Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Veganism and Animal Rights
In the context of human physiology and evolution, it's important to understand that humans are not natural carnivores. Our bodies are built more like herbivores, and our digestive systems are not designed to handle the consumption of raw animal flesh without causing health issues later on in life. Genuine carnivores and omnivores can consume an animal's eyes, nose, face, toes, tail, anus, inner organs, blood, brain, and fur uncooked, while humans have to cook certain parts of the dismembered animal to avoid becoming violently ill. This makes us fake carnivores/omnivores.
Many anthropologists and medical experts agree that humans are herbivorous, plant-eating creatures. Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and a professor at Baylor University, states that "Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores." Dr. Milton Mills also wrote an essay about human physiology, and nutritionists Virginia and Mark Messina compiled a chart comparing human bodies to those of herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores in their book The Vegetarian Way.
The length of intestines in humans and other herbivores is between 7 to 13 times the length of the trunk/torso section of the body, while in carnivores/omnivores it is only 3 to 6 times the length. The interior surface of human intestines is heavily fluted and striated, whereas the interior intestinal surfaces of carnivores/omnivores tend to be smooth. The short intestinal length in carnivores/omnivores, along with the relatively smooth interior surface, allows rotting animal flesh, animal protein, casein, cholesterol, trans fatty acids, and excessive amounts of fat found in all animal products to pass through quickly, which is why it's impossible for any real carnivore/omnivore to clog their arteries. However, more than 50% of all meat, dairy, and egg-eaters have clogged arteries in this day and age.
The meat industry is also responsible for putting us in debt, as it takes hundreds of gallons of water to make 1 pound of meat and hundreds of pounds of corn, soy, and other grains. By taking away the consumption of animals, we would not only be

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

As you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming "picky-eaters". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the "meat" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic "epidemics", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.

Are you for or against a vegetarian lifestyle? Pro means that you are for it while con means that you disapprove. Note that in the first argument, I would prefer if you simply stated your side as I am doing now. I am pro vegetarianism and believe that it is a very positive lifestyle.

Pro argued that there would be additional health benefits from a combined consumption of both black tea and alcohol. Yes if you stack health benefits upon health benefits, of course you get more benefits. But that doesn't mean that if you don't exaggerate that your health will be impacted negatively in any way whatsoever. Also, Pro says you will only get half the benefits by drinking black tea. Please look at this: http://www.the-color-of-tea.com...There are tons of health benefits from black tea. Nonetheless, who says that there has to be a battle (i.e., choice) between black tea and alcohol? I already said that black tea is one of the many healthy foods that people consume and benefit therefrom. All of that is very good for one's health, and there's no need to alcohol. Pro has not cited a single source to actually support her position. There are also health benefits in foods people eat in Ukraine but not in Japan. Doesn't mean the Japanese are negatively impacted by the food they don't eat. They're one of the healthiest people. Why? Because they got alternatives to healthy food that other cultures consume.Additionally, Pro keeps arguing for the health benefits of alcohol and what moderate consumption is. This is irrelevant. I am saying that you can replace alcohol benefits with alternatives. If you're allergic to say, fish, that doesn't mean your body will be impacted negatively by that because you don't consume the Vitamin D from fish. You can eat other food, or take a sunbath. That's called an alternative.Basically, Pro has not done anything useful to support her position, her sources are irrelevant to the burden of proof that she has, and my arguments are literally not refuted at all. Pro thinks that alcohol cannot be replaced by alternatives. This is wrong. The resolution is weak.

"I believe it is inaccurate to jump to "endorsing cruelty" when one purchases a burger, or to a greater extent any animal product. The first problem is with the word cruelty. Animals around the world are mistreated on farms and in factory-style environments. Animals around the world are treated with care and compassion throughout the harvesting process of their needed parts. One cannot automatically assume that the product they have purchased was a result of mistreatment." Con Hmmm, what Con is stating is that animals on most small local farms are not mistreated. I beg to differ. I think this qualifies as animal cruelty "All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow"s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a "rape rack."" humanemyth.org "Many male calves are not considered "useful" since they cannot produce milk, and are immediately slaughtered, even with their umbilical cords still attached." Jennie Richards humanedecisions.com Based on the evidence above, one can automatically assume that the product they have purchased was a result of mistreatment. "One can counterbalance their unnecessary consumption of animal products by doing so infrequently and minimizing their carbon footprint in other areas of their life. " Con The topic is about animal cruelty, the environmental is off-topic. "It is too assuming to posit that the purchase of animal products is accompanied by the desire for animals to be harmed. One cannot know the situation or motivation of the consumer based on their purchase choice alone. One cannot know the frequency of the purchases, nor the quantity, nor the necessity involved." Con I would assume that most people like animals and the intent is the opposite. The purchaser does not want the animal to be harmed. Yet, how is intent relevant? The money the purchaser is the same regardless of intent. If you buy 1/4 pound of hamburger of one hundred pounds you are supporting the meat market thus endorsing the meat market, therefore endorsing the practices of the meat market, which means you are endorsing animal cruelty. Ultimately the results of the purchase means more cows will be mistreated and slaughtered. As for necessity, there is none. Hamburgers are expensive, plenty of people live happy and healthful vegan lives. If you were really in dire straits say on a desert island there would be nobody to purchase the hamburger from. If you were poor, there is cheaper alternatives. About the only situation that makes any sense would be a diabetic who desperately needed sugar, and a hamburger was the only choice. Then the diabetic would be acting out of self-survival. That would be the only exception. "It may, in many cases, perhaps even most, be fair to say that one endorses animal cruelty (or the mechanisms that purport such things) by way of their purchases. However, it is not a given." Con Yes, it is. A cow has to be slaughtered for that burger to be created. By buying a burger you are endorsing the meat industry which in turn is endorsing animal cruelty. If nobody buys any burgers less cows will be slaughtered. If nobody bought any cow meat the industry would turn belly-up due to no demand. http://www.humanemyth.org... http://www.humanedecisions.com...

I accept, absolutely, Sir. A vegetarian diet is not to be preferred over an Omnivorous diet. Meat contains certain ingredients which simply cannot be found in a stick of celery. In addition, the two dominant protein substitutes- nuts and beans- taste like garbage. In addition, vegetarian human diets are not even natural. cavemen ate meat, and did not flinch at the concept of devouring animal flesh. Why torture yourself? One cannot subsist on legumes alone. Meat is best. http://www.meatpoultrynutrition.org...

This debate is specifically to debate against the strict dietary values of veganism. I ask that a person who identifies as vegan take the Con position. Round 1 is for acceptance, definitions, and also a brief paragraph on position and beliefs (not hard evidence, just explain where you will be coming from). I agree that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is unhealthy with it being a high fat, high sugar and low exercise diet. However I believe the health problems associated with meat are not because meat is inherently unhealthy, but because Americans simply over consume it. Meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's diet in moderation. In regards to the morality of meat production the process of raising and killing animals can and should be reformed to ensure it's not done in a tortuous manner. In short meat is not inherently evil.

I will be speaking of the following supplements: Thermogenics (fat Burners), creatine (specifically monohydrate), protein, testosterone boosters, BCAA's, growth hormone supplements and anabolic steroids. I will once again state that I am not against the use of performance enhancing supplements but there is a big however. There are many factors as to why the listed supplements can be more harmful than beneficial to the individual also not necessary seeing how at that age the body is still developing and still producing necessary hormones to keep up with activities, from sedentary to rigorous. Supplements that promise not only faster results but better results influence the attitude that hard work comes secondary to the type of supplements you are taking in. All of the ingredients that supplements offer (proteins, amino acids, and vitamins) can be adequately provided with a healthy diet. Our food supply provides a unique balance that cannot be duplicated by taking any combination of supplements. In addition, eating is one of life's pleasures. However, it is evident by supplement sales totaling over $23.7 billion a year that much is invested in the hope that supplements will help. [1] The body also treats the listed supplements above as "synthetic". For example to effectively load creatine monohydrate in the body the user must not only take increased amounts for the first 5 days but must also continue a consistent regiment of it for months at a time to start seeing noticeable results. [2] Over time the body will slowly cease to producing natural ATP (ingredient found in creatine, transfers chemical energy to promote metabolism). Once the individual decides to cease taking creatine he/she faces the consequences increased muscle deterioration due to the fact that the body must fight to catch up producing natural chemicals. The same goes for protein supplements, testosterone, and fat burners (if requested either by the voters or Con I will gladly go into detail). Collectively these supplements also strain vital organs due to the difficulty of digestion. The two in particular being the kidneys and liver take the brunt of the damage. According to Mayo Clinic, the kidneys and liver work to eliminate the by-products of protein metabolism, and may be taxed by the overuse of protein shakes and similar products. Over an extended period of time, protein shakes can damage the liver or kidneys, or may worsen pre-existing cases of organ failure. [3] Thermogenics, and pre-workout supplements combined also quickly dehydrate the body seeing how they are both packed with doses of up to 200mg of caffeine in their products. [4] This is not including the energy drinks, coffee, and other stimulants the individual may be taking daily. With BCAA's (Branched chain Amino Acids) the body must undergo rigorous amounts of training to adequately balance the amount of BCAA's being digested into the body. Once again both essential and nonessential amino acids can be provided through a healthy diet. The majority of these supplements offer some portion of BCAA's. Research has shown that massive amounts of BCAA's can be harmful to the liver. [5] Let's talk about anabolic steroids; I will say that there are large quantities of evidence those anabolic steroids to provide medicinal benefits to those who need it (i. e. muscular dystrophy, patients with low T cells, COPD, and other hormone deficiencies) however this is not the argument. The potential for abuse increases drastically of those using AS recreationally. Not only that the lack of education of AS can lead significant medical complications due to higher risk of misuse dosages. Another study combined methyltestosterone (15 mg/d) with imipramine (25-50 mg/d) and found a prompt paranoid response in 4 of 5 men treated. In a 1983 study of 32 weightlifters using AASs, 56% reported a temporary increase in self-defined irritability and aggressive behavior. When these psychoactive effects combine with strong positive reinforcement from weight and strength gains, as well as from improved self-image, AASs can prove addictive. [6] [1] . http://www.ext.colostate.edu... [2] . http://reference.medscape.com... [3] . http://www.livestrong.com... [4] . http://www.gnc.com... [5] . http://www.health24.com... [6] . http://emedicine.medscape.com...

Green tea is also good and healthy choice, but it has negative impacts, while water doesn't have any negative impacts. So green tea is not the best choice (Remember my topic is supposed to be "The Best Choice") . Beside that, you also generalized that "tea" is better than water from your previous statement, so I'm not in line with you. Not all of tea are good. Maybe you should change that "green tea" is better than water, then we'll make our new debates. According to the website that you've shared above, I doubt about the truth. Do doctors, nutritionists and health scientists actually perform any experiments or do they just give opinions about this? (Because me and my family often drinks water more than 8 glasses everyday in our whole lives until present and we are very fit). I await for your response, thank you. -benshine7-

Modern Animal Agriculture In the production of animal products, we confine animals for their entire lives and make them miserable. They are denied proper veterinary care, free space to move around and exercise, appropriate social interaction with members of their species, and anesthesia during the process of castration and other mutilations. Once these animals reach market weight, they are sent to a slaughterhouse where they are hung upside down and have their throat slit. This causes an immense amount of suffering and the animals are condemned to hang there dangling, while they scream in agony. Here is a short documentary of a collection of videos recorded by animal rights activist across the United States. From Farm to Fridge: The video I linked is not meant to spark an appeal to emotion. I put it there as evidence to support my claims, and to show the reality of today's modern farms. Here is a quote from a professor of animal science at Oregon State University who teaches people about animal agriculture. He says "If most urban meat-eaters were to visit an industrial broiler house, to see how the birds are raised, and could see the birds being 'harvested' and then being 'processed' in a poultry processing plant, some, perhaps many of them, would swear off eating chicken and perhaps all meat." - Peter R. Cheeke, Professor of Animal Science, Oregon State University The Ethical Argument Since the animals that are raised for our food endure a life of suffering, and are prematurely killed in brutal methods, I don't see a moral justification for continuing to eat them. We don't need to eat meat or any other kind of animal product in order to be healthy (which I will show later on in this essay.) So clearly, we have a case where we are causing suffering and death to sentient beings for reasons of pleasure, satisfaction, or amusement, which cannot be justified. To demonstrate this, let me use the example of dog fighting. Most people realize that just because a person may enjoy causing dogs to fight, those are not in themselves good enough reasons to inflict harm on those dogs. Same situation should apply to eating animals. Health The American Dietetic Association explains on their website that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes." This shows that we don't need to eat animals in order to be healthy. Link to their site: http://www.eatright.org... The Killing Plants Objection This is one of the most common arguments meat and dairy eaters make. It is an attempt to justify the continued killing of animals for food. The argument states that if it is morally wrong to kill animals, then it is also morally wrong to kill plants. In my view, only beings with conscious desires can be harmed in the morally significant since, so things like bacteria or a plant can't be harmed in the moral since. I don't think plants matter morally because they are not sentient. A plant is not a subject of conscious experiences and other mental states, who has interest, desires and a capacity to feel pleasure and pain like a nonhuman animal. Since plants lack all these characteristics, I fail to see how they can have any moral value. However, if we truly were concerned about plants, then I should inform the plant's rights activist that we would destroy less plants if we ate them directly, instead of feeding them to billions of land animals that we are going to kill for food. This means vegans, ironically, kill less plants than meat eaters do. World Hunger We feed large amounts of grain and soybeans to feed animals, and in doing so we waste most of the food value of the grains that we're feeding them. Depending on the species, the animals may return to us somewhere between 1/10th and 1/3rd of the food value of the grains and soybeans that we put into them. So we are just wasting huge amounts of food in order to produce the large amount of animal products. It would be better and more practical if we fed our grains and soybeans to people, instead of feeding them to billions of land animals. One acre of land can yield 30,000 pounds of carrots, 40,000 pounds of potatoes or 50,000 pounds of tomatoes. However, one acre of land can yield only 250 pounds of meat, which means that a meat and dairy diet is an unsuccessful way to combat world hunger, and that a vegan diet is a superior alternative. This is why Food For Life Global, the world's largest feed the hungry organization, only serves plant based food. As well as Everybody Gets Fed, Earth Save and Plenty. Links to their sites: http://www.ffl.org... http://www.earthsave.org... http://www.everybodyfed.com... http://plenty.org... Here is an article by Jeremy Rifkin explaining how we waste grain by feeding it to billions of animals: http://articles.latimes.com... The Environment According to the research of Professors Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, the World Watch Institute's report, and the November 2006 report from the United Nations, animal agriculture is one of the top contributors to environmental destruction. Links to their reports here: http://www.fao.org... http://www.worldwatch.org... http://pge.uchicago.edu... Conclusion In this essay I have demonstrated that eating animals has some very negative consequences, not just for the animals, but for the environment, and world hunger. Therefore we must accept that eating animals is morally wrong.


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Plant-based diets offer equal or superior health benefits compared to diets that include animal products. Why? After thorough research, it becomes clear (though there is always more to learn). I won't cite sources here, but I'm confident my views are well-researched. I'd be happy to provide sources if needed. 1) Dairy is unnecessary for those in developed countries. Cow's milk, designed for calves like human breast milk for infants, is often considered healthy. But is it essential in a country like the USA with abundant protein and calcium sources? Milk is praised for its protein and calcium, but I'm unimpressed. I've concluded that only those in impoverished nations truly need this protein and calcium source. Those with easy access to markets and unaware of alternative sources are misinformed. 2) While meat is the primary B12 source, this vitamin is added to many non-animal products. Research shows no significant difference in B12 absorption from fortified foods. Meat is the only source of a nutrient not easily found in other foods. 3) Factory farms annually produce and slaughter 56 billion animals for consumption, often under unethical conditions. From cramped pig crates to artificially inseminated cows, animals are overproduced with hormones and antibiotics, affecting the meat and dairy we consume. 4) Western diets are excessively meat-heavy. It's evident when examining chronic disease and meat/dairy correlations. Small amounts of lean meat and dairy can be healthy, but most overconsume, making it unhealthy. If meat and dairy are largely unnecessary, why do we eat so much? 5) Excessive animal protein increases osteoporosis risk. Contrary to common belief, it's likely that recommended protein levels are too high. The average American consumes over 100 grams of protein daily, mostly animal-based, which is excessive. Plant proteins, when combined, are healthier long-term. 6) Plant-based diets are generally healthier. Vegetarians/vegans live longer not because they avoid meat, but because they're more mindful of their diets. Awareness is key to nutrition. Where does your meat/dairy come from? That's my issue with animal-based diets, besides the lack of necessity. 7) Plants have fewer calories and 400 times more micronutrients than meat/dairy. Micronutrients are more beneficial than excess vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are rich in essential vitamins, minerals, and more. Considering obesity as

I propose that in the modern world we live in. The modern methods for producing cattle are swiftly destroying our natural environment. There are a multitude of indisputable facts evidencing this point. Which I will elaborate on further. At no time in human kinds history has the earth faced a more dangerous threat than that posed by agribusiness and in particular the production of cattle. I would start my argument in support of this statement with one simple word. SUSTAINABILITY What does this word mean, and how does it apply to this situation? When we refer to something being sustainable we imply that the activity or process it relates to is able to support itself with minimal input and with a minimal impact on the environment and minimal impact on future generations due to what is being produced for us today. I would put to you that producing cattle in the manner we do now is neither sustainable nor moral. We are pillaging our natural resources in order to provide an oversold and overrated product that requires extensive resources to produce. By overrated I mean the end product (protein) for which we need to survive can be sourced in a much more ecologically friendly way.

I will not be debating in the policy debate format, for it is outside of my expertise. First off there you need to establish, well people are not being fed as it is around the world. In select parts of the world outside of the U. S many a country have no money for dairy or meat. Often these are confused as western luxuries. If not eating meat or dairy were to be pressured into looked down as a socially unacceptable morale this could lead to the change itself. Next the food that is used to feed these livestock could feed 1.4 billion humans. Now there still is the argument that there will not be enough food to feed humanity. Well there is roughly 6 billion people on the world today. The simple truth behind this is that neither side gives a solution to ending world hunger. But going green would substantially slow down this process as I end with a quote from Russel Simmons, entrepreneur and philanthropist- " It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. If we just ate grain and left the animals alone we could feed the world and stop starvation" in addition to this it also takes 5,000 gallons of water. Outside of this a large amount of soil, trees, rain forest land is used to create land for pastures. Ending this usage of meat and dairy products could substantially promote the go green idea. This evidence is shown in my selfempowermentacademy. com source below providing a substantially self explained argument on how it will save energy, lower excretion pollution, and how these animals are often given better treatment than many humans themselves. Would be nice to trade a cow life for a humans, would it not? (. http://www.meatstinks.com...) (. http://www.selfempowermentacademy.com.au...)

I'm not a vegetarian, I don't think animals should have rights, and I love meat. That being said, you are still wrong. "Vegetarianism is harmful to the human body, and is wrong." As the Pro of the resolution, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that vegetarianism is harmful to the human body. Let's go down the line by line: "To start off, any dietitian will tell you that meat is an essential part of anyone's diet." The problem with this statement is that it's just…wrong. The American Dietic Association as well as the Dietitians of Canada issued a statement that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." (1) For those of you who don't know, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) is the United States' largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, with nearly 67,000 members. Approximately 75 % of ADA's members are registered dietitians and about 4 % are dietetic technicians, registered. The remainder of ADA's members include researchers, educators, students, clinical and community dietetics professionals, consultants and food service managers. "People are omnivores we eat BOTH meat, and vegetation." While it is true that we CAN ear both meat and vegetation, it does not mean we HAVE to eat both. "Our bodies weren't made to live without meat." It's not the meat that the human body can't live without; it's the nutrients in the meat. If you can the get the nutrients meat contains from another source, you can live just fine. "It contains a substantial amount of protein which we need to grow (especially us teenagers)." This argument assumes meat is the only source of protein. The American Dietetic Association states that "plant sources of protein alone can provide adequate amounts of essential amino acids if a variety of plant foods are consumed and energy needs are met."(2) Some good examples of Protein that is not found in meet are: 1)BEANS: are protein-rich, and contain a good amount of iron 2)CHICKPEAS: are a helpful source of zinc, folate and protein. They are also very high in dietary fiber and hence a healthy source of carbohydrates for persons with insulin sensitivity or diabetes. Chickpeas are low in fat and most of this is polyunsaturated. (3) (4) 3)LENTILS: Aside from a high level of proteins, lentils also contain dietary fiber, vitamin B1, and minerals. Red (or pink) lentils contain a lower concentration of fiber than green lentils (11% rather than 31%). Health magazine has selected lentils as one of the five healthiest foods. (5) 4)TOFU: is relatively high in protein, about 10.7% for firm tofu and 5.3% for soft "silken" tofu with about 2% and 1% fat respectively as a percentage of weight. Tofu is also low in calories, contains beneficial amounts of iron (especially important for women of child bearing age) and has no cholesterol 5)ALMONDS: One ounce of almonds contains 12 percent of your daily allowance of protein, with no cholesterol; you'll also get 35 percent of your daily allowance of vitamin E, that valuable antioxidant with so many cancer-fighting qualities. And most of the fat in almonds monounsaturated fat, one of the two "good" fats responsible for lowering LDL cholesterol. Of course there's MUCH, MUCH more. I could go on all day about all the different non-meat foods that contain a sufficient amount of protein, but unfortunately, there is an 8k character limit. You have no evidence whatsoever to show how a PROPERLY PLANNED ( as opposed to poorly planned) Vegan diet is harmful to the human body. In fact, I can show you evidence that a Vegan diet is actually healthier for the human body than a diet that includes meat: The US department of agriculture conducted an interesting study which concluded that vegan women may have a higher rate of bone formation than women who eat meat. The science behind it is very interesting. Unlike proteins in plant foods, meat contains proteins that may be rich in sulfur. As we digest animal proteins, the sulfur in them forms acid. A slight, temporary acid overload: called acidosis may result. The body needs a buffer to regain the natural balance of acidity to alkalinity. One buffer is Calcium Phosphate, which the body can borrow from its bones. The body's taking of Calcium phosphate from the bones increases the risk of osteoporosis, it also unhealthily increases the porosity of the bones. Here is the study: http://www.ars.usda.gov... And everything you have said about Animal rights have NOTHING to do with the debate resolution, this is straight up nutrition. Not only is vegetaranism not harmful to the human body, it's arguably healthier than a meat diet. Sources: (1)http://www.adajournal.org... (2)Messina VK, Burke KI (1997). "Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets". Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97 (11): 1317-21. (3)www.vegsoc.org, Zinc, retrieved 31 January 2008 (4) www.vegsoc.org, Protein, retrieved 31 January 2008 (5)Raymond, Joan (March 2006). World's Healthiest Foods: Lentils (India). Health Magazine. Your turn.

I'll skip the formalities and get straight to the "meat" of it. Here are the arguments to support my claim: 1. Meat and dairy cause diseases that fruits and vegetables do not. 2. Cooked fruits and vegetables lose vital nutrients when they are broken down during the cooking process. 3. Vegans live longer than vegetarians and omnivorous human beings. 4. Personal testimony: I have lived a 100% raw vegan lifestyle all my life. I am the healthiest person I know. I can do up to 50 push-ups without stopping on a good day. I am very happy and always feel satiated. I never feel hungry. I occasionally eat chicken and beef every day of the week. Also eggs and cookies are an essential part of my diet. However, I do not eat meat, fish or dairy. I do eat ice cream and I enjoy trout and halibut 5 or 6 times a month, but I have never had anything other than these and other fruits and vegetables in my entire life. My favourite raw vegetable is deep dish pizza. I like it baked, but never cooked. I like grilled cheese sandwiches as long as they're not cooked. I have six pack abs and it's a wonderful automatic breaking system. I'm very hot.

I see what you are saying, but 1) Rebuttals Okay but gaining weight ( which is what you said) is not want the people who drink it want, which is what I said. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not but other than that their is nothing else to rebut.

Thanks con! And... my final arguments! III. Quality of Meat While this is a small benefit, I will mention it anyway. It turns out that when livestock are stressed before slaughter, it negatively affects the quality and taste of their meat. As far as transporting animals goes: "Long journeys are undoubtedly stressful and if the animals are killed before they are recovered, they will have higher than normal ultimate pH values." Things like weather and amount of food livestock received before slaughter could also negatively affect the quality of the meat. [1] IV. Effects of Animal-product Consumption *Now* we're going to address why producing fewer (1-2 billion fewer) livestock animals would be okay. 1. Meat & Cancer "When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters. In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat." [2] Cause for concern? Yes. Cancer kills over 5.7 million people each year in the US. [3] It is the second leading cause of death in the US. 2. Heart Disease Heart disease would be the first leading cause of death in the US. It kills nearly 6 million people each year. [3] Since Atherosclerosis is the most common cause of heart disease, [4] the amount of meat consumed should be taken seriously. Atherosclerosis: "It occurs when fat, cholesterol, and other substances build up in the walls of arteries and form hard structures called plaques... We absorb cholesterol from meat, dairy products and other animal foods..." [5] I understand that consumption of animal products is only one risk factor, but it's still a huge part of many people's diet. One should consider how huge it should be. For instance, "A recent infographic... found that Americans eat at least 12 ounces of meat per day, almost 50 percent more than the recommend daily amount." [6] 3. Economic impact "Now, for the first time, we know how much our national meat habit is costing us: Roughly 414 billion dollars annually in external health, environmental, and animal welfare costs, according to a superbly researched new book, Meatonomics, by California attorney David Robinson Simon." [7] Reviewing the first two leading causes of death, alone, in the US should explain why health costs would go up. 4. Environmental impact The article I will cite says it best: "A new report published in the journal Climatic Change compared greenhouse gas emissions attributable to more than 55,000 meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the U.K. The researchers found that meat-eaters' dietary greenhouse gas emissions were twice as high as vegans'. The production, transportation and storage of food greatly contributes to emissions, the study points out. These emissions range from carbon dioxide related to fossil fuels used to power farm machinery, to the methane released by livestock. Animal-based products tend to release more emissions than plant-based products due to the methane animals can produce and the inefficiencies in growing livestock feed. "Reducing the intake of meat and other animal based products can make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation," the report concluded. Past research showed similar results. A study in April found that annual agricultural carbon emissions could be reduced up to 90 percent by 2030 with agriculture adjustments, including a reduction in global beef consumption." [8] Rebuttals: 1. "For example, organic meat producers themselves confirm that organic meat is substantially more expensive than "regular" meat." - I don't disagree with this. However, it's irrelevant as the debate is about the ethical treatment of livestock, not about organic meat. Organic beef livestock, for example, has to be the following: "-Never receive antibiotics -Never receive growth-promoting hormones -Are fed only certified organic grains (corn is a grain) and grasses -Must have unrestricted outdoor access" [9] The source I cited when I defined the ethical treatment of livestock does not say anything about livestock being fed only organic food. Organic food is more expensive (I feel this is common knowledge, so I won't cite it), so we should expect organic meat to be more expensive. 2. I agree that the population rate is overwhelming, but I'd also like to point out that according to a 2012 paper, as much as 40% of food is thrown out each year. Earlier, "In the United States, 31 percent-or 133 billion pounds-of the 430 billion pounds of the available food supply at the retail and consumer levels in 2010 went uneaten." [10] If this much food is thrown out per year, I feel it's fair to assume that there's an overproduction of food at least in some parts of the world. Therefore, I will assume it's not necessary to produce as much animal products as are produced now. So much food is thrown out that it has demonstrated that we simply need to more effectively use/distribute our resources. Furthermore, if the population continues rising, animal products won't be the only limited resource. Reducing population size is an issue on its own that cannot simply be addressed by saying, "We need more." I also found an interesting article that said, "Not only does meat cost a lot to produce (and even buy), it also hurts our environment. In fact, one 2011 study found eating less meat could double the world's food supply." [6] That's rather astounding. 3. "The intensive farming setting also reduces food turnaround times, poultry chickens which used to take several months to bring to rear now only take 5-6 weeks to be of age of slaughter." I will refer to my previous argument. If small percentage more of the country took hand in farming, the amount of animal products will still be significant. e.g. Production of chickens can still easily be in the billions. A 1-2 billion difference can contribute to the benefits I made in my fourth main point. 4. I'm not arguing that antibiotic use in livestock is immoral, but that factory-farms overuse and abuse antibiotics to the point it becomes a danger for people. "Yet another study has reinforced the idea that keeping animals in confinement and feeding them antibiotics prophylactically breeds varieties of bacteria that cause disease in humans, disease that may not readily be treated by antibiotics." "Some of this resistance comes from overuse in humans, but there's increasing evidence that resistance is being bred in animals that are a) raised in confinement and b) given antibiotics routinely. We want to know, of course, whether these bacteria move from animals to humans. Of particular concern is one called MRSA ST398, or "livestock-associated MRSA." MRSA [2] is shorthand for Methicillin (a type of antibiotic)-resistant Staphylococcus aureus." [11] [1] http://www.meatupdate.csiro.au... [2] http://www.pcrm.org... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... [7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://endhunger.org... [11] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Firstly, I will bring it to your attention that humans are animals. So technically, yes we are equal to animals. Jew or not, no one is being reduced or raised. Your argument that because animals don't have rights, houses or governments they are inferior is also a failed logic. We are the ones who deprived them of their rights! I'm saying they should have those rights. And yes they do have houses and many of them have governments within their societies. Dogs, primates, whales, birds, ants, bees etc. You made the point that agriculture kills animals. Yes, it does, but do you know how much crops the meat industry uses. As humans we slaughter over 90 billion land animals per year. It takes a lot of crops to feed them. Most of our crops are fed to farm animals. If everyone was vegan, we wouldn't have to grow so much corn. soybean, wheat and barley. It would not only shutdown slaughterhouses, it would reduce the amount of food we have to grow, saving most of the mice and rabbits, while opening a lot of land for use, or to be restored as habitat for wildlife. Again veganism saves more animals and is better for the planet. No meat = less crops = less animal deaths. www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html No one is perfect, animals die in the process of agriculture. Just living on this planet causes harm. Vegans are well aware of that. But there is a difference between accidental deaths and having institutions designed to systematically slaughter animals in a holocaust style manner! An omnivorous diet is in no way healthier than a vegan diet. over 40% of America has a B12 deficiency, 1% are vegan. It's not a vegan problem, making your statement invalid. You can get vitamin D from things other than animal products. Cereal, tofu, and Dairy Alternatives. https://www.healthaliciousness.com... You can also get omega 3 from flour tortillas, bread and cereal. http://www.webmd.com... Any vegan who isn't getting what he or she needs to take care of their body, hasn't done their research. Every vitamin you need can be found in plant based foods. Meat, on the other hand, has a lot of negative side effects. It is fattening and contributes to high blood pressure and other diseases. Fruits and veggies don't do that. Humans are also not omnivorous creatures. Just because we behave like omnivores does not mean that is what we are. We are herbivores! There is overwhelming evidence of this: 1. Our intestines are the right length in relation to our body to be herbivores. Herbivores have intestines 10-12x the length of their bodies, just like us. Carnivore's intestine's are 3-5x the length of the body. 2. We have no claws. 3. Our canines are no excuse. Gorillas have huge canines and only eat plants. Ours are meant to break nuts and bite apples. Men have nipples and don't breastfeed, humans have canines and shouldn't eat meat. 4. Our jaws move side to side in a grinding motion, like a cow. Dogs and other carnivores can't do that. 5. We have no carnivorous instincts. A lot of "meat eaters" can't stand the sight of blood. Babies have no desire to hunt, lion cubs do. many slaughterhouse workers get PTSD. 6. Humans sweat to cool themselves, carnivores pant like a dog. 7. Raw meat makes humans sick, not dogs, lions or any other carnivore/omnivore. In short, we're herbivores. http://www.celestialhealing.net... http://www.waoy.org...

To begin with, my opponent stated that she is able to debate even better while being high. While I agree that it is possible, many people "consume" is in such high amounts that they are rather dazed than energetic. I cannot tell how much my opponent smokes, and she cannot give ultimate evidence, which will not prove any side fully right. However, one of the negative effects of marijuana is short-term memory loss. In fact, I can demonstrate this easily. On many occasions, my opponent has contradicted herself in a very short span of time. This has happened more than to any other member I have seen post on the forums. Here is an example of a contradiction in the exact same post of hers, posted no longer than a few days ago: "In fact, the whole purpose of this thread was for you to prove that misunderstanding holy books IS a problem." "The whole purpose of this thread was for you to point out that many people did not understand Islam."[1] Clear difference in "whole purpose" and clear contradiction. Since my opponent implies hat she is high too many times, I presume she was high here, too, or not long before she wrote it. I can come with many other examples, but it does not matter. Therefore, my claim stands strong. But it was also a humorous claim, so we should move to the more important points. -- Rebuttals -- "While it's true that coffee, like other drugs, indeed have their benefits, they also have their harms. Just like with marijuana, we cannot negate the benefits of coffee simply because of the harms. Indeed this debate isn't about the harms of each drug but their benefits." Indeed, but if the harms outweighs the benefits, we need to mention it. In fact, my argument is stronger because my opponent can mention one study proving a good side of marijuana, and I can mention another site/source proving the contrary, so what will make any of our claims more true? Namely if the researchers themselves prove their own studies wrong with new, more authentic claims. As a matter of fact, I have mentioned Harvard researchers debunking their own studies on coffee and coming with new, positive studies that debunk their old, so that makes my argument more credible. Unless she explains why Dr.--- or Scientist --- has more valid studies than Dr.--- etc. that I mention, her argument is not very strong. "However, I'd like to point out for clarity that it's simply not true that coffee is not harmful." I never said that it is not harmful. Everything can be harmful when exaggerated. I argue for moderate consumption of coffee, which has been proven with thousands of studies to be much more healthy than harmful. Moving on, my opponent said that coffee dehydrates the body. This is absolutely not true. Professor Lawrence E. Armstrong has debunked this theory.[2] It is not true that it dehydrates the body. Moreover, coffee can have negative effects on the adrenal glands, but that is with very high consumptions, which is not needed to drink coffee for health benefits. A few cups once in a while is not bad. Moreover, regarding the bad effects on the digestive system and protein, this theory has also been debunked. It was (and still is by some) that coffee has negative effects on the digestive system. However, new studies show the exact opposite: namely that coffee is good for the digestive system, and sometimes even recommended by doctors.[3] Moving on, while coffee may increase heart rate temporarily, so can sex, and sex is indeed healthy for humankind. Does it make the consumption of coffee negative? Absolutely not. Neither does it increase blood pressure if consumed in moderate amounts.[4] This is another old and false theory. Furthermore, my opponent stated that it has not been disproved that coffee contributes to heart disease. This is extremely false. I can show tons of studies debunking that theory.[5][6][7] Moreover, my opponent mentions a few other "risks" of coffee consumption. I do not have the character space to debunk all of it in very detailed ways, so I will address a few with other sources. Aging the skin is not caused by coffee. My opponent agreed that coffee works as an antioxidant, so why is she saying that it ages the skin? It is illogical.[8] Studies show that coffee actually works as anti-aging, not the opposite. Also, does coffee cause pain? No, it does not. New studies debunk that theory, too.[9] Moreover, coffee in moderate amounts does not cause anxiety, but 'may' increase it if one already suffers from it. However, psychologists say that consumption of coffee/caffeine when feeling anxiety can actually help overcoming it.[10] As for insomnia, this is not caused by coffee. Caffeine works as a psychoactive drug, but if one consumes it several hours before sleep and in moderate amounts, he will definitely not suffer from insomnia.[11] Also, how can coffee decrease immunity when it has so many health benefits, including disease preventions? Even my opponent agrees with many of my claims, so how can she make this claim? It is a weak argument. See: [12] 1. Just because there are other anti-bacterial products, it means that coffee is not significant helpful? Why so, considering 80% of Americans drink it daily and 500 billion cups are consumed annually worldwide?And it does not lead to a worsened immune system. 2. My opponent argues that she has a problem with coffee being beneficial to mind/athletic performance, especially because only half a cup of coffee per day makes one addicted to caffeine. Who said that caffeine is bad? I say it is not. It is when exaggerated. However, she has no evidence that coffee is good with many cups a day. I have proven that several cups are actually beneficial. No more time or much space, so I will continue with rebuttals in the next round. -- References -- [1]http://www.debate.org... [2]http://www.divinecaroline.com... [3]http://www.healthyfellow.com... [4]http://www.ineedcoffee.com... [5]http://www.medicinenet.com... [6]http://health.learninginfo.org... [7]http://www.sciencenews.org... [8]http://beyondjane.com... [9]http://www.suite101.com... [10]http://www.medicinenet.com... [11]http://www.allbusiness.com... [12]http://www.greenherbalremedies.com...

Eating Meat is Unethical!I will stick to only one argument in this debate and focus on one angle. I will present many more arguments in the future to describe why humans don't need to eat animal flesh to survive. I am a perfect example of it. Meat eaters argue: We have canine teeth, thus we were desgined to eat meat. This argument makes no sense. We need canine teeth to eat apples, bread, peaches, or just about any other hard-to-eat-and-chew food. OK may not be for rice, but certainly for many other food types, we need such teeth. Also, physiology and natural capabilities does not mean we should use them for meat eating. The whole argument that "We have such capabilities, therefore we were designed to eat meat" is laughable on its face. Adults have capabilities to molest children and to make IEDs and nuclear bombs. Would you argue therefore that we should molest kids and also build bombs and kill other humans? Most rational human beings would not. So why do meat eaters use the argument that "capabilities imply justification"? Reminder: Please do not sidetrack this argument by bringing in the issue of proteins and B12 and hunger and taste and other irrelevant arguments. My argument is strictly focused on the issue of misguided justification of eating meat because we have capabilities to do so. Please focus on human physiology and capabilities to justify why you feel we were "designed" to eat meat. Also, designed by who? God? Did God say it would be nice to create animals that could suffer unbearable pain to satisfy human needs? Is that it? You may focus on this issue also since it deals with human physiology and capabilities to justify meat eating.

This brings us to our conclsion. Our stand by my original arguments by saying...we hope we get your votesAgriculture and Drug Production:Not only can the best traits be perpetuated but farm animals could also be used as “machines” for large-scale production of medically important proteins. Polly, a transgenic cloned lamb, is an example. She is able to produce milk containing factor IX — the protein that is deficient in hemophiliacs.Having Agriculture and Drug Production, more of the food can be clone which can create more the of food. • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

The consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs should be universally discouraged. In a concise overview, the case has been made that these animal products are detrimental to health. It has been demonstrated that a balanced vegan diet can provide all necessary nutrients. Moreover, evidence has been presented to support the claim that a vegan lifestyle is more beneficial for overall health. The opposing arguments lack originality and fail to persuade. The environmental damage caused by non-vegan diets has been thoroughly documented. Additionally, the issue of animal welfare has been highlighted. Lastly, it has been shown that a global shift to veganism could alleviate food scarcity for a larger population. Thus, the global consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs should be significantly reduced.

Modern Animal Agriculture In the production of animal products, we confine animals for their entire lives and make them miserable. They are denied proper veterinary care, free space to move around and exercise, appropriate social interaction with members of their species, and anesthesia during the process of castration and other mutilations. Once these animals reach market weight, they are sent to a slaughterhouse where they are hung upside down and have their throat slit. This causes an immense amount of suffering and the animals are condemned to hang there dangling, while they scream in agony. Here is a short documentary of a collection of videos recorded by animal rights activist across the United States. From Farm to Fridge: The video I linked is not meant to spark an appeal to emotion. I put it there as evidence to support my claims, and to show the reality of today's modern farms. Here is a quote from a professor of animal science at Oregon State University who teaches people about animal agriculture. He says "If most urban meat-eaters were to visit an industrial broiler house, to see how the birds are raised, and could see the birds being 'harvested' and then being 'processed' in a poultry processing plant, some, perhaps many of them, would swear off eating chicken and perhaps all meat." - Peter R. Cheeke, Professor of Animal Science, Oregon State University The Ethical Argument Since the animals that are raised for our food endure a life of suffering, and are prematurely killed in brutal methods, I don't see a moral justification for continuing to eat them. We don't need to eat meat or any other kind of animal product in order to be healthy (which I will show later on in this essay.) So clearly, we have a case where we are causing suffering and death to sentient beings for reasons of pleasure, satisfaction, or amusement, which cannot be justified. To demonstrate this, let me use the example of dog fighting. Most people realize that just because a person may enjoy causing dogs to fight, those are not in themselves good enough reasons to inflict harm on those dogs. Same situation should apply to eating animals. Health The American Dietetic Association explains on their website that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes." This shows that we don't need to eat animals in order to be healthy. Link to their site: http://www.eatright.org... The Killing Plants Objection This is one of the most common arguments meat and dairy eaters make. It is an attempt to justify the continued killing of animals for food. The argument states that if it is morally wrong to kill animals, then it is also morally wrong to kill plants. In my view, only beings with conscious desires can be harmed in the morally significant since, so things like bacteria or a plant can't be harmed in the moral since. I don't think plants matter morally because they are not sentient. A plant is not a subject of conscious experiences and other mental states, who has interest, desires and a capacity to feel pleasure and pain like a nonhuman animal. Since plants lack all these characteristics, I fail to see how they can have any moral value. However, if we truly were concerned about plants, then I should inform the plant's rights activist that we would destroy less plants if we ate them directly, instead of feeding them to billions of land animals that we are going to kill for food. This means vegans, ironically, kill less plants than meat eaters do. World Hunger We feed large amounts of grain and soybeans to feed animals, and in doing so we waste most of the food value of the grains that we're feeding them. Depending on the species, the animals may return to us somewhere between 1/10th and 1/3rd of the food value of the grains and soybeans that we put into them. So we are just wasting huge amounts of food in order to produce the large amount of animal products. It would be better and more practical if we fed our grains and soybeans to people, instead of feeding them to billions of land animals. One acre of land can yield 30,000 pounds of carrots, 40,000 pounds of potatoes or 50,000 pounds of tomatoes. However, one acre of land can yield only 250 pounds of meat, which means that a meat and dairy diet is an unsuccessful way to combat world hunger, and that a vegan diet is a superior alternative. This is why Food For Life Global, the world's largest feed the hungry organization, only serves plant based food. As well as Everybody Gets Fed, Earth Save and Plenty. Links to their sites: http://www.ffl.org... http://www.earthsave.org... http://www.everybodyfed.com... http://plenty.org... Here is an article by Jeremy Rifkin explaining how we waste grain by feeding it to billions of animals: http://articles.latimes.com... The Environment According to the research of Professors Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, the World Watch Institute's report, and the November 2006 report from the United Nations, animal agriculture is one of the top contributors to environmental destruction. Links to their reports here: http://www.fao.org... http://www.worldwatch.org... http://pge.uchicago.edu... Conclusion In this essay I have demonstrated that eating animals has some very negative consequences, not just for the animals, but for the environment, and world hunger. Therefore we must accept that eating animals is morally wrong.

I'd like to begin by noting that the audience should ignore the ad hominem attacks at the beginning of my opponent's round. Not only are his claims irrelevant, but also unwarranted. Even his example is flawed; the two statements he gave are allegedly contradictory but upon closer examination are not. 1) "In fact, the whole purpose of this thread was for you to prove that misunderstanding holy books IS a problem." 2) "The whole purpose of this thread was for you to point out that many people did not understand Islam." We can see that those 2 statements essentially say the same thing: that my opponent created a thread to discuss the misunderstanding of Islam, as detailed in the holy books - i.e. misunderstanding the holy book (Qur'an) ---> misunderstanding Islam. These 2 sentences are far more synonymous than contradictory. This is a flawed, irrelevant example meant to depict my character and my ability to make an intelligent argument. In other words, it's bad conduct. For some reason when I insult people it's mean-spirited, but when other people insult me it's perfectly acceptable as a 'joke.' Con sadly has to resort to insulting my intelligence and behavior in order to make his argument appear stronger (but so far this attempt is failing miserably). Anyway, now that I've wasted 2,000 characters and 1/5 of the time I have to write defending myself, let's move on to the contentions that are actually pertinent. Con begins by saying that if the harms of something outweigh the benefits, it negates the medical benefits to some degree. If we apply this reasoning to coffee and marijuana, you'll see that this works far more in my favor than Con's. For instance, the only real benefits Con cited and proved are that coffee contains antioxidants and things that fight bacteria. Obviously the harms I detailed and described in the last round far outweigh any of these minor positive effects. In terms of marijuana, I've already explained that the harms of marijuana are easily avoided by not smoking marijuana but rather ingesting it in another form, or smoking it through a vaporizer. In that way, nearly ALL harm from marijuana is eliminated making it essentially harmless, yet the benefits are still there. In that way, we can see that coffee is in fact more harmful. The ONLY harms of marijuana Con has offered thus far are harms from smoking (which I've negated), and short-term memory loss. Of course just as Con points out that problems with caffeine usually result from an overexposure to it, the same exact thing can be said of marijuana. Short term memory loss has only been reported with CHRONIC (no pun intended) use; it's not prevalent in those who don't over-do it [1]. Next, Con says, " In fact, my argument is stronger because my opponent can mention one study proving a good side of marijuana, and I can mention another site/source proving the contrary, so what will make any of our claims more true?" Not only does this not in any way, shape, or form prove that Con's arguments are "stronger," but it effectively negates Con's entire focus of the debate. If he's arguing that medical sources are either irrelevant or non-credible due to contrary medical sources, then he has effectively negated every single one of his contentions in coffee's favor as backed up by scientists. Indeed just as Con listed sources from scientists that said coffee does not cause dehydration or digestive system, I can simply list sources from other doctors saying the exact opposite [2, 3, 4, 5]. There are of course sources disproving nearly everything Con says; does that mean we shouldn't accept his benefits? Ultimately Con did not respond to much of what I said at all in the last round; he simply lists sources of things, and just now I listed sources of more things negating Con's sources. This will seemingly not get us anywhere. To clarify on his final point of R3, just because coffee includes antioxidants, and antioxidants are known to reduce the signs of aging, does not mean that other elements or factors in regard to coffee consumption cannot speed up the aging process. Regardless, in R2 I believe the aging I referred to was more aging of the internal body parts but I digress (and I don't have time time to look back and check because of the stringent time limits). The best I can do at this juncture is explain, in short, why marijuana has more medical benefits than coffee. Both drugs are revered as equally harmful if abused [6] though my opponent has failed to respond to the fact that caffeine is more physically addictive, thus produces a much harsher withdrawal. In that case, only the benefits are relevant, but Con has effectively made it so that none of our sources proving benefits are useful. Considering there is nothing else we have to go on, I'd like to again look at the nature of the benefits in addition to the number of benefits each of us has described. So far Con has given a handful, many of which include benefits that are either (a) minor or (b) nowhere near exclusive to coffee. However marijuana's benefits can help those who have the most dire of health problems either alleviate pain or all-together recover! I've already mentioned that marijuana aids in (1) Alzheimers, (2) arthritis, (3) Chron's disease, (4) epilepsy, (5) glaucoma, (6) cancer, (7) HIV, (8) hepatitis C, (9) migraines, (10) nausea, (11) multiple sclerosis, (12) tourettes, (13) sleeping disorders and a slew of (14) psychological conditions and personality disorders for which there are many. This was all in my opening round meaning I've already listed double of the benefits as my opponent, and going into the last round he cannot give any more considering that would be abusive as I have no opportunity to respond. Of course this is fair considering there are even more things marijuana can help (i.e. anorexia, autism, PTSD, stress, etc.) yet I didn't have the time or space to get into ALL of them, so I digress. Nevertheless, again we can see that the benefits Con described while indeed helpful are not really life saving or compelling. On the other hand, marijuana can literally save lives. In cases where marijuana is needed to induce appetite, without it a patient may starve to death or not get the nutrients they need. From a mental standpoint, one could go crazy from aspects of PTSD yet marijuana can alleviate some of that stress. The impact marijuana has on those who benefit are far greater than the benefits that merely help one's skin look younger (which Con is so proud of). Because Con spent the last round focused solely on harms, I can only look to R2 to re-cap the benefits he's provided. Looking back on notes of helping with depression, Parkinson's and Alzheimers, we see that marijuana has those same positive effects (if not greater). Con points out increased athleticism or mental performance from caffeine, though the same can (and has been proven) regarding pot as it has been scientifically proven that marijuana stimulates alpha-waves in the brain increasing performance in many areas (many related to creativity, etc.). Anyway, I have 1 minute to post this, so that's all I've got. In conclusion, both substances can be harmful if abused, though the effects of marijuana can largely be avoided whereas the harms from coffee can not. Furthermore, if we consider that use in moderation is key, the harms of marijuana greatly diminish even moreso than coffee. And finally, most presented benefits of caffeine Con gave us are also benefits of marijuana. The positive impact of marijuana is greater in value and necessity to helping one's ailments than coffee. Coffee may keep people healthy, but marijuana provides some serious solutions to many medical issues. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...

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

Thank you for accepting the challenge. Here is a list of the arguments I will outline in the following paragraphs. 1)Health benefits of being vegetarian. 2)Global benefits of vegetarianism. 3)Environmental benefits of vegetarianism. 4)The ethical question behind eating meat. Argument 1: There are numerous health benefits that a vegetarian diet can have. First of all, studies have shown that vegetarians are at least %25 less likely to contract chronic heart conditions, the biggest killer in America. Heart disease has plagued western civilization since the dawning of mankind, and perhaps a vegetarian diet is one of the keys to a final solution. Vegetarianism is healthy for the cardiovascular system as it reduces the amount of animal fats and cholesterol that people consume, instead replacing it with antioxidants and fiber. Furthermore, vegetarianism has been linked to a decrease in the likelihood of getting cancers. A study in Germany found that vegetarians have a decreased likelihood of getting colon cancer, for one. Lastly, vegetarian diets have been shown to help people lose weight, which explains why there are very few obese vegetarians out there. The diet essentially decreases the amount of saturated fats and excessive calories that people consume. Meat has very condensed calories, and our brains simply can"t figure out when we are full until about 20 minutes after our stomachs say ENOUGH. So condensed calories, plus a brain that can"t read if we are full or not fast enough, essentially spells out bad news for the bathroom scales. Plants, on the other hand, have very minimal amounts of calories, meaning that more of them can be consumed without causing weight gain. The major issue that people have with a vegetarian diet is the belief that vegetarianism can be linked to nutrient deficiencies, and in some cases, this is true; however, when the diet is well planned out well, then malnutrition rarely poses much of an issue. The major nutrients that vegetarians lack are vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and protein. The only one of these nutrients that cannot be found in plants is vitamin B12; however, this is found in many supplements available to essentially everyone. Many people say that iron cannot be taken from plants as animals have a different kind of iron known as heme-iron; however, this is simply not true. Although it is harder for our bodies to process iron from plants, it can still be done fairly easily and efficiently, and for the person who can"t process it, there are cruelty-free supplements of heme-iron out there as well. In summary, if the vegetarian diet is planned out well, the effects can be remarkable, including lower risk of heart disease and certain kinds of cancer. Argument 2: A vegetarian diet can have many positive effects on many current, global issues. A recent study found that nearly %40 of corn and %67 of soy produced in the United States is going towards raising livestock for the meat and dairy industry, essentially meaning that about 13 pounds of grain goes into one pound of edible meat. Doesn"t add up, right? In a society where approximately 805 million people live in starvation, does it really make sense to essentially throw away that much food? No, it doesn"t. But it gets a lot worse than that. Not only is food thrown away to the livestock industry, but water too. We"re talking about the raising of over 56 billion farm animals every year. That"s a lot of water. To put it into statistics, that"s about %27 of the freshwater deficit. Thus, vegetarianism not only has a positive effect on an individual"s health, but also the current state of global affairs. Argument 3: The livestock industry has a horrible effect on the environment that only a vegetarian diet can really fix. Animals raised for food in the U.S. produce about 89,000 pounds of excrement per second. Where does it all go, then? Well many places, places that people probably don"t want feces. One of the ways to dispose of waste is to sell it as fertilizer, and all though this makes apples in the supermarket extra sweet and juicy, it also causes a run-off effect. This means that when it rains or water is sprayed on the area, the excrement flows into surrounding rivers and lakes where it kills fish and other wildlife. The other disposal method is throwing the excrement into lagoons and waiting for it to decompose. This too causes a seeping effect. So what does seeping actually do? The EPA reported that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. When 25 million gallons of putrid hog urine and feces spilled into a North Carolina river in 1995, between 10 million and 14 million fish died as an immediate result. Aside from water, animals grown for livestock also contaminate the air. A Consumer Union Study in Texas found that animal feedlots in the United States produce approximately 14 million pounds of particle dust each year, dust that contains harmful pathogens and toxins. Another way that the livestock industry gets rid of animal feces is turning it into a mist like substance and having it carried away by the wind. Unfortunately, unsuspecting citizens of neighboring towns inhale this toxic air and can become severely sick from it. There really isn"t a way to stop the industry from doing this, as what are their other options, contaminating more water and damaging the environment even more? The only real way to ensure that these horrible things don"t happen is to cut all funding to the meat and dairy industry by going vegetarian or vegan. Argument 4: Whether or not it is right to kill an animal for the purpose of meat has been an ethical question for decades. The simple fact is that no, it isn"t. Nature dictates that killing an animal is okay when it is absolutely necessary. This is usually not the case with people. The simple fact of the matter is that in the general population, meat is consumed because of convenience and taste; however, what most people don"t realize is that the animals that the animals that they eat once had a face, a mother, maybe a son or daughter. We know that animals feel familial connections maybe even stronger than people do, so the idea of a baby calf being torn from its mother"s arms only moments after birth to be shipped off to some veal factory is simply horrendous. Or, it can be spun the other way, where the mother is torn away to be shipped off to a slaughterhouse. To cause an animal so much pain for the sake of a hamburger or a piece of steak is simply wrong and unethical. What a vegetarian diet does is stand up for the animals and essentially say that people don"t want to be a part of such cruelty. Furthermore, the meat industry has shown time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be allowed to care for animals. It seems like every month a new case of animal abuse comes out. Two months ago it was chickens drowning in their own feces, while last month it was ducks being forced to walk on wire floors, breaking their feet and smashing their faces against the iron wiring. These cases pop up all the time and no matter how many lawsuits are filed, nothing changes. The only way to fully end this kind of cruelty is to go vegetarian and stop giving money to torcher. In summary, vegetarian diets have many positive effects on everything from a person"s diet, to the state of issues like world hunger and pollution.

Throughout this entire debate, Pro has continuously given evidence on how it is completely possible for a vegan diet to be healthy. This is true, however, it's just not easy, and I think we can both agree on that. Worldwide veganism would bring just as many cons as it would pros. Pro had already stated many of the pros: "Pro has already given several reasons why there is good reason to eat vegan. To reiterate, animal happiness, environment, health, and to mitigate world hunger. Pro contends it would be unfair to hungry people for wealthy people to continue to eat meat, dairy, and eggs. Animals happiness matters, and it would be unjust to continue to exploit animals by producing meat, eggs, and dairy" But let's take a look at the cons: A radical change: Going vegan is a huge change and can sometimes be even more complicated if you are not allowed to eat certain ingredients such as soy. "Complete plant proteins are found in soy products, so if you're trying to moderate your intake of soy, you have to learn how to put together complementary foods to form complete vegetarian proteins," says Jackie Keller. Potential interference with existing medical conditions: If you have a condition such as osteoporosis or diabetes, it is critical to consult with your physician and a registered dietitian when starting and implementing a vegan eating plan, as a vegan diet may interfere with your condition. Difficulty when dining out: Not many restaurants offer true vegan choices and this can make dining out difficult. Mehta advises carrying vegan foods and snacks to make eating out easier when traveling long distances. Loss of essential vitamins and minerals: There is evidence to show vegan diets do not contain vitamin B12, an essential nutrient. "Vegans can get vitamin B12 from fortified foods (some brands of soy milk, fake meats, breakfast cereals and nutritional yeast) and from supplements. Vegan diets may be low in calcium and vitamin D although there are vegan sources of these nutrients," says Reed Mangels, PhD, RD, nutrition advisor for The Vegetarian Resource Group (vrg.org). Unrealistic expectations: "A person might believe that by being vegan they are making themselves healthier. There are no good data of which I am aware proving that simply being vegan as an isolated behavior improves health," says Anne Applebaum. There has to be a balance of diet, exercise and a proper fitness regime. http://www.livestrong.com... http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... http://chickpeamagazine.com... So, what is my point, you may ask? Well, I am certain a chicken would put another chicken's life before a human's. While you are thinking about the animals, we have to think about the humans as well...

This is not a debate any longer. Pro repeatedly fails to provide evidence. Only his own opinions. It's good food for thought. And it encourages me and other readers to research more. But ultimately, The debate is over, And Pro has let this debate devolve into a casual discussion.

For men masterbation helps to prevent cancer, boosts a person's mood and helps them keep erections better as they age. http://www.menshealth.com... Women also get many health benefits from masterbating. Masterbation reduces menstraul cramps, increase your ability to reach orgasm easier and helps with sleep. http://www.wewomen.com... con is eithe male or female. Resolution affirmed

Thanks to my opponent for instigating the debate and challenging me.Clarification We are debating the health effects of alcohol. It's not a debate about the effectiveness of a lawful prohibition. We assume that alcohol is effectively banned, and fewer people drink it. Keep in mind that the debate is also not about the medical use of alcohol. If alcohol is used as a medicine, then that does not count as moderate consumption. That is called necessary consumption. The resolution has nothing to do with that.My opponent is not allowed to argue that e.g., alcoholics are in need of moderate consumption of alcohol in order to get rid of their disease over time, and that they would not be allowed to get healthier because the state does not allow them to rehabilitate in a known-to-be-effective way (i.e., lesser consumption over time). As I said, this is necessary consumption. I'd also like to clarify that this is not a debate about my stance on the legality of alcohol, hence my position as Con in this debate has nothing to do with my political stance on alcohol.Burden of Proof My opponent has the highest share of the burden of proof in this debate. As the resolution implies, she will have to prove that lack of moderate consumption of alcohol will necessarily have a negative impact on health. My share of the burden of proof will be rather minimal, as I will have to show facts which demonstrate that any health benefits alcohol might bring can be replaced by something else, hence one is not forced to be dependent on alcohol for the sake of good health if he does not consume it. To give an example:1: Vitamin C is important for good health.2: Drink X contains Vitamin C.3. Drink C contains Vitamin C.4. .: Abandoning Drink X does not necessarily cause lack of Vitamin C.In this example, it is clear that if Drink X is alcohol, and it contains healthy ingredients, then clearly neglecting it would only impact the health in a negative fashion if there is no other food to replace it. However, in this example it is also clear that there is an alternative to Drink X, and in the following rounds I will demonstrate those alternatives.DefinitionsI have no objections to the definitions that my opponent provided. However, I would like to expand upon their meanings and usages in this debate. Taking a look at "impact," my opponent chose to define it as "to have a direct effect on," even though her source listed more loose interpretations of the term. In this case, my opponent has necessitated a strict interpretation of the resolution, which is that a restraint from alcohol will necessarily have a direct negative effect on the health.That being said, I hope this will be an enjoyable debate for both parties and for the readers. Please don't read and vote here if you drink alcohol in the meanwhile.

To start off, you state many health benefits to keeping pets. These can easily be refuted by the fact that pets can carry many diseases, such as roundworm, bird flu, and sore mouth, to name a few. You can find a full list below. Also, many of your arguments raise the benefits for humans, but is it really just as beneficial for the pet? Estimates at the number of stray cats alone range up to 70 million meaning that, despite the apparent benefits, many pet owners are still not satisfied with their animal and feel the need to abandon them. On top of this, approximately 7.6 million companion animals enter animal shelters in the U.S. per year, and more than half remain there until death. Surely, the small benefits to human health for having a pet are vastly outweighed by the cruelty caused by the breeding and distribution of animals for pets. To conclude my counter argument, I believe that since we, humans, bred these animals to be our workers, or companions, then we should be able to take full responsibility for their wellbeing and care. Clearly, however, as the statistics show; we are not capable of fulfilling this responsibility and should attempt to limit the keeping of animals as pets. Disease list: http://www.cdc.gov... Other Sources https://www.aspca.org... http://center4research.org...

Thermodynamics in regard to complex biological systems. "This argument does not apply to biology. One grows up and becomes more complex, but that does not make sense if the thermodynamics argument is true! -Pro"Under certain special conditions (not available to evolution, as far as all evidence goes), the organization of an open system may be increased for a time by the entrance of external ORDERING energy, or information. Examples would be the growth of a plant from a seed or the construction of a building from various structural components. Any such growth process, however, must have a directing program (such as the genetic code in the DNA of the seed or the blueprint for the building), as well as an energy conversion mechanism of some sort to convert the raw energy of the solar heat into the specific work of building up the structure (such as the amazingly complex mechanism of photosynthesis for the seed, or the machinery, fuels, muscles, and minds of the builders in the case of the building). The imaginary evolutionary growth of complex plants and animals from a primeval cell (and THAT from nonliving chemicals in a hypothetical primordial soup), however, has neither a directing program nor conversion mechanism to accomplish this. It must rely on time and chance, but time and chance break things down - they don't build them up. -Henry M Morris "Science and the Bible" Lactose "Tolerance" - I was absolutely WRONG when I said; "everyone was ORIGINALLY lactose tolerant." In fact, the OPPOSITE is true! "For many years, lactose intolerance was regarded as abnormal, and was used by many as evidence of human evolution. As a measure of evolutionary “advancement”, milk-drinking seemed to fit the stereotype perfectly." "However, “lactose deficiency” in adults is not in fact abnormal, but the norm! Research has shown that the gene for lactase normally switches off as children are weaned. And a genetic mutation that results in lactase production not being switched off accounts for the ability of certain people to drink milk into adulthood." “This is the best example of convergent evolution in humans that I’ve ever seen,” said geneticist Joel Hirschhorn, of the Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts. But note that these genetic changes are not “evolution” in the uphill molecules-to-milkman sense, as the changes are downhill, i.e., information has been LOST (viz., the normal switching-off mechanism of lactase production following weaning).12 Rather, at best this is an example of selection, as Hirschhorn himself went on to acknowledge: “Lactase persistence has always been a textbook example of selection, and now it’ll be a textbook example in a totally different way.”10 "So, those of you who are unable to drink milk as adults today without feeling nauseous (or worse) can take heart from being closer in that respect to the originally “physically-perfect” first man and woman than are those of us who are milk-drinking “mutants”!" http://creation.com... 12 Wieland, C., The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction), Creation 24(2):16–19, 2002, <creation.com/train>. 10 Check, E., How Africa learned to love the cow, Nature 444(7122):994–996, 21/28 December 2006. Transitional Fossils There are NO transitional fossils!!! All you have is bones in the dirt. You put your interpretation on them. You can not prove that those bones had children never mind children different than themselves!!! (which has NEVER been observed EVER). There are NO transitional fossils, even if there was 1 supposed transitional fossil somewhere then my opponent failed to show it. There simple are NONE. Marx, Lenin and Stalin and Hitler were ardent evolutionists. - This shows the harmful effects of evolutionary philosophy. Chernobyl Mushrooms The article states; "IT’S ALSO THE ABODE of some very hardy fungi which researchers believe aren’t just tolerating the severe radiation, but actually harnessing its energy to thrive." what's the key word in this sentence, anyone? - "BELIEVE"!!! it goes on to state; "even without melanin, many fungi are intrinsically radiation-resistant." hmmm This is simply an adaptation not "vertical" evolution. These mushrooms will never ever ever ever ever turn into mushroom MEN. Micro Vs Macro: "Microevolution is evolution below speciation level, and has been observed by Endler (1980). [5] Microevolution adds up to macroevolution.[6] Microevolution is true, then macroevolution also will be true." -Pro We obsever variation within kinds but according to fixed limits. Evolutionsist think they can get around this by assertting that the earth is "billions of years old" which it is NOT and my opponent has not even attmpted to prove it is. I will further address this in my pig argument in the conclusion. CONCLUSION: I have thoroughly and conclusively dealt with every one of my opponents arguments and shown them to be false. My opponent failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that can not be refuted. You would think that if evolution were true then there should be mountains of really good observations and data to support it, however this is just simply not the case. The theory of evolution is accepted on philosophical grounds NOT scientific. It requires belief and is therefore not science but religion. Even some secular scientists involved in this field are steadily moving away from the theory of evolution by natural selection because the evidence simply does not support it. darwin said that if his theory were true than many transitional fossils would be discovered in the future, they never were. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth… And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so…. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good… And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." - Genesis KJV Thus God created all the animals and plants to bring forth after their KIND. We witness variation within the kinds but according to fixed limits. As Dr Kent Hovind once said; "farmers have been breeding pigs for a loooong time but they will never breed a pig the size of Texas." Thank you for carefully considering this debate. Best Regards, Fritz Stammberger