Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Meat, dairy, and eggs should be prohibited on a global scale.

I. Introduction
II. Arguments for a worldwide ban on meat, dairy, and eggs.
III. Response to Counterarguments
IV. Supporting Links

I. Introduction
To clarify the debate, let's restate the resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. I am the proponent of this resolution, advocating for their global prohibition, while the opponent seeks to maintain the status quo.

II. Arguments for a worldwide ban on meat, dairy, and eggs.
There are several compelling reasons to ban meat, dairy, and eggs globally:
1. They are detrimental to health, containing high levels of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, while lacking essential nutrients like antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. Consuming these products can displace healthier food choices.
2. Their production causes significant environmental damage, with destructive fishing practices harming habitats and deforestation for cattle grazing contributing to global emissions.
3. The production process is associated with animal cruelty, as evidenced by the inhumane treatment of chickens, even those raised free-range.
4. The production of meat, dairy, and eggs exacerbates world hunger by using grains that could otherwise feed humans directly.

III. Response to Counterarguments
The opponent argues that meat, dairy, and eggs are necessary for a healthy diet. However, they fail to provide evidence to support this claim. Plant-based diets can provide all necessary nutrients, as fruits and vegetables are rich in fiber, nutrients, and antioxidants. B12, a critical nutrient, is produced by bacteria and can be obtained from raw organic fruits and vegetables or supplements. Omega-3s can also be sourced from seaweed and microalgae.

IV. Supporting Links
To further support these arguments:
5. http://wwf.panda.org...
6. http://www.greenpeace.org...
7. http://www.humanemyth.org...
8. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
9. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...
10. http://www.nytimes.com...
11. http://authoritynutrition.com...
12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
13. http://www.nature.com...
14. http://www.raw-food-health.net...
15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In conclusion, meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned globally due to their negative health impacts, environmental destruction, animal cruelty, and contribution to

I am going to quote my opponent Ben's opening statements to me: "Im sorry I can't link the study, it's in a book made from 1986 and I checked online f it is there yet it isn't. It does hold value since you concluded plants can't talk, defend themselves, or think." - Ben Plants can't think. The very act of thinking requires a brain. Plants may be able to respond to stimuli and react to certain things, but that in no way means that their sentient, have conscious desires, interest or preferences. As I have already mentioned many times in this debate. Quoting my opponent Ben again: "I don't see any way animals destroy the environment, other then taking land (just like crops). Though yes, they produce waste so that destroys the environment. " -Ben Ben has literally just contradicted himself. He says he doesn't see any way animals destroy the environment, but then in his next sentence, he says that animals produce waste that destroys the environment. Ben, which one is it? They either destroy the environment or they don't. Did you even read the environmental reports that I linked in this debate? I guess not. Here, I will link them again: http://www.fao.org... http://www.worldwatch.org... http://pge.uchicago.edu... This debate is going in circles. Ben has raised objections to my arguments that I had already dealt with in the 2nd round of this debate. He has failed to debunk any of my arguments, and is now just blabbering nonsense.

Do to internet problems I don't have much time to write this, so it will be disorganized a bit. But on the issue of BoP Con has it completely wrong. Let's examine how Con interprets the BoP he states as follows (notice the position of the word "not"): "Remember my opponent must show necessarily NOT UI . .. " Con uses the synonym "necessarily" instead of "inherently". However if we examine the ACTUAL premise/title of the debate using the synonym: "Eating Meat is NOT [necessarily] Unhealthy or Immoral. " Notice that the premise is not "[necessarily] NOT UI". Do you see the problem? Con switches "NOT [necessarily] UI" with "necessarily not UI". So in correcting Con's misguided attempt to place 100% of the BoP on me we get "NOT necessarily UI, where con must prove not NOT [necessarily] UI". The BoP is placed upon Con to prove that all forms of meat are inherently UI, he is arguing as a vegan after all and this would be in line with his original position. I have to show that there is a way meat can be healthy and raised/slaughtered ethically. I have done so with the example of free range farming, which for the entire debate Con has ignored in favor of fighting the straw man of factory farming. Con believes just because he can point out a slight fault, take fish and mercury poisoning, this negates the health benefits of the meat. He thinks that just because mercury poisoning would kill 24 people this negates the 7,000 who would be saved from fish. This is a debate of an extreme position vs. a moderate one. The vegan represents the extreme, ALL meat is bad. My position represents the moderate, SOME meat is ok (you can read my position in Round 1). The key word is "inherent", if I can divorce the concept of meat from unhealthy and immoral I win. In other words, if I can show meat can be produced in a way that is healthy for humans and moral (or at least amoral) for animals, I win [see round 2 & 3]. The vegan will have no recourse for rebuttal given their position. Now to address some points made by Con: Con doesn't see how [Con 1] helps my position, read my Round 1 position, because my BoP is to prove meat is not inherently bad I point that it is not the meat that causes poor health effects but the irresponsible over consumption of it. [Con 1] confirms this hypothesis "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. " READ THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN. It is the over consumption that leads to the diseases not the meat itself. As for those 8% obese vegetarians, how did they become obese if they weren't eating meat? If meat is inherently unhealthy how could these people become obese if they avoided meat? As far as morality is concerned, Con has 2 counters: it causes pain and environmental damage. Free range farming inherently eliminates the pain involved in raising cattle because they grow up in their natural environment, grassland (free to relax from the fear of natural predators). Before animals are killed they receive what is called a "stun bolt" which numbs the creature so when it is killed it feels no pain [6]. Causing a painless death is at least amoral as it serves a purpose to humans without harming the animal. As far as environmental damage is concerned this is a moot point. Almost everything humans do causes environmental damage, especially agriculture (vegan food) with pesticides running into the water supply and soil degradation. If meat production is immoral by these standards then all food is immoral, in this case we would all starve to death. In regards to not needing meat, this may true but it is irreverent. We may be able to live without meat but just because we can doesn't mean we should live without it. Meat has many nutrients that are important and if we included meat in our diets this gives human the full range of nutritional options [1]. Sorry for the hap hazard organization but internet connection problems took precious hours away. There is plenty of evidence that meat can be a part of a healthy diet [1, 2, 3, 8, Con 9, ], and through free range farming meat can be ethically harvested [5, 6, Con 8]. I have stayed true to my Round 1 position and have met my BoP. Con has abandoned his Round 1 position by making non-vegan arguments and most of his sources have been put into question, help my case, or are irrelevant. He has not shown meat to be inherently UI.

I always hope for one thing, that one day schools will start teaching formal logic to their students. Now let me start with the burden of proof analysis once again, before that however let me present to you one fact. The motion of the debate does not mention hard core veganism; it only mentions meat. This was defined as flesh earlier on. Now lets come to the burden of proof analysis. I use the S5 Modal Logic System here made by Lewis Carroll. Let us before that attribute some signs: U is for unhealthy, and I is for Immoral. Now above I say that my opponent must show necessarily not UI. What this means is that he must show that meat is necessarily not inherently immoral and/or unhealthy. What necessarily implies here is that the motion is an absolute motion, not a comparative, or a shared one. My opponent must prove that meat is necessarily not immoral, and it is necessarily not unhealthy. Now some may say that the burden of proof is on me, for my opponent is trying to show a negative. I quote the Latin law here: Onus probandi incumbet ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. The burden is on the one "affirming" something. My opponent is affirming the healthiness and the morality of eating meat. Now I must show the negation of my opponent, right? Well since my opponent must show necessarily not UI, I must show negation necessarily not UI, which through the S5 Logic System translated to possibly UI. So if I can show that meat is possibly unhealthy, or possibly immoral I win. I win this debate because my opponent concedes that sometimes meat is unhealthy. There are also a plethora of citations I used to show the harmful effect of eating meat. Eating meat affects the heart, kidneys, liver, et cetera. It causes cardio-vasular diseases, and contains numerous toxins. Now most of my opponent's arguments are comparative. That the benefits out way the harms, well he still loses because he cannot satisfy his burden of proof. Seeing that there is in fact some harm. My above analysis can be checked if one Googles S5 Logic System, though here are some essays. [14][15][16] As for my first source, my opponent picks and chooses. The paragraph itself states of meat in general, and only then states that meat in large amounts is more detrimental. Meat in itself is inherently unhealthy, while eating it in small amounts may not effect one per say, it is still unhealthy. One who drinks alcohol socially is not considered to be doing something exceptionally unhealthy, but over long periods it still affects one's health. I believe this is what stunning is: 'Electrical stunning is done by sending an electrical current through the brain and/or heart of the animal before slaughter. Current passing through the brain induces an immediate but non-fatal general convulsion that produces unconsciousness. Current passing through the heart produces an immediate cardiac arrest that also leads shortly to unconsciousness and death. '[17] Do you know that 15% of animals are not put to sleep, they endure the pain of the current? Also stunning does not kill the animals, it puts them in an unconscious state, and they can still feel pain. Granted they wont remember this pain, partly because they will be dead, but they will be feeling pain for upto 10 minutes they will get heart attacks, some seize, and other problems. This is humanitarian? Also this leaves the point that my opponent conceded that he made an appeal to nature. Not to mention as animals are sentient creatures, and can feel pain, would you be okay if we stun humans before we cook 'em up? My opponent's rebuttal is near non-existent. He states that since everything humans do causes pollution this is okay. Growing vegetables does not cause pollution, it reduces the CO2 from the air. In comparison I have earlier shown how meat causes extremely large amounts of CO2. Now the world is moving onto organic foods and many countries have banned any form of pesticides which are toxic. With that I end this debate, my thanks once more to Bennett, and to the voters. [14]. http://faculty.georgetown.edu... [15]. http://en.wikipedia.org...(modal_logic) [16]. http://www.filozof.uni.lodz.pl... [17]. http://en.wikipedia.org... Alecium Shaloom!

Pro tries to maximize the happiness of everyone under the philosophy of utilitarianism. Everyone includes all humans and all sentient animals. Pro contends that banning meat, eggs, and dairy foods would make both humans and animals happier. http://psychology.wikia.com...

Rebuttal 1: I feed my dog meat and vegtables and she is stronger than ever. You know, we also eat veggies. It is not like we eat only meat. Rebuttal 2: Throw in a lunk for that and I will accept it as fact. Otherwise, I rule it an invalid statement Rebuttal 3: Read before you make an assumption. By the way, vegans can't eat cheese. It is a product aof the cow and is strictly forbidden. I eat chesse all the time. My favorite is sharp cheddar. :P You find different forms and bigger quanities in meat. Some which you can not find in veggies. Look at the food pyramid. Meat is on there. This proves meat is essential for a good diet.

If they (animals) were recognized individual than, Why do we still have animal activists equivalent to terrorist? They donot even value the more important life (human life) Contention 1 - It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure – in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. Human beings have been successful in this struggle for existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their position as a successful species in the evolutionary process. It is like telling herbivorous dinosaurs not to eat too much amounts of grass(Herbivorous dinosaurs used to eat a lot of grass. )Qoute - "Survival of the fittest"Over many decades people of different races and different genders have fought for their own right. It has been years of struggle for all human beings. This paragraph coincidentally also highlights the majority of the information which the history books contain, Struggle is the key to success. Contention 2 -Furthermore, Animal Rights activists are people who volunteer to give animals rights but the reality is far more grosteque and flabbergast. Animal Rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life. Organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and death-threats; PETA are also an extremist organisation. These AR extremists still avail themselves of modern medicine, however, which could not have been developed without experiments and tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reasonable concern, but talking of animal ‘rights’ is a sign of extremism and irrationality. How can any one justify rights for creatures that donot add anything to the enviornment for the benefit of their own species or other creatures. Contention - 3Creatures in the world are described in many categories but for this debate I am going to concentrate on the 4 main categories- PetsPets are creature which majority of humans love and are taken care of by us human but the sad reality is that they are pointless and lead a very sad life. Rights for creatures which are lazy and donot want to achieve something in their life is totally outrageous, unless opponent can justify a suitable reason and a right for these categories of creatures(pet). http://www.smh.com.au...; -PestCane toads exemplify a pest. These creatures are hated by all humans. Thus any human would not even want to desire a right for pest like cane toads. Quick fact - Cane toads to human population of Australia is 5 cane toads to one Australian-Domestic animalsThese animals are killed or their resources are used for human benefit. If these animals are given a right to choose if they want to lend or not lend their resources. Then all human populace will start illegal harvesting of resources like the Japanese whalers. This will not be beneficial as the society will start to become very immoral and maybe rich(Black market). -Wild animalsThis animals rarely communicate with humans. The ones that are under the human sight will either be killed or will become extinct(reproduction in these animals take a longer time and is slower). Laws should be made for their welfare but giving them rights will be absurdMy last contention -The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences: e. g. saying that we should respect the ‘right’ to life of bacteria, or the ‘right’ of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms. The emotion of sympathy and pity towards all animals who maybe suffering is human nature. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights or need rights. Thank you for readingAwaiting Opponent(Pro)'s reply

I urge the voters to to disregard con's FF in round 4. Please vote solely on whose points outweigh whose. On that note, I hope all is well with Envisage. Summary/Conclusion: The unethical treatment of livestock... -Encourages and causes food contamination -Weakens the treatments available for not just food borne illnesses, potentially all illnesses treated by antibiotics -Pushes rising prices to consumers and unfair pay to farmers because of industries' monopolist market power -Raises the quality of meat people consume -May slightly reduce meat produced each year, with a good potential for indirectly decreasing the amount of animal products consumed by people. This may likely lower high rates of cancer and heart disease, the first two leading causes of death in America. -Costs the country (US) roughly $414 billion dollars each year in health, environmental, and animal welfare expenses. -Has a huge negative impact on the environment; meat-eaters produce about double the dietary greenhouse gas emissions than vegans do. With the ethical treatment of animals, producing a significant of animal products each year is still possible. Lessening factory-farming, and therefore lessening monopolistic control, would be good news for farmers who are left with very little options in buyers. It would even be good news for the job market because it would be more viable as a competitive industry. The ethical treatment of livestock does not threaten the food supply, nor do developed countries like America necessitate the need for such a significant amount of animal products. As I've pointed out, Americans throw away up to 40% of food each year, and a study suggests that the world's food supply could be doubled if people ate less meat. Which, if I say so myself, more than makes up for difference in meat produced ethically vs. unethically. Also, farms that uphold the ethical treatment of livestock do exist and can be very successful - like in the example I gave in round three. I will acknowledge, however, that it could be catastrophic if the US enforced the ethical treatment of livestock at once. This sort of system would require gradual, yet strict change. Once people have moved over to it though, it will more beneficial than the current system, in which factory-farming controls costs and indirectly wreaks havoc on people's lives. And to boot, the ethical treatment of livestock will also please the many people who consider it the moral road to take.

Introduction of ArgumentsAnimal LivesA."Jane experienced all of that so that we humans can enjoy the taste of cheese or steak. This is the worst holocaust that has ever happened."B. Are we reducing Jews to the status of animals, or are we raising animals to status of human? Either way this argument is completely stupid. I hardly have to debunk Jews being equal to animals, because they aren't. Now lets dive into animals being equal to humans.C. Animals aren't equal to humans, humans are smarter. Animals don't have equal rights of humans. Animals don't live in houses, or have governments.D. Does the vegan diet save animals? The answer may seem obvious, but it really isn't. If we make all organisms with feeling are equal then agriculture may kill more animals then the meat business.E. "The animals in this case are mice and moles and rabbits and other creatures that are run over by tractors, or lose their habitat to make way for farming,"(1)F. "Millions of animals are killed every year, Davis says, to prepare land for growing crops, "like corn, soybean, wheat and barley, the staples of a vegan diet.""(1)G. Agriculture kills animals too, by being vegan animals die, and if these smaller animals are inferior to cows, then cows are inferior to humans.E. Animals are not equal to humans, and veganism may save some animals, but it also would raise animal deaths. And if this exchange is worth it then animals have to be inferior to humans, making the human consumption of animals justified.HealthA. An omnivorous diet is healthier then a vegan diet.B."Studies show that up to 83% of vegans are deficient in B12. Their vitamin D levels are also 74% lower, and Omega-3 levels 53-59% lower, compared to omnivores."(2)C. It is much healthier to be on an omnivorous diet, vegans have lower amounts of vitamins D3 and B12, as well as omega threes.Loss Of JobsA. In 2013 there were 482,100 workers in the meat industry(3). Animals also consume a lot of grain and hay, so the people working in these industries would also lose their jobs. This massive job loss isn't worth the lives of animals.Citations1.http://abcnews.go.com...2. https://authoritynutrition.com... 3.https://www.meatinstitute.org...

My opponent has specifically denied that he wishes the subject of the debate to be limited to humans' killing other sentient animals. Therefore, my opponent is arguing the proposition that "it should be considered morally wrong [for anyone, NOT JUST HUMANS] to kill sentient animals, without their consent, for their meat." Contention 1: Anthropomorphism. My opponent claims that animals ought to be held by moral standards. This argument is extremely problematic because it anthropomorphises non-human animals. Anthropomorphism refers to the tendency of humans to improperly interpret the intentions of non-human animals to be human-like in nature. This tendency is extremely problematic, because it assumes that human values, emotions, and ideas are universal, when in fact this is not the case. By pretending that animals are humans, the true needs of the animals are ignored. For example, by assuming that certain domesticated animals ought to be "free," humans often ignorantly place animals in the wild that are incapable of defending themselves and suffer a quick death. It is this type of ignoring of the actual needs and communications of the animals that has allowed the maltreatment of animals in the first place. Chickens are another example of the evils of humans' anthropomorphising animals: While humans often assume that free-roaming chickens are not suffering (because if they were humans they wouldn't be suffering), in fact their bodies have been selectively bred to grow so large that they are literally in massive pain for their entire adult lives before they eventually die from the fatness [1]. Making a nonhuman animal follow the humans' idea of "morality" is utterly ridiculous, and quite problematic. Morality is a human-made concept developed by human philosophers. Non-human animals often have entirely distinctive social patterns, completely unlike humans. While rats and bees are very social animals, for example, beta fish are loners. Anthropomorphising animals as if they all had the same social ideals as humans can lead humans to ignorantly put animals in unnatural environments. Contention 2: Anthropomorphism Part 2: Carnivores. Lions are one example of animals that have a different social style than humans, though not entirely unrelated. The pride of lions is their "pride" (or pack) [2]. Lions, unlike humans, must eat meat in order for them to survive and for their families to survive [2, 3]. It would be ridiculous for humans to hold lions accountable to humans' own style of morality when lions kill their prey in order to feed their children. Humans have a unique social position in the animal kingdom. Humans have to ability to choose whether or not to eat meat: Placing the same burdens on lions would be incredibly egotistical and ignorant; lions do not have the same structure or social choices as humans. Having humans believe that all lions are morally wrong when they eat would make humans have a grudge against them, which is problematic because when humans have a grudge against an animals they are usually proficient at slaughtering the same, and lions are already in a precarious ecological position: if poaching laws were relaxed (which is one possibility if humans begin thinking that lions are immoral) they could become extinct, which is certainly a moral wrong. Snakes are also carnivores, and have even less of a human-like society. It would be ignorant and improper to assume that snakes should be held to morality, which is a thoroughly human invention. Contention 3: Animal Ignorance: Arguments such as these is one reason why many persons ignorantly are opposed to nonhuman animal rights. They assume that animal activists are nutcases who do not understand the necessity of many animals to eat meat. They assume that vegetarianism/veganism is unnatural on this basis. This is completely not the case; in fact, vegetarianism/veganism is a very natural and healthy choice. However, by saying that carnivorous animals are subject to the same moral evaluation, my opponent continues the myth that animals rights is against the "Circle of Life" so to speak. Such a dialogue is bad for the animal rights cause that my opponent professes to protect; therefore his entire case ought to be rejected in favor of protecting animals in a more natural way, such as stopping the _human_ atrocities instead of holding nonhuman animals to impossible and thoroughly human standards. Conclusion Thus, while it may be immoral for humans to kill sentient beings for their meat, for other species it is sometimes a necessary way of life. My opponent is speciesist in that he assumes that the social values of humans are superior to that of nonhuman animals, and that therefore animals ought to comply to human standards. This anthropomorphic tendency has been the cause of a lot of nonhuman animal suffering, and even would threaten species were it this value system be universally applied to all animals, as my opponent suggests it should be. My opponents arguments are not only bad for animals directly, but also bring about ignorance about the vegetarian/vegan/animal rights movements by suggesting a thoroughly unnatural and ignorant stance on behalf of nonhuman animals. Thanks for reading! Thanks also for a great debate, as usual Caploxion! Sources: [1] http://www.farmsanctuary.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Meat and Dairy animals have been domesticated since the beginning of time. The planets eco-system could not survive if the highly reproductive meat and dairy animals were not managed and controlled. The facts are that sound practices are implemented in livestock agriculture to insure the health and productivity of the animals that products created by them. The BEEF checkoff program for instance trains and promotes and offers premiums to producers that incorporate sound practices such as safe sweeping gate and fences, vaccinations only applied in the neck muscle to prevent pain and damage just to name a few. The earth could not produce enough plant and plant products to support 100% human and meat animal vegetarianism. I will provide several accurate facts to back these points further in the next rounds.


Question: Should Individuals Opt for a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

The concept of vegetarianism is often met with curiosity and skepticism by meat-eaters, who frequently ask, "What do you eat?" Vegetarians have a wide array of options, including meat substitutes like soy sausages, "Fib Ribs," Tofurky jerky, and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are increasingly common, with even fast-food chains like Burger King offering veggie burgers, and many restaurants now specialize in vegetarian and vegan cuisine. Dairy alternatives are also plentiful, such as Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, and Tofutti cream cheese. Adopting a vegetarian lifestyle has never been easier, and resources like PETA's recipes, product recommendations, and online shopping guide can help. One compelling reason to become vegetarian is animal welfare. Factory farms treat animals cruelly, with chickens having their beaks seared off and male cattle and pigs undergoing castration without painkillers. Animals are confined in crowded, dark warehouses, often unable to move, and are subjected to a miserable existence until they are transported to slaughterhouses under inhumane conditions. By choosing a vegetarian diet, one can save over 100 animals per year from this suffering. Health is another major concern, as meat-based diets are linked to heart disease, cancer, obesity, and strokes. Heart disease, the leading cause of death in the U.S., is exacerbated by the high cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products. Vegan diets have been shown to reverse heart disease, with vegans having significantly lower cholesterol levels and reduced risk of poor circulation and atherosclerotic strokes. Vegans are also less likely to be obese and have a lower cancer rate compared to meat-eaters. Additionally, a vegetarian diet can prevent illnesses such as strokes, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's, allergies, diabetes, and food poisoning. The environmental impact of meat consumption is also alarming. The U.S. uses over half of its water for animal agriculture, and the waste from farmed animals pollutes waterways and emits harmful gases. Deforestation for factory farms and feed crops leads to soil erosion, species extinction, and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also consumes a significant portion of food and raw materials, with farmed animals eating 70% of the corn, wheat, and other grains produced. In conclusion, becoming vegetarian can benefit animals, human health, and the environment.

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...

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. Killing animals is morally wrong Let’s say that there was a woman sleeping, and that you found yourself hungry. So, you inject her with a poison that causes her no suffering, but kills her. You then begin to eat her, which was the reason for you killing her. It this moral? Clearly, it is not, because of the imposition on another sentient creature’s life for personal gain. If the woman was killed so that she may suffer less, and that she gave consent in a stable state-of-mind, then that killing could be considered moral, but such was far from the case. Similarly, putting a cow to sleep before killing it is not moral, as it is imposing on its life for personal gain and without consent. Therefore, killing animals for their meat, under any circumstance, is immoral and should be considered as such. Non-human animals do not have rights This seems to be a favourite counter-argument of my opponents, and it is in fact a straw-man of my position. I will now demonstrate it to be a straw-man. Animals not having rights means that animals do not have basic human liberties (the right to vote, freedom of speech etc. ). However, it is not from having a right that a non-human animal should not receive suffering, rather, it is by experiencing suffering and having humans recognise that it is suffering do we, as humans, have a moral obligation to prevent suffering wherever we see. Suffering, by itself, is always bad, regardless of what or whom is experiencing it. Furthermore, if the non-human animal were put to sleep and killed, then the imposition on life would be immoral as the non-human animal would surely resist death should it have been awake and understanding of the impending death, meaning that it has not consented. With the context of being required to be eaten in order to sustain human life, humans still understand the burdens of suffering and imposition on life they could inflict, therefore it remains immoral to kill a non-human animal for personal gain. ConclusionKilling animals for their meat can bring suffering to the animal, which makes the act wrong. It is also wrong to impose death upon another sentient creature without consent and for personal gain, which should make it immoral even if the animal is asleep (i. e. a lack of pain does not mean that an animal is consenting or that taking advantage of it is justified). It is from human capacity to understand suffering and imposition that we are morally obliged to act in accordance; non-human animals do not have 'rights' per say, but they do have sentience which should be respected.

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.

Hello Mr. Burns,Humans are superior to every other animal. As a human, I say that as a superior mind to 99% of the animal kingdom.We, the human race, have been a driven force for the last 13,000 years, creating civilizations and creating an infrastructure to resist the deadliest phenomenon's of nature.Let's end these 1 sentence paragraphs. I think what you are thinking of is a trade, a trade between life and materials. Because you didn't put enough info in your initial argument I infer that you're implying that we should be completely ban and criminalize the act of killing (in any way shape of form) any animal. This absolutely disgusts me due to how it destroys human nature.I am a complete Darwinist and believe in the progression of species via natural selection. Survival of the fittest. That's what I believe in. (If you do believe DON'T believe in natural selection, I gladly volunteer to talk about that.)Honestly, I think if we should, we should destroy all other life on Earth. That's fine.And I do believe that all animals (besides insects) have sentience. Able to feel happiness and pain.Though what you're implying is so GRAY.How should we decide and play god on who we should pardon and who we should kill?How should we decide which animals are good and which are bad?We should just kill animals as we see fit (excluding mentally deranged and wasteful circumstances). And do as how EVERY OTHER animal on the planet does it.

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.

'Veges', as these meat-wasting sandal-wearing megaphone-holding sign-waving vegetarian types insist on calling them, are thought to be immune to legitimate criticism. By the end of this debate, I hope to have changed that.So, here comes the argument. Vegans are always blabbing on about how eating delicious mouth-watering bacon burgers is 'morally wrong', 'BLOODY MURDER' and 'totally gross!' They say this because an animal died for you to be able to eat it. However, this also means that eating 'veges' is all of those bad things, because as all intelligent people (like the generous voters!) know, the plants that vegetables come from would not have the energy to live if it weren't for the energy from dead animals/plants. (P1) Eating meat is bloody murder because animals died for it to happen.(P2) Animals died so that vegetables could exist.(C) Therefore, eating vegetables is bloody murder.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether eating vegetables is bloody murder. I hope for a good debate.I thank you. Pictured above: Malicious mother brainwashing sexy spouse to commit murder.

Heh I made a mistake and accepted it. In any case I will argue as if I am a vegan. With that I thank Bennett for this debate, and hope that it is a productive one. I, as the rules ask, accept this debate and will provide some definitions and a summary of what I may argue. I will be arguing that eating meat is first immoral because animals are sentient beings, who are capable of making connections, and it is wrong to kill them, as it is wrong to kill humans. I will also argue that since humans can survive without meat, and that meat is often unhealthy, and unnecessary humans should abstain from eating meat. Here are some definitions, which are should be clear, but I thought them worthy to mention: 1. meat: The flesh of an animal, typically a mammal or bird, as food (the flesh of domestic fowls is sometimes distinguished as poultry): 2. unhealthy: Harmful to health. Also a tip, next time specify animal meat. I could have easily trolled you by using the definition of meat as human flesh and easily won the debate. May the best man win. Faithfully Yours, Ajabi.

India has great potential because of its love and respect for animals. Also, India is non-violent due to the principle of Ahisma. [0] Also due to the fact that Hindus see all life as sacred. "3. All Life is Sacred As all of life is created by God, all life is sacred. You should not harm any creature " and particularly "Holy" animals, such as cows, which represent the selfless love of God to its people. Indeed, one should not even think or speak badly towards others, due to karma." [1] As I see it India is being beaten up by stronger more violent factions. Although in the short and medium term India's future may not be that bright, I have high hopes for the long term. People are getting fed up with animal abuse. Factory farming is losing popularity. Vegetarian is gaining ground slowly but surely as more scientific articles point towards the health benefits of vegetarian. Sources 0. http://www.bbc.co.uk... 1. http://www.hinduismbeliefs.org...

My opponent has specifically denied that he wishes the subject of the debate to be limited to humans' killing other sentient animals. Therefore, my opponent is arguing the proposition that "it should be considered morally wrong [for anyone, NOT JUST HUMANS] to kill sentient animals, without their consent, for their meat." Contention 1: Anthropomorphism. My opponent claims that animals ought to be held by moral standards. This argument is extremely problematic because it anthropomorphises non-human animals. Anthropomorphism refers to the tendency of humans to improperly interpret the intentions of non-human animals to be human-like in nature. This tendency is extremely problematic, because it assumes that human values, emotions, and ideas are universal, when in fact this is not the case. By pretending that animals are humans, the true needs of the animals are ignored. For example, by assuming that certain domesticated animals ought to be "free," humans often ignorantly place animals in the wild that are incapable of defending themselves and suffer a quick death. It is this type of ignoring of the actual needs and communications of the animals that has allowed the maltreatment of animals in the first place. Chickens are another example of the evils of humans' anthropomorphising animals: While humans often assume that free-roaming chickens are not suffering (because if they were humans they wouldn't be suffering), in fact their bodies have been selectively bred to grow so large that they are literally in massive pain for their entire adult lives before they eventually die from the fatness [1]. Making a nonhuman animal follow the humans' idea of "morality" is utterly ridiculous, and quite problematic. Morality is a human-made concept developed by human philosophers. Non-human animals often have entirely distinctive social patterns, completely unlike humans. While rats and bees are very social animals, for example, beta fish are loners. Anthropomorphising animals as if they all had the same social ideals as humans can lead humans to ignorantly put animals in unnatural environments. Contention 2: Anthropomorphism Part 2: Carnivores. Lions are one example of animals that have a different social style than humans, though not entirely unrelated. The pride of lions is their "pride" (or pack) [2]. Lions, unlike humans, must eat meat in order for them to survive and for their families to survive [2, 3]. It would be ridiculous for humans to hold lions accountable to humans' own style of morality when lions kill their prey in order to feed their children. Humans have a unique social position in the animal kingdom. Humans have to ability to choose whether or not to eat meat: Placing the same burdens on lions would be incredibly egotistical and ignorant; lions do not have the same structure or social choices as humans. Having humans believe that all lions are morally wrong when they eat would make humans have a grudge against them, which is problematic because when humans have a grudge against an animals they are usually proficient at slaughtering the same, and lions are already in a precarious ecological position: if poaching laws were relaxed (which is one possibility if humans begin thinking that lions are immoral) they could become extinct, which is certainly a moral wrong. Snakes are also carnivores, and have even less of a human-like society. It would be ignorant and improper to assume that snakes should be held to morality, which is a thoroughly human invention. Contention 3: Animal Ignorance: Arguments such as these is one reason why many persons ignorantly are opposed to nonhuman animal rights. They assume that animal activists are nutcases who do not understand the necessity of many animals to eat meat. They assume that vegetarianism/veganism is unnatural on this basis. This is completely not the case; in fact, vegetarianism/veganism is a very natural and healthy choice. However, by saying that carnivorous animals are subject to the same moral evaluation, my opponent continues the myth that animals rights is against the "Circle of Life" so to speak. Such a dialogue is bad for the animal rights cause that my opponent professes to protect; therefore his entire case ought to be rejected in favor of protecting animals in a more natural way, such as stopping the _human_ atrocities instead of holding nonhuman animals to impossible and thoroughly human standards. Conclusion Thus, while it may be immoral for humans to kill sentient beings for their meat, for other species it is sometimes a necessary way of life. My opponent is speciesist in that he assumes that the social values of humans are superior to that of nonhuman animals, and that therefore animals ought to comply to human standards. This anthropomorphic tendency has been the cause of a lot of nonhuman animal suffering, and even would threaten species were it this value system be universally applied to all animals, as my opponent suggests it should be. My opponents arguments are not only bad for animals directly, but also bring about ignorance about the vegetarian/vegan/animal rights movements by suggesting a thoroughly unnatural and ignorant stance on behalf of nonhuman animals. Thanks for reading! Thanks also for a great debate, as usual Caploxion! Sources: [1] http://www.farmsanctuary.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I will disregard your last statement as it simply emphasizes your sentiment and doesnt try to put any argument. If you believe in Darwinism and the 'survival' of the fittest, you also justify violence towards other beings, theft, robbery, murder and rape. If you read a book on evolution such as the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, you would have known more about how the evolution theory applies to animal behavior and can be generalized to humans too. I dont think a society should be politically encouraged to fully support and base its ideology on the survival of the fittest. The first thing that would happen is huge layers of poverty, poor social policies and blue collar crimes being more justifiable... Your intelligence relating to you should tell you to support technology that deviates from producing animal products and looking for alternatives. There is already a technology that produces food that tastes like meat! That meat is expensive, but technological advances will get you to your juicy tasty meat. Use your intelligence, get a Phd in biology or biochemistry and solve that problem, dont pour salt on animals wounds and dont make your stomach their graveyard. Henceforth, the intelligence point just back fires at you when you tried to establish some supremacist view on differences that exist between us and animals. The pain should get more of our attention, cause pain is the feeling that is shared between all earth species.


Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Everyone should consider adopting a vegan lifestyle. Although animal welfare is a significant concern, it is often not the direct fault of farming practices. Numerous regulations have been implemented to prevent animal abuse, and by strictly adhering to these laws and introducing additional measures, we can ensure the well-being of these cuddly creatures. In most cases, the animals that are affected are not bears or rabbits, but rather cows and other livestock that are raised for human consumption. While animals certainly deserve greater respect, the taste of meat is also appealing to many.

However, becoming vegetarian or vegan can offer a viable solution to the ethical dilemma of animal consumption without compromising on taste. By exploring alternative protein sources and embracing plant-based diets, individuals can contribute to the protection of animal rights while still enjoying delicious and nutritious meals. It's a win-win situation for both animals and food lovers.

There was a reason I wanted to debate an actual vegan instead of a devil's advocate. But since this is where we're at, and you've decided to play the part, I'll debate as if you are a vegan. This puts you in an interesting position, I don't know if you're vegetarian or omnivore but I wonder if you are capable of introducing an argument so convincing that you yourself convert to veganism, or at least seriously consider it. On to the debate! For your Round 1 comments I will wait for you to expound upon them in round 2 and rebuttal in Round 3. Please note my overall argument is not a rejection of vegetables, but merely to point out that meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's plate, nutritionally and morally. Humans are omnivores, as such we should eat meat too. My First Round argument will be divided into main 3 parts: 1. Eating meat is not inherently unhealthy. 2. Eating meat is not inherently immoral. 3. A Beneficial Symbiosis. Eating Meat is Not Inherently Unhealthy: I begin with this because I believe it is the easiest to prove and I hope to make this case solid in Round 2 in order to devote more time to the morality of meat eating for the rest of the debate. My evidence in this section will appeal to Ethos. Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced. For example asparagus is healthy, but when slathered in lard and fried it becomes more detrimental than beneficial (but infinitely more delicious). If you raise corn in a sewer the corn will be unhealthy. As such meat can be healthy provided it is not processed or cooked in an unhealthy manner [1 See: Point 3 "Bottom Line"]. With this in mind meat can be prepared in a way that compliments a balanced diet. According to the Mayo Clinic grass fed beef (high quality) has been shown to contain nutrients that are beneficial to heart health. Grass fed beef contains "More heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. More conjugated linoleic acid, a type of fat that's thought to reduce heart disease and cancer risks. More antioxidant vitamins, such as vitamin E. Lean beef that's 10 percent fat or less ... can be part of a heart-healthy diet." [2]. Fish meat is also highly recommended in ones diet. According to the Harvard School of Public Health; along with various vital nutrients "There is strong evidence that eating fish or taking fish oil is good for the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of 20 studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants indicates that eating approximately one to two 3-ounce servings of fatty fish a week -- salmon, herring, mackerel, anchovies, or sardines -- reduces the risk of dying from heart disease by 36 percent." [3] Given this evidence I am confident in saying that eating meat can be a healthy part of a well balanced diet, and is not inherently detrimental as vegans would have us believe. Eating Meat is Not Inherently Immoral: This section is tricky to prove given the reality of the current mode of meat production. I acknowledge that currently meat farms treat their animals in immoral and inhumane ways such as keeping them in small cages, not allowing the animals to move, giving them "drugs to fatten them faster and keep them alive in conditions that could otherwise kill them", and "Genetically [altering them] to grow faster or to produce much more milk or eggs than they naturally would (many animals become crippled under their own weight and die just inches away from water and food)" [4]. Under these conditions even I agree that supporting this tortuous system of food production is immoral. However I propose that if we allowed these animals, cows and pigs especially, to live free range the mode of production would be morally permissible. The main arguments against the current mode of production come from 3 places; first it causes immense pain, stress and suffering to the animal, and second it deprives the animal of its natural environment and agency, third killing sentient beings in general is immoral. Free range meat is a perfect solution to both of these critics. Allowing cattle to live on grassland has shown to improve the cattle"s health, "Advocates of pasture-raised beef say the reasons to switch go beyond nutrition. The animal is raised in a more humane fashion that is also better for the environment. And 100-percent grass-fed animals typically aren't given hormones or antibiotics." [5] With less hormones and antibiotics being introduced the cow is allowed to grow naturally. Plus living on grassland allows the cow to roam free, doing whatever cows do in their free time. When it comes time for a cow to die there has been much improvement ensuring the animal does not undergo stress or pain [6] (I suggest reading this source as it is the ideal in ethical meat production). For the 3rd counter point I appeal to nature. First I will provide a definition for sentient via Google definitions: "able to perceive or feel things." Animals kill other animals to ensure their own survival. When a sentient bear kills a sentient salmon and we do not pass judgment. When sentient ants farm aphids we do not pass judgment. However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals. For example rape is common throughout the animal kingdom. When it happens in human society we reject the idea that it's simply a common occurrence and attempt (if incompetently) to punish the rapist for obvious reasons. There are obvious reasons we eat meat (see argument one). Just because we reject some aspects of nature does not mean we must reject all aspects of nature. Part of your counter will be to convince us that eating meat/animal bi-products is one aspect of nature we should reject. Symbiosis can be Mutually Beneficial to Humans and Domesticated Animals: This will be a short summary and conclusion paragraph explaining how ethical meat production (for example read source [6]) benefits both man and animal. To the benefit of humans: We are what we eat, raising our food in healthy ethical environments benefits us. If we allow our cows to grow in their own filth pumped full of artificial hormones and constantly stressed out then the meat produced is lower in quality and the damages are passed onto us. This is shown by the evidence that grass fed beef is healthier for us in general compared to the current factory like mass production model [2][5][6]. Furthermore raising our food ethically can be a spiritual process. As an example I show an opposite circumstance, it is common knowledge that one sign of a serial killer is torturing animals. If we move away from torturing animals during the process of food production we can move away from the darker aspects associated with killing animals. To the benefit of our Domesticated Animals: I know your initial thought may be "how can killing an animal be in its benefit?" Well in short it it's not, but not all symbiotic relationships are 50/50. However in an ethical scenario of meat production we provide our animals a safe, stress, and pain free environment away from natural predators. Given the option I'm sure a cow would prefer a stun bolt over being torn apart by wolves. In exchange for this protection we take sacrifices as needed. We allow the animal to live a natural life, and instead of them being picked off by predators we substitute this natural selection with human selection. Their deaths benefit humans instead of wolves or bears, which in the end is their purpose. Up until the end the cow's life would be its own. Citation: [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......

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.

Ignorance - 'lack of knowledge or understanding'. I argue that eating meat is more selfish and less ethical than not eating meat. I also argue that in order to eat meat, one must be either more ignorant to life and nature than somebody who doesn't eat meat. PLEASE NOTE - This statement only refers to those in the developed world, not tribes, primitive cultures or underdeveloped countries.

QUIT FORFIETING! I want to hear your remarks! FINE! snce I am loosing another debate because peopel don't seem to consider anything I actually say. Vote I loose. I lose. U can eat trees. we should eat trees. we are the ecosystems friend. we should be at least. If there are Muslims that don't even want to acknowledge what I am saying in a debate against them. I am perfectly fine with losing this debate too. We can, should, and are better off eating the twicgs and leaves off trees on a regular basis. But always considering, to be a true friend of the ecosystem, we also have to eat the grass, and other things too. Like vegetables and fruit. Peace and vote I loose. ... I loose so long as the Muslims don't even bother reading my shitt and post heckles without regarding what I say. I believe int eh Quran and they just have NOOOO sense whats so ever.

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...

"I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us." The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion. Why not promote cannibalism then? Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all. Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family. "Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being." That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live? "Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. " You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well. Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness. Before the humans rapid development, animals could roam freely, global warming, waste disposal and pollution weren't major problems. But now, they are big problems, and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species. "The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000." Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts. "There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents." It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it. As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part. Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway? If he dies due to ill-treatment from foster parents or lack of resources, the parents would be haunted for their entire lives, knowing they killed a fully sentient being. Yet a foetus isn't sentient, and is easy to think of like a disposable seed than a growing crop. Get the idea? You can throw fruit seeds, but you wouldn't want a plant that grew because of you to die because of you. "I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawking should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease." Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society. "You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right." Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it. "If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice." There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being fertilized. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food. Adoption A parent suffering so many months just to give away the baby seems rather a waste of effort. Plus, foster homes aren't always the best of homes. If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate. It is easier to kill a foetus than allowing a living child to suffer. You may say that parents shouldn't track their child, but natural instinct and blood binds takeover. If the child dies due to ill-treatment, they will surely be reported about it, and that would be sad. Furthermore, adoption is a discreet method, while giving a child to a foster home will attract unwanted attention and call for social retribution and inquisition. "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" prime sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel http://www.merriam-webster.com... Foetus don't have the 5 senses fully activated yet, therefore freedom is not within their rights. Optimus Prime says so.

Veganism promotes wasteful consumption patterns. Vegan diets are not common, and vegans are not able to eat just any kind of food. There is a distinction between vegans and more classical vegetarians in that vegans will not eat anything that comes from an animal[2]. This includes, but is not limited to, Milk, Cheese, honey and non-organic produce. In the United States up to 48 billion pounds of food is thrown out every year at the retail level[3]. Because vegans do not consume many of these products that are being thrown out, they aren't directly responsible for much of it. So a lot of this waste is a moral neutral. However they are responsible for all produce, organic or otherwise. But I'll get to that in a moment. [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... Right now I need to introduce two concept which will be constant themes throughout this debate; Market demand and waste by omission. Vegans will only eat organic produce as there is a chance non-organic produce was grow with nitrate fertilizers or somehow utilizes animal by-products. This creates a unique demand for this produce alongside other Non-Organic fruits and vegetables. Organic produce is more expensive[4] as it is more difficult to grow, so many non-Vegans will avoid purchasing in favor of cheaper, non-organic produce. Further, because Organic produce is still a type of perishable good, much of it goes bad before it can be sold. In fact more of it goes bad because it rots more easily[4] This waste is compacted on top of the other produce which also goes bad before it can be sold contributing to those 48 billion pounds of waste. When we realize how many people have to go hungry because they lack any kind of food, creating demand for produce which rots at a quicker rate and take more resources[4] to grow is immoral. Remember this is all Vegans eat. [4] http://bit.ly... Next on the table is the issue of waste by omission. Let's say for example that there's an open bag of spinach in the refrigerator. If one chose to buy and eat a different brand of spinach, all the while knowing there was already spinach waiting to be consumed, they are responsible for the wasted spinach by their omission. This illustration is a perfect example of organic versus non-organic produce. Vegans are responsible for all wasted produce by omission of their consumption. Because they will only eat a certain type of produce, allow other types of produce to be wasted. Another illustration would be eating at an all-you-can eat restaurant. If the restaurant already had french fries at the bar, requesting a slightly different form of french fries is wasteful since it means that less people will eat the already available french fries. I can't stress this enough, but this is the exact same thing with organic produce. Finally there's the health issue to be considered. Many vegans will claim that their diet is superior to mainstream omnivore diets in terms of health, but vegan diets lack essential nutrients. To name a few, one cannot obtain Vitamin A, Vitamin D, B12, Complex proteins or zinc naturally through their diets. Further, vegetables simply don't have as much nutrition as meat which means that you have to eat more and eat more often to stay healthy. So while personal malnutrition can be a huge risk to going vegan, there's also the issue of lowering the quality of one's gene's through this diet. That's right guys, eating meat makes you smarter[5]. The complex proteins in meat contribute to strong brain growth. This was essential in mankind's evolution and we can continue to see the benefits today. And while the effect of being a vegetarian won't have any immediate effects on the intelligence of humans, the long term effect is staggered intellectual progression and less nutrients for the body to work with. This is incredibly immoral as it puts one's offspring at a disadvantage. [5] http://n.pr... With all that I hand it over to Con. Good luck!

I will reserve formalities for the end of this particular post, seeing as it is the last of this debate. So first, my final arguments/conclusion.C1: Human's capabilities justify actions, due to similar animal behavior.While this is in no way the crux of our debate round, and it is certainly not a voting issue, this is an interesting argument to be sure. However, my opponent bases his argument in this off his opinion that "humans different than animals". We are certainly more advanced in our reasoning, yes. However, this doesn't change that we're designed similarly to animals. They eat what their bodies are made to eat. Why whouldn't we? We can farm, yes. But if animals are freed from any moral obligation to NOT be carnivores, why aren't we excused as well? My opponent has no response except for the fact that we can eat other things, and have other methods of getting food. However, I state again, bears can choose to eat berries and fruit instead of animals. They have the capability of doing that. They know that the animals they eat are being killed and eaten. I believe that animals can think. Since you have no further proof to back up your opinion contradicting mine, then we are at an impasse as far as opinions go.C2: Eating meat is ethical because it is accepted.THIS is the voting issue, folks. Why? Because this is the only argument dealing with the resolution. In debates, we must debate the resolution. The resolution for this topic was "Eating meat is unethical". Whether or not my opponent chose to take a certain line of argumentation defending this statement is irrelevant. If at the end of the day, eating meet can be deemed ethical (by definition) from the facts in this debate round, then a Con ballot is warranted. Remember, ethical isn't synonymous with moral. Therefore, my opponent's references to culture's immoral reactions to moral or immoral things are unrelated to the topic and should be dismissed.C3: Humans are the most humane hunters on Earth.My opponent stated his opinion that we are inhumane in the way we treat animals before they are killed. However, he then went on to say that humans are very humane in the way they kill prisoners. (After implying a comparison between human prisoners and captive animals, I was a bit confused) Then, he stated that humans are most inhumane when killing outside of prisons. In the end, I was puzzled as to where this argument was supposed to end up. However, this argument is (again) irrelevant due to the fact that the resolution only regards ethics, not morals.I remind you all once again that the resolution was "Meat eating is unethical". I provided an undisputed definition of ethical. I showed how meat eating fell under the definition of ethical. My opponent failed to refute this. For all these reasons, I strongly urge a vote for CON.To Con (directly):Thank you so much for such a fun debate. It's always nice to be able to argue something until the end and see how it all panned out. I understood what you meant by your trying to argue this from a certain aspect. However, you did not frame the resolution this way. As I explained above, debate ballots must operate solely off the resolution. However, you did have valid points and I applaud you for that. I look forward to debating you in the future, and I am going to friend you. If you have a challenge for me, don't hesitate to send it my way! Thanks and God bless.

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.

My Response: Con's first paragraph talks about the Energy Pyramid, which says Species A (Plant) has 100% energy, Species B (Herbivore) has 10% energy, Species C (Animal which eats Species B) has 1% energy, etc. In the Pyramid, we are "Species C", but we don't need to go on a veggie diet because the lack of energy. I'm not even sure there's a heavy lack of energy in the first place. Con's 2nd paragraph talks about increase and decrease in population? Where did that come from? Nowhere did anyone bring up a population declining or increasing. Actually, now that I think about it. .. none of this is relevant to the environment being harmed, which is the resolution, isn't it? Let's just move on. Rebuttal: "If you turned vegan you will cut your carbon emissions by 50%. " Can you back this up? How are we emitting carbon dioxide when eating meat? Anyways, a source is nessicary here. Also, Pro needs to clarify if our bodies are exhaling more carbon dioxide, or deforesting which releases smoke into the air, as he talks about later on. "Deforestation destroys precious habitat for animals and releases harmful greenhouse admissions stored in the rain forest. " I thought this debate was about becoming a vegetarian, not deforestation. Pro's argument is not really supporting the resolution of "Eating Meat harms the Environment". Sure, we're making farms on that land, but it's not eating the meat which is harming the forest, it's destroying the forest that's harming the environment. As for resource consumption, I would like a source as well. "12 times as much land" seems like an awful lot, maybe too much? I don't think a meat factory takes up that much space. Actually, how much space does it take? It's not that much if farms take up 1 to 5 kilometers. Anyways, source is required. Anyways, now that my rebuttal is done, I currently have no arguments myself. Let's fix that, shall we? (I concede the food chain didn't help my case at all. ) Us humans aren't the only ones eating other animals. Tigers, Alligators, Lions, Hawks, Sharks, and Wolves are all carnivores; they only eat meat! These animals, as well as the human race, ate meat all of their lives. And yet, I assert that this does not affect the environment in the slightest, other than we're eating other animals. You may be thinking "But they're Lions, Sharks, Hawks. .. How does that relate to us humans? " Answer: The resolution is "Eating Meat is Harmful to the World". I don't see how me eating beef is much different than a Lion eating a cow. We're both eating a cow. Albeit I'm eating a cooked cow, but does this change anything? We've eaten meat all our lives, yet how has it harmed anybody, except the poor cow I ate? Now, the (other) big question is: "Does me eating McDonalds harm the Amazon forest? " I see not how saying 'yes' to that question makes sense. I eat a Double Cheeseburger, in my room. The Amazon isn't affected at all. Manufacturing the meat, however, would indeed release smoke, carbon dioxide, into the air. But that's not EATING the meat, is it? Conclusion: Pro might have the resolution mixed up. He's talking about the manufacturing of the meat which harms the environment. That's not eating the meat. I've shown that eating the meat a) isn't manufacturing it, and b) it doesn't harm the environment. And with that done and said, let's hear what Pro has to say!