman Sources [1] . http://www.thesun.co.uk...

Thank you for you thoughts.Since you are PRO and have the BOP I will simply respond to your round 3 statements.1. The tone of this debate seems to have become hostile. I ask for a respectful tone.2. You state - “I’m lectured about credible sources” - (round 3 line 1) My request for sources was a response to your statement in round 1 “I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched.” - lets compare the sources used in round 1 and round 2 Round PRO CON 1. 0 9 2. 5 113. You suggest that Wikipedia is not a valid source - Wikipedia was used for definitions of PBD and AFS in my round 1 This is because you failed to define terms for the debate. Looking for a dictionary to define terms used in the title to your debate was unsatisfactory. - You dismissed my information on pineapple growing because it came from wikipedia. Do you have conflicting data? “Three-quarters of pineapples sold in Europe are grown in Costa Rica, where pineapple production is highly industrialized. Growers typically use 20 kg of pesticides per hectare in each growing cycle” Which part of this statement do you refute?http://www.guardian.co.uk...4. You reference “the journal of nutrition”I think you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the content. a) it states that animal or plant protein increase urinary calcium equally - “Therefore increasing intake of purified proteins from either animal or plant sources similarly increases urinary calcium. ” b) it suggests that the calcium in milk compensates for protein related calcium loss. - “the high amount of calcium in milk compensates for urinary calcium losses generated by milk protein.” c) it suggests that high potassium levels “will decrease urinary calcium.” d) it says that meat protein is high in phosphate which helps offset the calcium loss that is normal for too much protein - “The hypocalciuric effect of the high phosphate associated with the amino acids of meat at least partially offsets the hypercalciuric effect of the protein.”Their conclusion is ““Excess” dietary protein from either animal or plant proteins may be detrimental to bone health, but its effect will be modified by other nutrients in the food and total diet.”This is about excess dietary protein - from either plant or animal sources. Dietary Animal and Plant Protein and Human Bone Health: A Whole Foods Approach by Linda K. Massey - ©2003 The American Society for Nutritional Scienceshttp://jn.nutrition.org...As I researched further I found 87 scholarly articles that referenced your “source” on google scholar. Some spoke of the conflicting opinions. Worse, the paper you cite is a minority, or even fringe opinion.Not only did you misunderstand (or misrepresent) the content of Massey’s research, but it came under fire in the peer review process.“In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health” . . . “The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological “cascade” that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures.”http://www.tandfonline.com...The consensus of much research seems to be “It does appear that protein from animal sources is an important source of protein for humans from infancy until mature adulthood.”International Society of Sports Nutrition Symposium, June 18-19, 2005, Las Vegas NV, USA - Symposium - Macronutrient Utilization During Exercise: Implications For Performance And Supplementation PROTEIN – WHICH IS BEST? http://www.jssm.org...5. You frequently speak of excess or rich diets. Excess anything is unhealthy. We are talking about moderate / balanced diets of two kinds a) A plant-based diet (PBD) is based on vegetables, grains, legumes and fruit, b Animal Food Sources (AFS) include many food items that comes from an animal source such as meat, milk, fish, eggs, cheese and yogurt. We are not talking about starvation diets or super obese diets. We are debating healthy diets with and without AFS6. You speak of processed cheese as if it was a healthy part of anything. That is like promoting candy apples or sugar cubes as representative of vegetarian food.7. You seem concerned with Osteoporosis - Here are ways to reduce bone density loss Get regular exercise, especially weight-bearing and muscle strengthening exercise. Get vitamin D, whether through diet, exposure to sunshine, or supplements. Consuming enough calcium to reduce the amount the body has to borrow from bone. Consuming adequate vitamin K, found in green, leafy vegetables. Not getting too much preformed vitamin A. Note - there are dangers in excess protein, and cola is very bad. - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...This, however had nothing to do with AFS diets. You need to prove that a diet without AFS is as good or better than a diet with AFS.7. You mention “U.S. News wrote in their “Best Plant Based Diets” article: Top marks went to the Mediterranean Diet (Nutritionally sound, Diverse foods and flavors, Lots of grunt work, Moderately pricey) - It is more expensive than our families current shopping plan. I like that it includes “eating fish and seafood at least a couple of times a week”Second place went to The Flexitarian Diet (Flexible, Lots of (tasty) recipes , Emphasis on home-cooking) - The claim here is weight loss, and it allows for AFS.The vegetarian diet was tied for 4th place.This is good evidence FOR AFS diets.8. The American Institute for Cancer Research says: “Plant-based foods like vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and beans should cover two thirds or more of the plate. - this leaves 1/3 of the plate for AFS9. “Please stop repeating myths about vegetarian/veganism you’ve heard over and over ” No myths - my daughter was a vegan for 5-6 years. Her health suffered. Menstrual problems, headaches, depression. She simply could not get enough iron which may have been a problem with her microbiome. On a diet that includes AFS she is much healthier.10. Great Huff Post link“As I coach people on becoming vegan, one common refrain I hear is that it's too expensive. When funds are low, the cheap burger or basket of chicken can appear to be the best value -- the most calories for the lowest price. We've been aggressively peddled the idea that a healthy diet is an expensive diet, something only for rich folks. And our experience seems to bear that out.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Let me conclude with this.I am not saying a PBD is always bad.I am saying that a balanced diet works well with a wide range of AFS and PBD foods.You frequently cite American bad diet habits.I agree that many Americans are incredibly obese and unhealthy.That does not change the fact that a PBD is often more work, more expensive, less local and in some cases less ethical. In my setting (East Coast Canada) eating local is a healthy mix of fish, milk, eggs, fruit, grains, greens and meat. Much of what I eat is grown by people I know. I get a little too much starch (a good friend has a potato farm). Lobsters are too rich ($ and cholesterol) for me so I don’t make use of that harvest. Fresh fish in season is wonderful, and I hope to catch some this week. Clams & muscles can be harvested year round, but summer/fall is best. I have not often eaten moose, deer, goat or lamb except with my native or Muslim friends.A balanced diet is better than an artificially restricted dietVote CON

But there are a lot of dietes which help you to clean organism and be healthy. Also everybody has rights to do what they want.

Progressive? How would abstaining from eating meat improve our race. Vegetarianism doesn't improve positive traits that make a race strong. It doesn't make people smarter, or stronger, more sympathetic. Nor does it decrease negative traits such as illiteracy, poor judgment, or disease like cancer. Eating meat is actually considered a reason why we evolved the way we did. The hunt gave us cunning and the nutrients allowed our mothers to wean us sooner, which lead to population growth. I not only disagree with this statement but agree to the contrary. Vegetarianism would be a negative on our race and it's evolution. This is one of my sources http://www.sciencedaily.com...


Question: Should Individuals Embrace a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

The debate over vegetarianism is a contentious one, with strong opinions on both sides. However, there is compelling evidence to suggest that everyone should consider adopting a vegetarian diet. One of the most significant benefits of vegetarianism is its positive impact on the environment. According to data from procon.org, the production of a single hamburger results in the destruction of 55 square feet of rainforest. The United States imports vast quantities of Brazilian beef, much of which comes from land that was previously rainforest. This is a catastrophic outcome. As sentient beings, it is absurd that we are destroying ecologically rich and diverse environments to create barren land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and rapidly disappearing, and it is unacceptable to consume meat in abundance without considering the consequences. In today's world, we are more aware of our impact on the planet than ever before, and we must prioritize the needs of the planet over our own desires. Choosing a vegetarian lifestyle is a responsible and ethical decision that reflects this understanding.

It simply comes down to whether eating meat is ethical to the brain, not our feelings. There's a part of the brain which triggers when we do unethical things according to the human mind, which causes the "gut" to trigger, guilty consciousness to trigger and paranoia. Eating meat does not trigger that part of our brain, therefore it's not unethical to the brain, thus it's merely unethical to your claims. You cannot argue the Universe, so it would be best to accept that is a personal matter, not a practical one.

Why? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating "well-planned diets," not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.

I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got " Too " big for the current food market. We would do what humans do whenever they can't make enough of a product for the demand. Improve the different aspects in that products life cycle so it meets the demand. A total meat industry reform is much more sensible than changing not only the way the whole world eats but our culture. I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities. If somehow the world did change over to vegetarianism it would lead to an over dependence on nutritional supplements. Iron and protein tablets would become like oil. Pharmaceutical companies would become large empires who charge people ridiculous amounts of money for something they need to survive. Does that seem like a better world to you?

= Disambiguation = Pro will argue that a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential. Con will argue that a vegan diet is moral by whatever paradigm he or she wishes. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate. If Con is in need of clarity, is should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate. I repeat posting anything other than 'I Accept.' will lose you the debate before it even starts. = Rules = 1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be on clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round. 2. The BOP will be shared between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast. 3. No semantics! = Definitions = [1]Circumstance: a condition that accompanies or influences some event or activity [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......

http://m.dummies.com... Here is where cheese comes from. The opponent has not taken this debate seriously. I have stated all the benefits of eating meat that he can not refute. I have shown that meat is essential for a healthy diet. Thank you.

On animal government: I never said that they would have a congress and a military budget. They do have a social structure. Especially wolves, lions and whales. Don't jump too conclusions. On crops: No, if everyone went vegan, the amount of crops being produced would decrease dramatically. We slaughter 90 billion land animals per year. It takes a lot of food to feed that many animals. Most of our crops go to livestock feed. If you don't believe me, look at the simple math: It takes more crops to feed 90 billion than 7 billion, and cows eat more than people. 90>7. On B12 deficiency: Yes many vegans are deficient, so are many meat eaters. My favorite part: Morality My opponent has spent a lot of time writing about evolution and superiority. They imply that animals are inferior to us. So what? Does that mean they deserve to be oppressed and cut up into little pieces?! Whether or not an animal is a person is irrelevant and an arrogant way to think. All animals are sentient, so there is no excuse to abuse them, any more than a Nazi had an excuse for the holocaust. It doesn't matter if it involves a dog, cow, rat, ant, or whale. Animal abuse is animal abuse. Just because it involves bacon, doesn't change that. Let me list off the things that we have done, and continue to do to animals. Then, it will be obvious about whether it is right or wrong. 1. We brand cows without painkiller. 2. We rape them with bull semen. 3. We clip their ears without painkiller. 4. We often keep them in horrible living conditions. 5. We milk them to exhaustion. 6. We hang them upside down and slash their throats till they bleed out in a slaughterhouse. 7. We cut the teeth off of baby pigs, so they don't bite each other. 8. We also rip off their testicles. 9. We kill pigs with a bolt gun. (yes, a fast death, but would you want that to happen to you?) 10. We cut the beaks off of chicks. 11. We shred the male chicks alive into dog food. 12. We decapitate chickens on a conveyor belt. 13. Other times we gas the animals we want to kill. 14. We go hunting, shoot innocent animals, and take pictures with their corpse as if it is something to be proud of. 15. Animals are handled with cattle prods. 16. Circus animals are slaves, as are dairy cows. 17. Minks are other animals have their necks snapped to be made into fur coats. 18. We test harmful products on animals. 19. We skin cows for leather. 20. We catch fish with painful hooks, drown them in the air and beat them against rocks. My opponent cannot justify a single one of the above points. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is evil. We have an entire holiday dedicated to killing a turkey and shoving bread up its anus! Is that supposed to be a symbol of peace?! A tortured and murdered animal?! Really?! Eating meat never has been and never will be ethical. It's evil. Pure evil. You can vote for veganism or you can vote for animal abuse. It's obvious which one is morally right. [1]. http://www.news.cornell.edu... [2]. http://www.dailykos.com... [3]. https://www.ers.usda.gov...

I have tried to upload this four times sorry for the inconvenienceMy argument addresses specifically the/ unnecessary/ infliction of harm and therefore such cases are barred. - I’ll keep that in mind. Imply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you’ll find pastas, Beans, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren’t meat- From the source below it states plants emit noises via gas when it is in distresses signals that plants feels as pain. You might say plant cannot register pain without a brain but plants partake in intelligence behaviour that is not committed using a brain so it isn’t a stretch to say this is also possible. We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nurtients with which meant products are fortified- Artificial meat right? This is very expensive with the current technology and for it to be cheap it would require a lot of capital to be placed into Research and Development. Second source below. If veganism was globalized- Don’t think this is possible without radical change. One example is the Middle East. It is dominated by Islam. They have rituals that require meat to be used in the process. To me the only way this changes is with a revolution or most likely outside intervention. That is why for the foreseeable future global veganism I think wishful thinking. The interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal- Can you clarify? Does this go in line with unnecessary harm? I think this would be misleading without adding unnecessary into it. That animals are the same as human; its points was that they have the same capacity to suffer. –Not all animals are aware of said suffering which does not mean they have the same capacity to suffer. Third source and go to the Animal which it lists Apes, Monkey and Dolphins having the same level of awareness. To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so. - Society should first accept it is as immoral before it should be punishable by law. By giving the government the power to do this why wouldn't they ban other things using the authoritarianism that they have gained through banning this? Animal cruelly is covered by law. I think that is what you speaking about. The person is morally wrong. Can we switch the debate away from the meat industry? I cannot defend it. I concede that point. If you still want to talk about don't expect sufficient responses because I cannot defend it given by how you phrased this debate. No offence but you did put me in a corner either I lie and this debate is not about truth or hopefully you drop it. Must be having a problem with the sources so I just write the title of themSource: Plants feel pain (howstuffworks)Vitro meat pro and cons (Petridishtoplate)Self-awareness (Wikipedia)

"What if a family lives of meat? " Some families do rely on meat to live, For example in some third world countries, The privilege of picking and choosing your food from a supermarket isn't an option. Families who live in these conditions show examples of /necessity/; their infliction of suffering upon animals, While unfortunate, Is a literal necessity for their survival. My argument addresses specifically the /unnecessary/ infliction of harm and therefore such cases are barred. "Even in the West many people still eat meat. If lets say meat was removed what would they eat instead? " Again barring places where killing animals is a necessity, Here in the US and in Western first-world countries, The answer is as simple as picking out a different food item in the supermarket. If you want to know what can be eaten instead, Simply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you will find pastas, Beans, Grains, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren't meat. We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nutrients with which meat products are fortified. "The source below states that in 2013 8. 6 billion chickens were processed. What would fill that gap? " - Factory farming isn't going to disappear overnight; we're not going to wake up suddenly with no more chickens and wonder what we're going to eat and sell instead. If veganism was globalized, It could only happen gradually; as more people decided that human beings are not mere animals and don't have an excuse for unnecessary killing and hurting, They would start avoiding paying for it to continue happening. Consumerism for meat would begin to reduce, And therefore the market would eventually (probably over decades) reduce to irrelevancy. Like I said, It can't happen all at once, But the market for chickens would very gradually be replaced by agriculture, Which is the short answer to your question. "Sentient creature is wrong. " - What if it in the end of its life cycle? It is not an absolute wrong if the creature is already dying or will not be capable of sustaining itself for the duration of its life. I would half-agree with you on this point and rectify my original statement. If the creature is not viable anyway, I won"t maintain that killing it would be wrong. Even dying humans are permitted to be euthanized in many places (although it"s very controversial. ) However, This doesn't pertain to the meat industry - it's not as though only animals who are already terminal are being killed and made to suffer. In fact, Even animals held on dairy farms who aren't fed through meat factories live much shorter than their natural lifespans. So sure, It's not an absolute wrong to kill an already dying animal, But that doesn't pertain to the meat industry. 100 chickens or 100 humans? - You assume inaccurately that I hold animals to the same degree of worth as human beings. I don't. I personally hold the opinion that the life of a human being holds more inherent worth than the life of an animal, And therefore that the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. So when you ask me if it would be more "ethically sound" for 100 humans to survive or 100 chickens to survive, The obvious answer is 100 humans, And I'm betting almost anyone will tell you that. However, Like you said, That's not a real world example, Nor is that dilemma representative of the meat industry. In a situation where eating meat is a necessity to save a human's life, I have already stated that the harm done to animals in those cases is unfortunate but NECESSARY. You used Americans as an example, Claiming that we rely on meat. However, It's not a reliance that we have on meat, It's a preference of palatability. We /like/ meat and that's why we pay our money to factory farms, Not because we have nothing else to eat (see paragraph 2. ) Therefore the suffering we are inflicting is not a necessity. "I highly doubt obese people who have an addiction to meat would not be able to drop meat straight away" - Pointing out that meat-addicted obese people probably wouldn't be able to drop meat straight away is irrelevant; the fact that some people have an addiction to something is not actually a reason to support that thing. For example, I oppose the street market of meth even though I highly doubt those addicted to it will be able to cease their use straight away. "Basically human life is valued more then animal life. Whether or not it is right is debatable. These are my opening arguments. Next round I would like you to explain why animal life should be valued on the same level as a human life. You did say sentient and conscious but I want to elaborate more or give me other ways they should be valued the same way. " You're right, It's debatable. However, Mentioning animals" sentience/consciousness was not stated in a way that indicated that animals are the same as human beings; its point was that they have the same capacity to suffer. Inflicting unnecessary and undue suffering is wrong, Especially to the degree of extremity at which animals in the meat industry suffer. To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so.

Animals should not be eaten nor used for experiments. Animals should have rights just like humans.

The way of Life includes killing and eating. We need meat to survive. If we do not kill common animals, their number will spiral out of control. For example, if we take away cats who kill mice, there will be more mice than ever before without a cat to control their number. However, we should not kill and eat endangered animals, such as sharks. And it may be for a good cause too. Cows burp and fart a billion litres of methane per day, and that is very harmful to our atmosphere. So killing cows might be good. Now, we can only go so far without eating meat without feeling the side effects. Meat was always part of our diet.


Question: Should Individuals Embrace a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Eating Meat: Not Necessarily Unhealthy or Immoral

In response to the mishap with the citation formatting, I assure you that all sources are properly cited and credible. The actual citation links are as follows: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.peta.org... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://modernfarmer.com...

With the legitimacy of my arguments now established, your comment about ignoring the statistics due to lack of sources is no longer valid. You will have the opportunity to refute my Round 2 argument, but I strongly suggest you read it thoroughly this time.

Proper Citation and Source Material

The mishap with the Round 2 source material has been addressed, and everything is now properly cited and credible. Unfortunately, your entire argument lacks proper citation. Without clear indication of which comments correspond to which sources, I must spend a significant portion of my rebuttal debunking your sources.

[Con 1] supports my position by stating, "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers." However, this is a description of the Standard American Diet (SAD), which I have already acknowledged as irrelevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equate to inherent unhealthiness.

[Con 2] is problematic due to the author's lack of qualifications, extreme bias, and limited citations. Her arguments are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which does not detract from the inherent healthiness or morality of meat, as there are healthy and ethical ways of raising cattle [2][5][6][Con 8].

[Con 3]'s findings can be refuted. Point 4, from Source [1], states, "It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women." This implies that the process, not the meat itself, is responsible for the cancer risk.

[Con 4] is a lengthy 42-page document, but the first page criticizes the SAD for its

I thank Bennett for his response. I did indeed read his argument, and my argument was a refutation of his argument only. The only reason I have not specified the sources is because at different points I have taken from different sources over and over again. However I believe that one can tell this from paragraphs and wherever different statistics some up. I will however supply specific statistics in this round, as per requested. Now one thing however is important. My opponent would enjoy to mess up the burden of proof analysis. In truth one should consider this: the burden of proof is on my important. The burden of proof is not such that it is shared in any way. The resolution then places such a burden on my opponent: a. that eating meat is not unhealthy, and b. that it is not immoral. So it is not that eating meat has more health benefits that costs, it is not a comparative resolution: it is an objective resolution. My opponent must show that eating meat is not, in the least bit, harmful to health. Also he must show that no meat is harmful to health. If I can show that eating meat is the least bit harmful, I win. If I can show that some forms of meat are harmful I win. Secondly that eating meat is not immoral. Again the burden of proof is on my opponent, he must show that eating meat is not the least bit immoral, that it is objectively not immoral. Also I only need to show any one, while Bennett needs to prove both. This analysis is critical for the debate. Remember my opponent must show necessarily not UI, where I only need to show not necessarily not UI, which is the same as possibly UI. So if I can show that some meat is unhealthy and immoral in some cases, or that it harms health I de facto win. With that let us begin. Since the argument is based on statistics and the reasoning is assumed from your side, my original argument was also a refutation. Now I should win this debate here and now because Bennett actually accepts the harmful effects of meat in some cases, and since an ovarian diet is perfectly healthy and you have absolutely no need for any meat we can consider this a concession of the debate from Bennett right here and now.[1] For Bennett says: ' the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer'. Now lets get started with the refutation of Bennett's contentions with my sources: 1. I do not see how my first source helps Bennett at all. You can, if anyone wishes to read my source learn that the paper is actually in favor of a vegan or ovarian diet. It is not over consumption: if one takes a steady diet of meat one will be more likely to get cardiovascular, and other diseases. Now the advised upper limit is 62 kilos per year, the recommended intake is only around 3 helpings a month (the upper limit being 8 helpings), now this is a very low number.[1] There is a good reason for this: that mean is inherently unhealthy. As my original argument states meat is extremely high in cholesterol, and saturated fats, none of which is necessary. Meat, as a whole, says the journal should not be eaten, but if one is insistent then the healthy consumption would be 3 helpings a month. Compare that with vegetables and fruits of which you should have according to one site 4 helpings, and another ten helpings a day![11][12] As for the 8% vegetarians perhaps you should give a journal entry which talks about how vegetables are filled with deadly fats (something which Bennett cannot). 2. Perhaps one should re-read her bio, she is a licensed nutritionist who has written many journal entries, and a book. Also I think there is only one point regarding farming methods, the author lists sources as to how meat can cause colon cancer, cholesterol, dense in calories and this can be read in my original argument, listing the different harmful effects. 3. This is actually a very important source and lists the tens of cancers and fatal illnesses which come more from processed meat, but also from unprocessed meat. It talks about cooked meat, not processed meat. All the information can also be found in my original argument where I discuss the different forms of cancers. This is truly a very important source, and it is from the respected Physicians Committee and has in itself 39 references. 4. If you had read from page 20 on wards you would once again see that it talks about processed and unprocessed meat. It is another important entry. 5. For both 5, and 6 you say that PETA is biased but give no proof of their prejudice, this response of yours can be ignored. 9. You fail to realize it says 'best'. While it does say fish has the least amount of greenhouse gas emission, they are present. Also mutton and beef as I have shown produce 12 kilos or more of CO2, this is why the temperature of the Earth increases each year. When the source talks about chicken it means the lesser of evils. It calls it is the least worse, but bad still. 10. This shows the stupidity of an appeal to nature. Your entire argument was based on the belief that since meat is eaten in nature, and human bodies can process meat, meat is moral. This is not only an appeal to nature, which is a legitimate logical fallacy, it is also foolish. Pedophilia, Psychopathy, and killing of one's infants are all natural, should humans copy animals here too? As for the appeal to nature: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Now an Ovo-Lacto diet does not involve eating meat. This debate is about meat, and meat is defined as flesh. An Ovo-Lacto diet which is the most healthy[1][4] is in itself devout of any meat. The debate resolution is not about veganism it is about meat, about eating flesh and I have sufficiently shown that this meat is unhealthy and immoral. Now note how my opponent says: 'can be healthy'. It may have some benefits, but none of them are such that cannot be gained through vegetables. Also remember my burden of proof analysis in the beginning, since I have shown that there are some harmful effects, since Bennett has even accepted it, I win this argument, and this debate. None of my arguments in relation to cancer, how meat has carcinogenics, and how meat is harmful have been tackled. Only the fish point was mildly tackled, with an appeal to authority to Harvard. It is commonly known that people get Mercury poisoning, and other gastric problems from aquamarine meat. The point that it contains mercury was actually conceded by my argument where he admits that they may cause cancer. The entire defense of my opponents argument drops my points about how meat causes environmental damage and is therefore immoral. Since this is a dropped point, I ask that it give me extra points in the voter's eyes. The rest of the entire argument actually defends the appeal to nature. The above source from Wikipedia is good enough to prove that an appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. As I said psychopathy is natural, there are many people who are born to kill. Also human men have a genetic and evolutionary desire to produce children and carry on their genes, should we allow human to rape women then? I mean that is what they want naturally.[13] My argument about how other animals are sentient beings, and just as it is wrong to harm other humans, because we assume that to cause pain is immoral, it is wrong to harm animals. Monkeys and Chimpansies actually have 97% similar DNA to humans (all humans share a DNA similarity of 99.556%) and so have a neo-cortex formed and it wrong to kill of sentient life. My opponent provides no satisfactory answer to this. With that I beg to oppose, and can only state that the resolution collapses miserably. [11]http://www.cdc.gov... [12]http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [13]The Anatomy of Violence by Adrian Raine; Basic Instincts Faithfully Yours, Ajab.

Ecological You state, “1st water is a renuable resource and we shouldn't worry about whether or not it takes more water for a cow then wheat, because it is all going to be renewed and if we chose not to eat those cows they would consume more water to live longer. “ Believe it or not, water usage is a concern. Though fresh water is replenished by the water cycle we have a limited amount at a given time and it takes vast amounts of energy (non-sustainable) to treat the water. In 50 years, our population will increase by 3 billion people. It will become increasingly difficult to provide water for everyone. You can read about it here: http://www.whyzz.com... Also, you say that if we didn't eat the cows, they would consume the water anyway. The meat industry breeds these animals in MASSIVE quantities. They are forced to reproduce much more frequently than if they were wild. If we stopped breeding them for slaughter their numbers would decrease dramatically in a few years. Also, you did not consider that meat production not only takes the water the animals drink directly, but all the water it takes to grow the food they eat. You state that if we all switch to eating plants, we would decrease the world plant population and thus decrease the oxygen on earth. Most of the plants farmers grow are fed to meat animals. If we switched to plant diets there would be more plants, and, according to you, more oxygen. http://www.news.cornell.edu...... About global warming, if you don't believe it is a concern, I'm not sure what to tell you. You might consider having a look at some of these articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...http://www.independent.co.uk... Animal Rights You state: “Next I would like to say why animal rights shouldn't be a question. If you are an evolutionist you believe in survival of the fittest and that the better smarter species will weed out the lesser species, yes of course now days we try and keep a couple around but working against extinction of animals is very condridicting if your an evolutionist. “ Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a scientific concept. Survival of the fittest is not a code of conduct for life, it was never intended to be that. Evolution does not define morality. Just because something behaves a certain way in nature does not make it ethical (e.g. causing other species' extinction). 97% of scientists accept evolution as scientific truth. This does not change what is ethical. http://www.people-press.org... I want to bring to attention that this is not a religious debate. It is a debate on ethics, which to some people does include religion, so I will address it briefly. I am a protestant Christian and I think that evolution is probably true. I don't see a conflict between Christianity and evolution. God has the power to bring about life on earth in the way he chooses. I believe this way to be evolution. All the life on earth shares some percentage of DNA. This makes sense if you believe they come from the same Creator. You mention that the Bible gives authority to man to rule over the creatures of the Earth. Does this mean we can do whatever we want to them? No, we must take care of them. Before the flood, God forbade the eating of meat. After the flood, he designated certain animals as “clean” to eat. Does this remove our responsibility to rule over the creatures with respect? Here are some other things the bible has to say: "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither hunt nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.” -Isaiah 65:25 “The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel. “ - Proverbs 12:10 “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. “ -Deuteronomy 25:4 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or ask the birds of the air, and they will tell you. Speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea tell you. Every one of these knows that the hand of the Lord has done this. The life of every creature and the breath of all people are in God’s hand.” -Job 12:7-10 (NCV) Many early Christians were vegetarian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great to name a few. In some early church writings, Matthew, Peter and James (Brother of Jesus and first leader of the New Jerusalem Church) were all vegetarian. Clement wrote, "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals. The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds, nuts and vegetables, without flesh". God giving us dominion over the animals does not give us license to mistreat them. God rules over us, and he is merciful to us. We rule over the creatures of the earth, should we not be merciful? I do not think we should give rice plants rights. We only share 15% of our DNA with it. Plants have no brain, no central nervous system. There is no reason to think that plants have emotion or feel pain.There is a reason to think animals have emotion and feel pain. Animals are closer to us than plants, some animals are very close to us. Even bacteria share about 2% of our DNA. Does this give them rights? No. When you wash your hands, you kill thousands of bacteria. If you have ever felt pain, than you can surely understand why we should hesitate to inflict pain on the things that can feel it (animals, not plants and bacteria). I agree with you about abortion. For the same reasons I think we should not kill animals, I feel we should not kill unborn humans. But this debate isn't about abortion. Human Consumption I'm not sure what you are saying about the health implications of a vegetarian diet. 8 years more of life is 8 years more of life. To me, that indicates it is healthy to be a vegetarian. Yes, there are many healthy, long-lived people who eat meat, but a diet without meat can be just as healthy (or possibly more-so). http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... You conclude: “Eat meat there is nothing unethical about it.” 18,000 children die every day for lack of food. If the entire nation switched to a completely plant-based diet, there would be 5 times more protein food than the meat produced. We feed farm animals enough to feed 800,000,000 people every year. This world needs all the extra food it can get. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... “And it tastes darn good and just the fact that eating a nice steak can make a good day for someone that's proof enough for me that it's a good thing.“ Well, maybe punching my neighbor in the nose would “make a good day” for my neighbor's ex-wife, but that doesn't make it ethical. Note: I apologize if my arguments seem a little strong, I'm just trying to present the situation as accurately as I can.

Pro claims “Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets”First let’s define a few essentialsA plant-based diet (PBD) is based on vegetables, grains, legumes and fruit, with little or no animal products.[1]Animal Food Sources (AFS) include many food items that comes from an animal source such as meat, milk, fish, eggs, cheese and yogurt.[2]Pro has the BOP to prove that diets without AFS are as good or better than PBD alone.There are several problems with this position1. Nutrition – PBD do not contain performed vitamin A, vitamin B12 and vitamin D. [2] Also, many AFS give nutrients (like Iron and trace elements) in forms that the human body can use more readily. 2. Micro-nutrient deficiency is often a result of PBD [2] – “All six micronutrients richly found in AFS, vitamin A, vitamin B12, riboflavin, calcium, iron and zinc play a critical role in the growth and development of children.” 3. Vegetarian diets are linked to menstrual problems in young women. [3] 4. It takes intelligence and hard work to maintain a healthy PBD. Most people are not willing to do the study or work at the self discipline required. 5. Bacon – yum – seriously, just because I can live without AFS, why would I want my life to be made so complicated by unnecessary food rules. Often AFS products are in foods that might surprise you.[5] The focus of PRO's argument seems to be that PBD leads to greater awareness, which leads to greater health. If that is the case, the debate should read "greater awareness of diet is better than being a dietary moron" Looking at PRO's arguments one at a time leads to these responses "Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country." The debate did not specify for developed countries. In fact, one reason for AFS diets is that animals can eat plants that we can't (grass etc.) and convert it to meat, milk and eggs which we can eat. In less developed agricultural areas (Canadian North, Greenland, harsh environments) where fruits and grains are impossible to grow there are cultures that thrive on AFS diets because it it what is easily available. "So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods." I hadn't expected you to debate for ASF. According to PRO vitamine B12 must come from AFS diets. BP diets alone are not as good. "Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year" The economics and sustainability of PBD may be great. I was not aware this debate was about fashion, economics, music or anything but diet. PBDs are not as good as a diet where foods can be chosen from the full range of foods. I am all for improving harvest conditions of AFS. "Western society eats too much meat" Many cultures do not eat enough fish, eggs, milk or meat or other AFS foods and experience malnutrition. Excuse me for skipping your points 5-9 as they are about crazy obese American dietary problems of overfeeding on processed junk food and getting way too little exercise. Bone density increases with impact related exercise (walk, run, sports) and decreases with a sedentry lifestyle. Most of points 5-9 are similar. "Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger." If we as a culture stop buying meat and begin buying PBD foods the instability in food markets will cause harm.[6] A part of the problem is not just the need for grain foods, but a need for purchasing power and stable governments. Bad government contributes to world hunger.[7] I am not saying that PBD are always bad. They do take more work and care to get enough nutrients AND CALORIES I am saying that a balanced diet is easier with a varied diet. [8] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] http://newsinhealth.nih.gov...[5] http://www.dummies.com... [6] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [7] http://www.hawaii.edu...[8] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca... http://www.health.gov...

Why is it so impractical for humans to endure this? what makes them so different than animals? why are animals more greater and more important than animals, they are larger and consume more? that i believe is no excuse. we basically already test the products ourselves. Would you look at a bottle of body lotion, body soap, makeup and say iam going to put it in my mouth..... probally not... so why would you force down someone else's throat. If you think its alright and just natural to do so..... we should shove you in cages and shove tubes down your throat, force foreign objects down your throat and beat you senslessly. And you still have the heart to say thats okay?

"According to this model then, fewer animals (1.35 billion) would die than in the vegan model (1.8 billion).A533; As a result, if we apply the LHP as Regan did for his vegan conclusion, it would seem that humans are morally obligated to consume a diet of vegetables and ruminant animal products." S.L. Davis1 First eating ruminant animal products reduces field animal deaths. Why think of just cows? Aren't mice cute too? Save the field mice! "Imagine a cow that can tolerate the heat and eats relatively little grass " in other words, a cow that can thrive in the desert." wbur.org Some cows can live in the desert. Cows can turn desert into grasslands. "The catalyst for reducing CO2 and restoring soil function and fertility, they say, is bringing back the roving, grazing animals who used to wander the world's grasslands. " theguardian.com I conclude that cattle ranching is good for the environment. https://www.morehouse.edu... http://hereandnow.wbur.org... http://www.theguardian.com...

Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical. Contention 1: Rights and Preferences A snail is an animal. My opponent is not opposed to eating a snail for pleasure. Resolution negated. Pigs and cows are NOT self-aware. Self-awareness is assessed most effectively with the mirror test (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). Dolphins, chimpanzees, and a few others have passed the test and are therefore considered self-aware. Pigs and cows have not passed. Yes, they can feel pain, but that is a different matter. ======== Contention 2: The Moral Imperative A.) My opponent should not overpower me and take my money because if he does so, it will sow distrust. He may go to jail. More directly, though, no one will trust him and he will be hurt in the long run. A person may feel that it is morally wrong to rob someone at gunpoint, but this feeling originates out of a selfish desire to continue to be accepted in a community. Slavery has a similar problem. Rape as well: women do not want to be raped, so even if you rape one time you will get the reputation of a rapist and women will avoid you, so overall you will have fewer children. The reader may feel that these things are morally wrong, and that is correct. But this is the reason why they are wrong. I ask the reader to step outside of the evolutionary directive and understand WHY we consider these behaviors to be wrong. It is not truly because they are harmful to others; it is because they have social repercussions. I am perfectly aware of the workings of the naturalistic fallacy. I am not saying that we should follow the moral imperative simply because it is natural. I am saying that we should follow it because the fact that it is natural makes it the only true option. All other options are arbitrary and artificial. Subsequently, how can we even hope to define morality without at least basing it upon our evolutionary roots? B.) The analogy is inapplicable. It is impossible to put a human brain into a chimpanzee without completely changing the brain structure. But false analogies aside, the brain is a large part of what makes us human. A chimpanzee with a human brain would be more human than chimpanzee. ======== Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering A.) I'm not playing around. My opponent has just conceded for the second time. My opponent provided no definitions in round 1. Is it my fault that he was using an unconventional definition of "animal"? No. My definition is the one which will be accepted. B.) Ethics do not have to perfectly model reality. It is easily conceivable that there is a scenario in which animals are painlessly euthanized. There is nothing morally wrong with this. My opponent objects to factory farms; it is true that factory farms are very common right now, but euthanasia is still entirely possible. "If I were to painlessly murder everyone in a city in their sleep I would be acting in a way that did absolutely nothing to increase my victims suffering." This is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self-awarely considering the future. Humans have a truly conscious desire not to die. Animals merely have evolutionary directives. ======== Contention 4: Source of Morality My opponent misunderstands the true source of morality. This has been addressed in contention 2. ======== Case Pro ======== (These are not contentions. This is a syllogism. However, I will retain my opponent's labeling system.) Contention #1: Agreed. Contention #2: Wrong. This is addressed repeatedly in my case. Contention #3: False, since #2 is false. Contention #4: False. See my second contention. Contention #5: True, but irrelevant.

This debate will have a few topics related to it. Not only philosophy, but health and ecology too. I understand that some societies rely on hunting gathering to this day and they cant survive without meat. But why societies that can can survive without it continue doing all that to them? I believe that animals deserve equal amount of rights as we are. We have no right to adapt the supremacist view that they are above us. Here is a list of things we do to them, which they dont deserve: - Cows, Goats and Chickens. We use them and what they produce (milk and eggs) for food. - Foxes and cows. They are being skinned to make leather or fur. - Geese and ship. Are victims because of their feathers or fur. Geese have their feathers plucked out violently to make products like pillows and Ship have their fur removed for wool clothings. - Horses and some dogs. Being forced to participate in races. They go through terrible conditions before those races. - Killer whales, dolphins and some other fish. Forced to perform tricks (in places such as Sea World) or simply live in small confined places. - Lions, tigers, elephants, monkeys. They either live in a Zoo or perform tricks in circuses. - Dogs. They are used in the military and police to find drugs and participate in dangerous operations. When they are not active they sit in a small cage. Some dogs dont participate anything, they are just tied down to some place. - Wolves, Deer, bears, rabbits and some other animals. Are targets for hunters. - Rats, cats and monkeys. Often used for animal testing, mostly which isnt necessary. - Fish. Are victims to fishing, a lot of time done for sports. So what arguments are there to justify all what I listed?

Vitamin B12 is critical for the health of the brain and nervous system and is primarily found in animal foods. A deficiency can cause all sorts of adverse effects on brain function. [1] Creatine is an important nutrient in muscle and brain that helps to supply energy. Studies show that vegetarians have a deficiency in creatine that leads to adverse effects on muscle and brain function. [2] A large part of the world is deficient in Vitamin D3, which is only found in animal foods. A deficiency in this critical nutrient is associated with depression and various diseases. [3] Carnosine is found strictly in animal tissues. This nutrient can reduce damage caused by elevated blood glucose and may have strong anti-aging effects. [4] The Omega-3 fatty acid DHA is critical for proper function of the brain. It is primarily found in animal foods like fatty fish. Studies show that vegans and vegetarians are often deficient in it. [5] 1. http://www.m.webmd.com... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.m.webmd.com... 4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.m.webmd.com... My above arguments and sources are in favour of my original argument, which is that it has been proven rather difficult to maintain a balanced diet as a vegan. Is it possible? Yes. But it's difficult, and much easier to do as a non-vegan. It would be unfair and not right to limit people to only eating vegan foods, and at the end of the day, there is no good reason to do so.

Hi my name is Sahaam and I believe that we should NOT eat dogs. My 1st point is that there are some animals we can eat and some animals that we shouldn't eat, like dogs.Its just cruel, dogs are said to be mans best friends which plenty of people think is true. My 2nd point is that dogs have always been there for us.There have been plenty of cases, of dogs that have saved humans lives.For example a little girl was drowning and a dog came to the rescue, and dragged her out. Also dogs help blind people walk to places, making blind people feel more secure.Dogs also fight crime by catching burglars, and they also have a great sense of smell to catch people with drugs. So dogs have always been there for us, so who are we to kill them and eat them? Its not that nice.How would you feel if you helped people all your life and in return you get killed and eaten?

Humans have no evolutionary adaptations suggesting the consumption of meat. Human's share 99% of our DNA with apes. Apes diets consist of mainly fruit and vegetation. If you can provide me with evidence of adaptation's in support of eating meat, that I cannot debunk, than I will happily place the victory of this debate in your hands. Human feature in support of eating a plant biased diet: 1. A carnivore or omnivore's saliva does not contain digestive enzymes. humans however contain carbohydrate digestive enzymes. 2. Humans unlike carnivores have week stomach acid, for herbivores and humans the pH of there stomach acid is between 4 and 5. carnivores stomach acid is much closer to a pH of 1. 3. Carnivores and omnivores have a large intestine that is short and simple relative to there body size. I look forward to receiving your argument confident I can rebuttal it.