Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

A worldwide prohibition on meat, dairy, and eggs is not advisable.

Hello, distinguished judges, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Forever 23, and I am here to present the argument against banning meat, dairy, and eggs globally. I will outline three key points since the opposing side has not provided any arguments. First, meat, eggs, and dairy are essential for a healthy diet. A diet devoid of these foods would lead to lifelong health and eating issues. Without meat, eggs, and dairy, people would suffer from malnutrition. High-quality, unprocessed meat is among the most nutritious foods in the world, containing substantial amounts of Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium, and other vitamins and minerals. Vitamin B12 is particularly crucial as it cannot be obtained from plants. Unprocessed meat also contains healthy fats, especially Omega-3 from grass-fed animals.

Milk and dairy products are rich in nutrients, providing a quick and easy way to supply these nutrients to the diet in a low-calorie manner. Creatine, an energy reserve in muscles and the brain, is only found in animal foods. Vegetarians are deficient in creatine, leading to reduced physical and mental performance. Carnosine, an antioxidant that protects against degenerative processes, is also only found in animal foods. The active forms of Omega-3 in the human body, DHA and EPA, are primarily found in animal foods.

Milk, cheese, and yogurt provide essential nutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, protein, Vitamin B12, Vitamin A, zinc, riboflavin, folate, Vitamin C, and iodine. Eggs are also a significant source of various vitamins and minerals necessary for a healthy lifestyle. Without these foods, people may develop eating disorders, and a global ban could have severe consequences.

Second, most of the population consumes these products. Banning them would not be feasible as long as the majority of people continue to buy meat. The meat and poultry industry is a significant part of the U.S. economy, employing over 482,100 workers and generating over $19 billion in salaries. Stopping the meat, egg, and dairy industries would eliminate millions of jobs.

Lastly, a worldwide ban is not feasible. Not every country will agree to ban meat, dairy, and eggs. According to the Meat Institute, there have only been four or five worldwide bans, all of which were detrimental to the economy and the

It's funny that such arguments would come from a person who only feeds their dog vegetables. You use the term "animals" as though all animals are omnivores. Of course, it is a well known fact that most animals are vegans. Take the mighty lion for example. It only eats fresh raw fruits and vegetables such as zebra and buffalo. Vegetables have all the vitamins and minerals that you've mentioned. Maybe B12 is lacking, but google "durianride" to find oout about vegan B12 supplements. Most human beings, meat-eaters or not, have a B12 deficiency. Vegetables and fruits are also rich in nutrients that you can never find in meat... such as chicken and beef. You can only find chicken and beef in vegetables and fruits. Cheese is another example of an essential nutrient nowhere to be found in meat and dairy. How can you live a healthy life without cheese?

I would agree that a vegetarian diet can be quite healthy, however this was a question of ethics and morality. Not of healthiness. "If we do not need animals for good health, why do we condemn billions of animals to a life of cruelty, suffering, enslavement, torture, murder and mutilation?" - Because why not? You've made the posit that it is morally unjustifiable to consume animals when other alternatives are available, but why? You have the burden of proof, I am holding the null hypothesis. Why is it morally wrong to do this to an animal?

:). It can be bad for your omnivore cadaver. Badly cooked steak can kill you because of bacteria. Well cooked steak can kill you - it increases your risk for heart disease according to CDC. That being said, I love a good steak and will enjoy it while I can.

The health issues you are describing are in fact debatable on how far they could progress to worsen, but truly reading is the biggest leverage you could have. What if you couldn't read it would be a way for the government to clamp on you. Just like what happened in history. Like for example: Egypt. The men that learned to write became wealthy and well respected. Would you be the scribe in a palace or an illiterate slave working in the quarry? Never mind that, another example is how kings tricked their people in doing what they want by changing the bibles contexts and the people didn't know because they didn't know how to write. My other argument is that reading and writing is a way to communicate between humans that is better than verbally. Without books how would we learn anything? I mean it could mean that we would turn into like the Greeks and how each port and city had different stories to a particular legend would you want the stretched story that is a little different or the absolute truth? Without Reading and Writing our lives, past experiences, future evolutions could be completely different because without reading how could we document new or old findings that could alter human expansion? And have others learn it as well. Without reading and writing you and I might have never came to this world.

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

Of course eating too much meat is unhealthy, so is eating too less meat. We need an average of 125 grams meat per day and vegans get 0. The HIGH meat diet in America has caused high obesity whereas if they had a normal diet of meats, obesity would decrease dramatically. Some health problems occur if the meat is undercooked, so the high degree of a barbecue or other cooking device has not killed off the bacteria in the meat. Also being a vegan will cause you to naturally eat more carbohydrates which will cause you to become overweight as well. Beans and nuts DO have protein but a person can't live with dairy foods, beans and nuts. Also there are nutrients not found in the vegan diet nor possible to replace such as the Omega-3 fatty acid listed in my last argument.

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

If you would've read correctly, my topic states humans are not supposed to eat Pork or Beef. I never stated humans aren't supposed to eat meat, it's obvious that way back to Homo- erectus we have been eaters of meat. Eating Pork and beef are not on the natural dietary spectrum for mammals. my source https://www.sciencedaily.com... clearly states that mammals have eaten meat since the dawn of our genus. But it also states that it hasn't always been this way, as mammals, and also omnivores, pigs and cow were never on our direct source of nutrition. Early Homo Sapiens in East and South Africa eat fish, chicken, fruit, certain plants and also bison, but pork and beef were not everyday consumables. This is a modern day phenomenon, and it's obvious at the fact that it takes 3 days or 72 hours to digest pork and beef but only 2 hours for chicken and fish.

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

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.


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

The global prohibition of meat, dairy, and eggs is an extreme measure that should not be considered. While opponents argue that these food sources are unhealthy and detrimental to the environment, the benefits they offer to human health and the economy should not be overlooked. Meat, for instance, is a significant source of protein, essential for cellular growth and overall body development. Dairy products, such as cheese, are rich in nutrients like calcium, protein, phosphorus, zinc, vitamin A, and vitamin B12. These nutrients are often lacking in the American diet, with nine out of ten women and six out of ten men failing to meet recommended calcium intake levels. The high-quality protein in cheese also supports muscle strength.

The claim that meat, dairy, and egg production are environmentally harmful is valid, but so is the production of vegetables and fruits, which often rely on pesticides. Pesticide exposure has been linked to health issues such as ADHD, autism, and various types of cancer. Furthermore, the argument that farming is cruel can be countered by highlighting the existence of family-run farms that treat animals with care and respect. Instead of a ban, efforts should focus on reducing reliance on factory farms.

Another point of contention is that feeding humans the grains currently given to animals would solve world hunger. However, this simplistic solution does not address the complex issue of poverty. Meat, dairy, and eggs are not only healthy but also crucial for economic stability. For instance, milk and dairy products are nutrient-rich, providing essential vitamins and minerals that contribute to bone health and are effective in reducing blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes.

Yogurt, a dairy product, is particularly beneficial due to its probiotics, which maintain the balance of good bacteria in the gut, improving health and reducing the risk of certain diseases. Therefore, while there are concerns about the consumption of these foods, a balanced approach that acknowledges their health benefits is necessary. A vote against banning meat, dairy, and eggs is a vote for maintaining a healthy diet and a strong economy.

Granted alcohol has health benefits and creates jobs. But what about the people who abuse alcohol? Does the innocent citizen have to suffer death and destruction to them self or a relative or friend because some person wanted to feel good temporally?

For my opponent’s rebuttal, he attempts to show how green tea is unhealthy for you to drink. His rebuttal ran like so. P1: Green tea causes skeletal fluorosis. P2: Water doesn’t cause skeletal fluorosis. C1: Water is better for you to drink than Green tea. My opponent says this, “You must know that tea also can reducing bone quality if you drink too much.” Anything is excessiveness is unhealthy for you, even water. “Experts now warn that drinking eight glasses of water a day is not good for you after all – and could be harmful…Drinking excessive amounts can also lead to loss of sleep as people have to get up in the night to go to the toilet, and other studies show it can even cause kidney damage, instead of preventing it…Worryingly, Dr McCartney also warns that taking on too much water can lead to a rare but potentially fatal condition called hyponatraemia, which sees the body’s salt levels drop and can lead to swelling of the brain.” (1) Both tea and water are unhealthy for you “if you drink too much.” Yet the benefits of green tea outweigh the costs; just because one thing in green tea is bad for you doesn’t mean green tea is bad for you. Conclusion: My opponent has attempted to negate my argument that tea is good for you by pointing out parts of tea that might be bad for you. I have defeated this by demonstrating how the benefits of tea outweigh the costs and therefore tea is actually good for you and by showing that the same goes for water. (1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Opening StatementWhile I understand my opponent's disapproval of animal research, and connect to his sentiments toward human-inflicted animal suffering, neglect, abuse, and death, I want to point out that animal testing has in fact benefited humankind tremendously over the last century and has been at the forefront of medical advances and breakthroughs that have lengthened the human lifespan and have improved the quality of human life worldwide. No one in the modern industrial world (and few anywhere else) have been untouched and unbenefited by the medical research conducted on animals over the last 100 years. The sacrifice these animals have made in animal research has enhanced human life and the field of biomedical research staggeringly.According to the US-based, Foundation for Biomedical Research: "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century, for both human and animal health. From the discovery of antibiotics, analgesics, anti-depressants, and anesthetics, to the successful development of organ transplants, bypass surgery, heart catheterization, and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, control, and cure of disease is based on knowledge attained through research with laboratory animals. [1]""Virtually every major medical advance of the last 100 years, from chemotherapy to bypass surgery, from organ transplantation to joint replacement, has depended on research with animals. Animal studies have provided the scientific knowledge that allows physicians and other health care providers to improve lives for humans and animals by preventing and treating diseases and disorders and by easing pain and suffering. [1]"Indeed, scientific research conducted with cows helped to exterminate small pox off the Earth; Polio was eradicated through the use of research on mice and monkeys; the hormone Insulin was discovered to combat the illness diabetes thanks to research on dogs and fish; penicillin, a group of antibiotics used to treat various strains of bacterial infection, was first accurately researched on laboratory mice; working vaccines for tetanus, rubella, anthrax and rabies were discovered through research on horses, monkeys, sheep, and rabbits respectively [2].The lifecycle of malaria became better understood thanks to research on pigeons; open heart surgery and cardiac pacemakers became viable medical treatments because of research with dogs, as did various kinds of organ transplanation; an effective drug in AIDS treatment was discovered because of research with monkeys [2]. The list of scientific and medical advances because of animal research is far more extensive than this.And animal research has also led to the lengthening of the human lifespan worldwide. States the Foundation for Biomedical Research: "Knowledge gained from animal research has contributed to a dramatically extended human life span, which has increased from 47 years in 1900 to more than 78.8 years in 2012. Part of this increase can be attributed to improved sanitation and better hygiene, but a significant portion of this longevity is a result of medical advances made possible in part from animal research. [1]"Undoubtedly, hundreds of millions of animals have lost their lives because of scientific medical research that has benefited practically everyone alive on the planet today and several worldwide generations of the previous century; it's a toll we humans will have to acknolwedge for observed improvements in quality of life and extended lifespan. We owe these animals our gratitude and our respect.But before we begin to point judgemental fingers at the whole practice of animal research, we should first become aware of the practices used, the laws put in place, the animals primarily used in modern-day medical science research, the developing alternatives to animal research, and the current list of health issues and medical crisis that confronts the human global population.That's what I intend to cover in the next four rounds.[1] http://fbresearch.org...[2] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...

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

Contention 1: Animal Rights According to National Geographic Magazine April 2013 cloning requires the need to inject DNA into egg cells of the surrogate mother, causing the surrogate to develop the baby. This is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. Cloned animals tend to have more problems during gestation and birth, resulting in higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among host mothers. According to http://www.gracelinks.org... a 2007 study showed cloning success rates to be low as 10%. Cloned animals tend to have severe physical deformities in cloned animals, including oversized navels, oddly-shaped heads (cows that have heads shaped like those of bulldogs), immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and malformed arteries. Not really a humane thing to do, is it? Contention 2: Not commercially beneficial According to http://www.gracelinks.org... it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred. A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it. Contention 3: No guarantee of safety There is no such thing as a complete risk assessment. Since cloning is still in experimental phase, people cannot absolutely conclude that something is safe. Just three years before the Chernobyl nuclear accident, B. A. Semenov, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safety division, had written about the RBMK reactor design used at Chernobyl: “The design feature of having more than 1,000 individual primary circuits increases the safety of the reactor system—a serious loss-of-coolant accident is practically impossible” This example can also be used on the issue of cloned foods. Conclusion: Cloning subject animals to unneeded suffering to both clones and surrogates, due to high risk clones having bad health. This is combined with the high cost and low demand of clones to consumers, also with unguaranteed health of the food products. So basically cloning is bad for consumers, cloning industries, and also the animals. To wrap it up, it’s not beneficial.

My opening argument is Religon overall is not beneficial to humanity or society. First let’s point out what is logically not beneficial to society and humanity. To start off and name a few Religous motivated violence,the Quashing of science and impediment of education and the teaching of creationism in public schools , political oppressiont he discrimination of same sex couples . Such things are not beneficial being of society and humanity and any of us are nearly entirely becuse of religious ideas and teachings. P1 Religious inspired violence. Devout religious followers have done horrendous acts of violence entirely for their faith and religious reasons. Religion has procured and cultivated Religious extremists such as the Taliban in the Islamic world or even the Christians here in the USA who don't care about separation of church and state ,democracy or respecting other people's right to live differently from them. This is irrelevant to them. because in their mind the only thing that matters to them is making God's will happen. In their mind, God created everything that exists. .. and therefore, God's will trumps everything so with religion producing and cultivating such deas starting in young intellectually defenseless children who are told before they have critical thinking & can think for themselves they are forced to believe that the world around them is, quite literally, irrelevant since their religion has imprinted upon them that the next world is what truly matters. Suicide bombing, "honor" killing such as the attack on the world trade center was a direct cause of Religion Islamic extremism. USA one is also one of the most religious first world countries in the world with a huge rate of gun crime, murder, imprisonment compared to less religious western nations. P2 Oppression. The unverifiability of religion leads to many forms of oppression. It makes religious leaders and organizations extremely powerful because according to them they have God on their side. Their followers as young children are told to implicitly believe whatever their religious teachings and leaders tell them. They are taught that their religious leaders have superior virtue, with a connection to God they've that they should trust their religious leaders and if questioned since childhood they are filled with vivid, traumatizing stories of eternal burning and torture. And for these reasons such things happen. Saudi Arabian women are required to wear the abaya, a black loose outfit that is reserved for Arab women so as to prevent men from viewing them as sex symbols. In Iraq all women are forced to conform to the Islamic religon and thus half of the population lives in cloth bags. If the resist they are beaten ,murderd and raped. In India Hindu law gives women limited rights to inheritance the oppression of females in India, is due to Hinduism as well as Islam, which are religions that confine, restrict and oppress women. A pew survey of 198 countries found that the share of countries with high or very high restrictions on religion rose from 37 percent in mid-2010 to 40 percent by the end of 2011. Equal rights. In the United States, when same-sex marriage has been up for popular vote, it has been shot down by followers of religious groups . It has been consistently defeated largely because the force of several organized religions, especially the Catholic and Mormon churches, have marshaled against it. How could this be helping our society by aiding discrimination and suffering of others? Think about the trouble and pain that same sex couples have had to endure just because a holy book . Is this benefical to their well being and to live a better life? I dare say no. Quashing science and education. religion our undercuts science and education Forcing abstinence-only sex education on kids? Teaching creationism in public schools? School boards all across this country are still spending time and money debating whether or not to have the theory of evolution taught in the schools. while they could be using these resources to actually teach they're spending debating this incredible thus denying our children the future leaders of society the ability to learn and think rationally this is in no way helping them become productive and intelligent citizens of society . The impediment of scientific advancement from Galileo ( took the church until 1992 to apologize) to current Stem cell research bans coming from a direct cause of religious ethics,morals and organizations that are a massive roadblock to the advancement of science. So when religion teaches that believing in the invisible is more important than understanding the perceivable. .. that personal faith is more important than critical thinking. .. that that what God supposedly says about the world is more real what's in the world itself . .. such things are the root of much evil.

Pro would like to remind everyone of the current debate we are facing, despite the things Pro said in his first and second round. Pro does believe that vaccination is humanity's best hope of surviving for the future as they will, one day, cleanse the world of all infectious and harmful pathogens in the world. Nevertheless, the debate topic is "Vaccination is beneficial for humanity", not "Vaccination is humanity's only saviour". Pro would like to say that vaccines do not contain toxins, but toxoids, whose toxicity has been suppressed by heat treatment or formalin, and therefore, unable to do any harm to the body. Pro would like to say that 2-phenoxyethanol, or as pro will now like to refer to as Monosodium glutamate, is used in only a few vaccines to ensure that vaccines do not react; pro would also like to add that Monosodium Glutamate is present in food, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand declared Monosodium Glutamate "safe for the general population". Formaldehyde is used to inactivate pathogens in Inactivated Pathogen Vaccines, and is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged and used; therefore, it presents no harm to the patients using the vaccine. Aluminium is also present in vaccines, but in small quantities. If a baby was to receive all of his or her's vaccinations, the baby would receive 4mg of aluminium, much less than the 40mg of aluminium the baby would receive from drinking breastmilk, and 120mg from drinking both breast milk and breastmilk formula. Therefore, the threat presented here is not enough to harm anyone.How does the opponent see vaccines harming human lives? Is it more of a gamble with human life to not vaccinate children? Are we to ignore the fact that the greater good is the embracing of vaccination? There is a clear answer to these questions, and they are all answered in favor of vaccination. Also, I would like to add that the opponent states the opposite: vaccines have been proven to work. In my previous argument, I stated that polio cases have been decreasing ever since the Salk Vaccine was introduced. Although cases were already decreasing, it decreased dramatically with the Salk Vaccine, and was almost eradicated by the Sabin Vaccine. Is this not proof that vaccines have been proven to work? Due to time constraints, I am unable to provide the opponent with a full reply, but I hope this is enough for the opponent to use.Citations:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.chop.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com...;

Should a gallon of milk have two handles?

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

Lets get something straight. There is something seriously wrong with our society. We have actually turned animals, that think and feel, into sandwiches and coats. What is wrong with us. Good people follow the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Animals qualify as others. They do because they feel like we do. Pain, fear, grief etc. Meat, dairy and egg eaters don't care about animals. They don't care about what pain they cause on others. As long as they get their bacon, they are fine with animal abuse. They make the same excuses that Nazi's and slave owners made. They say that just because someone is different, they are inferior. That type of mentality is evil. pure evil. Nothing justifies the meat and dairy industry. The people who do this are not evil at heart. They have just been raised in an evil society. Think about the life of a dairy cow for example. Lets call her Jane. At birth, Jane is instantly taken from her mother, and imprisoned on a farm where she is fed a nutrition devoid diet. Eventually, she is tortured via branding. (Yes, applying hot metal to a living being is torture). She also has her ear clipped without painkiller for the sake of identification. Jane then lives an exhausting life. She is constantly milked for hours on end. She is also raped with bull semen to produce more calves that will be stolen from her. Stress takes a toll on her. After a few years, her productivity begins to decrease. She is then put on a cattle car and begins a miserable trip to a slaughterhouse. At the slaughterhouse, Jane and her friends are so scared they won't get off the truck. They know what's coming. The're not stupid. the slaughterhouse workers then use cattle prods to force them into the facility where they will each wait for their turn on the killing floor. Once there, Jane will receive a captive bolt to the head. It's supposed to render her nerves inert but almost always the cows are killed fully feeling and conscious. She is then hung upside down on a large machine and a slaughterhouse worked slashes her throat and waits for her to bleed to death. After that, Jane is sent to be butchered, packaged and shipped to a store or restaurant. Jane experienced all of that so that we humans can enjoy the taste of cheese or steak. This is the worst holocaust that has ever happened. We slaughter 150 BILLION animals every year. Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet. Forget the lies and propaganda from the meat and dairy industry. They want money. They don't care about the animals. There is no excuse for this. Don't even get me started on the health and environmental damage from meat, dairy and eggs. http://www.adaptt.org......... Feel free to explore that site.


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Is milk truly beneficial for human health? The argument in favor says yes, while the opposing side says no. Milk is immensely healthy for individuals as it is a rich source of vitamin D.

I thank Con for extending the invitation to this debate. Opening Statement. I argue the Pro position, that humans ought to consume meat, as mankind is designed to subsist on an omnivorous diet. This diet includes the consumption of meat. How our teeth are developed is a clear indication of the omnivorous design of humans, as well as is our ability to digest and process meat into needed nutrition (1). I assume the debate begins in earnest in Round #2. 1 https://www.forbes.com...

True carbs are not bad for you, but having low fat and protein is bad for you. I was mainly putting blood fat into the list because it was a fact. True it depends on the fish, bit still you get Omega 3 anyways. It does not have anything to do vegetarianism. Also again depression, Alzheimer's disease, baby development and asthma have NOTHING to do with meat. I thought you count low brain function, constipation, diarrhea, pale skin... (In argument 1) as medical conditions. They are not diseases but they are bad medical conditions. There is one thing I agree with vegetarianism and that is they are good for a short time, if you want to lose weight. Another thing I have to say against vegetarianism is about the new lifestyle. Lets say you walk into a restaurant and it says they have steak with a lot of delicious spices. Well that would be mouth-watering, and if you are a vegetarian, you won't be able to eat it. Also at home you are going to have to abandon a lot of foods like sausages, steak, bacon, roast chicken, chicken nuggets, fish fingers, fish... Thanks for debating. A thing I'd like to say is that I'm only 11 years old, not 24. My mum allowed me to use it LOL. So if I made a lot of grammar mistakes that is probably the reason. Hehe but whatever thanks for debating.

Many thanks to Pro for presenting the opportunity to debate such a unique topic; this should be fun. Arguments as to why a Vegan lifestyle is perfectly moral. 1. Vegan lifespan vs. Meat Eaters Vegans, on average, tend to live longer than meat eaters by an average of 3.6 years. That's almost 4 more years to love your wife, hug your children, watch your grand kids grow. Almost 4 years on average to enjoy your life, and all I have to do is eat healthy? I'll take it. http://www.livestrong.com... 2. Being vegan is economical, healthy, environmentally friendly, helps prevent animal abuse, and far less wasteful than eating meat(contrary to what my opponent thinks). I have so many points on why a Vegan diet is moral, that I don't have enough characters to elaborate on each one, so I'll just leave these sources here in order of least to greatest, and let my opponent pick whichever ones he wishes to dispute. http://www.peta.org... http://www.vegansociety.com... http://www.rd.com... Rebuttals: I would like to bring to the audience's attention a quote from Pro: "Pro will argue that a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential. Con will argue that a vegan diet is moral by whatever paradigm he or she wishes." Based on Pro's own rule, he has to forfeit the points he made regarding market demand and waste by omission seeing as how it has nothing to do with "a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential." This leaves only one points for me to argue are his points on Vegan health, and the health of a vegan baby. 1. Vegans are malnourished.(false) My opponent made the claim that vegans, due to their diets, cannot naturally obtain complex proteins, zinc Vitamins A, D, B12 and are malnourished in comparison to those who eat meat. Evidence against that: The complete range of proteins can easily be obtained through a vegan diet from plant products such as nuts, legumes, grains, and vegetables: http://www.theholykale.com... Excellent sources of Zinc include peanuts, pumpkin & squash seeds, dark chocolate & cocoa powder, and toasted wheat germ: http://www.healthaliciousness.com... Vitamin A can be found in plenty of vegan foods. Carrots, sweet potatoes, cantaloupes, lettuce, and dark leafy greens are all very good sources of vitamin A. One could even make the argument the vegans probably get more of this vitamin than the general population: http://www.healthaliciousness.com... Vegans can't get Vitamin D?? Aren't mushrooms, spinach, and potatoes a good source of vitamin D?? Ha! Read it and weep: http://www.thirdage.com... But what about B12?? Where on Earth would a vegan ever find such things, wait a minute, let me check the Internet: http://www.vrg.org... 2. Vegan Diets put babies at risk(false) Everything a pregnant mother needs in order to have a healthy baby can be obtained through a vegan diet by making sure the diet contains a wide variety of plant based products: http://www.vrg.org...

Rebuttal for argument #1: Firstly, vegetarianism only encompasses the eating of meat, seafood, insects, and flesh of any other animal. Dairy, and eggs are only blocked out through what is known as a vegan diet, where any animal product is essentially avoided. As for the case of discrimination, the majority of restaurants out there now offer vegetarian options, and if you have friends out there who chose to discriminate against you for the choices you make in your diet, then they simply aren't your real friends. Moreover, we should not teach people to give up on their convictions because they are afraid of being made fun of and/or discriminated against . Any great person in history had someone over their shoulder telling them that they couldn't achieve what they wanted; Shakespeare, Jesus, Nelson Mandela, etc. We should be teaching people to push through with what they believe, and therefore the idea of not pursuing a vegetarian diet out of fear of discrimination is harmful to the way society is structured. In summary, if a person is being discriminated against, then we as a society have failed to implement proper moral values into the individuals discriminating. Besides, people can get discriminated against for anything; however, the idea of being made fun of for having different moral beliefs and/or health concerns is slightly ridiculous, and the individual that is causing said discrimination, is nothing more than a bully that should be stopped. In summary, discrimination should never be an issue when defining ones own lifestyle, and if it is, then the person being discriminated against should be supported, not told to abandon their beliefs. Rebuttal for argument #2: Malnutrition is technically caused by not eating enough food. Starvation is a form of malnutrition. In the United states alone, %67 of soy and %40 of corn produced goes towards raising animals for meat. In a ratio, that essentially means that 13 pounds of grains go into one pound EDIBLE meat. The reason that "edible" was capitalized is because not all meat produced in first world countries is edible. Think of it this way, millions of animals die before they reach slaughterhouses, and even if they are killed for their meat, there are constantly meat recalls occurring all over North America. So in those cases, grain is essentially being thrown away. And even when meat is produced, 12 pounds of grain is being lost, as again, the ratio is 13:1. PETA actually calculated last year that if the grain is diverted, we could end world hunger, and so, malnutrition wouldn't be an issue, if the meat trade was closed down. Furthermore, there are many studies that show that vegetarianism is very healthy. Not only are vegetarians less likely to contract certain kinds of cancer, but also have a decreased risk of being obese, becoming diabetic, and dying of heart diseases. Moreover, when it comes to children, teenagers, and the elderly, yes it is more difficult; however, it can still be done. Take Jim Morris as an example. Jim is a 78 year old vegan body-builder. Personally, I'm 16 years old, and have been vegetarian for nearly a year now. I'm very athletic, as shown by my black-belt, competitive swimming history, and finished multi-kilometer races. So although being a vegetarian and a teenager, elderly person, or child is more difficult, it certainly is not impossible. Rebuttal for argument #3: People who eat fish are not vegetarian, they are known as pescetarians. Also, the majority of vegetarians do not eat insects. Although it is a questionable debate among vegetarians, people who eat insects are a whole other category, and do not come under the banner of, "vegetarian." Furthermore, whether eggs can be considered meat is another debate; however, the eggs that are sold as a source of food are unfertilized. An unfertilized egg is essentially a chicken's period or menstruation, meaning that it isn't alive, part of anything that is alive, or have the potential to grow into life, nor does it have any flesh, and therefore, it cannot be considered meat. Thus, vegetarians are not hypocrites, as fish and insects are prohibited in the diet, and eggs are not biologically considered meat to begin with. Rebuttal for argument #4: Yes, food companies that raise and sell meat will crash; however, what people tend not to realize is that vegetarians need to consume more food than non-vegetarians. Where does said food come from? Well the fruit, vegetable and grain industry essentially. That means that although the meat industry will fall, the industries listed above will rise dramatically. This has the potential to open up huge amounts of jobs. Furthermore, people who work directly with animals are often exposed to a large amount of feces, bacteria, and methane, three things that can be extremely hazardous to a person's health. Thus, not only would there be other jobs opening if the meat industry closed, but these jobs would also be a lot safer for the workers. Thus, vegetarianism is an extremely positive lifestyle that can improve the world in many ways.

Thank you to Leekatya for what looks to be a promising and respectful debate. Good luck to you. I'd like to start out by stating my position on the subject of vegetarianism. While I certainly don't think it is bad, I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone who wants to (or does) include meat in their diets and believe that that position can be supported from both an ethical and health perspective. I will attempt to prove that an omnivorous diet is just as good, if not better than a vegetarian lifestyle. I will start by addressing some of Leekatya's comments and adding support for my position. "...most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians." Before commenting on this statement, I need you to provide me with reasons as to why you believe it is wrong in order that your concerns can be properly addressed. Are you talking from a health position or an ethical position? "According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease." I did google KEDEM, but did not find any results for vegetarian research. Perhaps you could supply a link for that? The information that did come up, however, seemed to contradict at least one of those points. According to a study done by the JAMA Internal Medicine, "Eating plant foods didn't seem to protect participants against cancer, which struck both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians in roughly equal measure." 1 As for diabetes and heart disease, when they are caused by dietary issues, it often stems from an imbalanced nutrition. Meat eating is not the primary cause of such diseases, but rather (and note the difference) *too much* meat can play a role. As with everything, moderation is the key. Just because someone eats more meat than is healthy for them and they get sick does not mean that the solution is to abstain from it entirely. "Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - "All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy." " An important point to mention here is that a primary concern of those who don't eat meat is health. *Which means that they are already aware and conscious of health issues in general*. It's like saying that someone who exercises is more likely to be healthy than someone who does not. Of course they are! When someone is proactively taking steps towards a specific goal, they will be more likely to achieve it than someone who does not. While people who exercise have a greater chance of being healthy, that does not by definition mean someone who does not exercise is not healthy. So too with vegetarianism. And proof of the fact that vegetarians are more conscious about a healthy lifestyle is the following statistic: "75 percent of vegans abstain from alcohol, as opposed to 8 percent of omnivores; 94 percent abstain from smoking, as opposed to 67 percent of omnivores; and 80 percent of vegetarians exercise in their free time compared to 70 percent of omnivores."2 (it is significant to note in those statistics that only about 5% of Americans identify as vegetarians. 3) All those factors, especially abstinence from smoking also contribute to being healthier in regards to disease. And once again, just to reiterate my point, the above simply means that vegetarians are more conscious about living a healthy lifestyle. It reflects a lifestyle but does not mean that the plant-eating itself is what causes one to be healthy. Though I personally have no problem with people being vegetarians, for the sake of completeness here is an argument concerning health issues in a vegetarian lifestyle: The lack of certain nutrients in plant-based foods requires many a vegetarian to take additional supplements such as omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, and vitamin D, just to name a few. If a vegetarian lifestyle was truly what we were intended to be living by, we would be able to source all the necessary nutrients in plants. In addition, studies have shown that there is a slightly lower bone mineral density in vegetarians as opposed to omnivores. 4 Thank you for taking the time to have this debate with me and I look forward to your response. Here are my sources, in order: 1) http://www.news-medical.net... 2) http://weanuhaske.wordpress.com... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org... 4) http://ajcn.nutrition.org...

If you would've read correctly, my topic states humans are not supposed to eat Pork or Beef. I never stated humans aren't supposed to eat meat, it's obvious that way back to Homo- erectus we have been eaters of meat. Eating Pork and beef are not on the natural dietary spectrum for mammals. my source https://www.sciencedaily.com... clearly states that mammals have eaten meat since the dawn of our genus. But it also states that it hasn't always been this way, as mammals, and also omnivores, pigs and cow were never on our direct source of nutrition. Early Homo Sapiens in East and South Africa eat fish, chicken, fruit, certain plants and also bison, but pork and beef were not everyday consumables. This is a modern day phenomenon, and it's obvious at the fact that it takes 3 days or 72 hours to digest pork and beef but only 2 hours for chicken and fish.

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...

i AcCepT. i DoNt KnOw WhO tHinKs CorN iS hEaLtHy bEcaUz iT is NoT. Is tHiS a QuEsTioN Or DeBaTe? tHe pRo iS a mOroNic IdIot. vOtE cOn. iCe CrEaM iS tHe MoSt HeLtHy aNd TaStY fOoOd beCuz it LoWeRs YoUr blOdOD pReSSSuUre aNd hAs No suGar. iT iS aWesoMe lIkE hOw gOoGlE iS eVil anD wIll TaKe oVeR tHe WoRlD! sOrCes: www.tinyurl.com/debateDDO

I apologize for the mishap in citation, upon inspection you'll notice 3 black periods after each source "..." this cut off the actual link, leading to the general website. This is undoubtedly a mistake caused by having to copy and paste my arguments after your FF. Actual citation is as follows; please feel free to verify: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.peta.org... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://modernfarmer.com... For the purpose of my rebuttal I will refer to my previous 6 sources as numerically cited and future sources will be cited as 7 & up. In citing your sources they will be referenced as [Con #] Given that my arguments have been legitimated, your comment "Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways." can be disregarded. I understand that this is a bit unfair to you given that you decided to arrogantly brush off my arguments and supply your own. You will now have the chance to refute my Round 2 argument. I recommend you actually read it this time, because there is clear evidence in your rebuttal you did not. Problematic Citation and Source Material: I apologize for the mishap in my Round 2 source material; however you'll find that everything is properly cited and credible. However in your entire argument you fail to properly cite anything you said. I have no idea which comment corresponds to which source; if this were an academic setting you would be charged with plagiarism. Your source material is also very questionable and contradictory, and some are irrelevant to the debate entirely. Because you did not openly disclose which arguments come from which sources I have to spend the majority of my rebuttal debunking your sources. I ask that you re-read my Round 1 post. Source [Con 1] enforces my position quote "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers." [Con 1] is describing SAD, in my position statement I clearly acknowledge that SAD is not relevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equal inherent unhealthiness. If over-consumption was a true indicator of inherent negative health affects the 8% of obese vegetarians you mention would show that over consuming vegetables causes the negative health effects associated with obesity. [Con 2] is problematic; the author is simply unqualified, her brief bio gives no indication of having a degree in anything, she is extremely biased and only provides one citation for her entire 15 point article. More importantly all of her points are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which as I've stated in Round 2 does not divert from meat being inherently unhealthy or immoral because there are healthy and moral ways of raising cattle [2][5][6][Con 8]. The findings of [Con 3] can also be refuted, Point 4 Source [1] quote "It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women. " This implies it is the process, not the meat that causes cancer. [Con 4] is 42 pages long, I only read the first page and found that it, like [Con 1], was critical of SAD for its health effects. This does not prove meat is inherently bad, fish for example is low in fat and has positive health effects [3]. Also [Con 4] says Chimps eat monkeys, if sentience is such an issue then why don't chimps respect the sentience of monkeys? (I'll address this in more detail later). [Con 5] is from PETA an organization well known for its bias against eating meat. Like [Con 2] the arguments are almost entirely based on factory farming, which again is irrelevant in the face of free range farming [5][6][Con 8]. [Con 6] is PETA India, it has the same bias and credibility as [Con 2]. Point 4 for example says that meat is bad because if you under cook it then you could get bird flu. Ok, by this logic vegetables are bad because if you don't clean them you could get E. Coli. As I said in the beginning of Round 2 "Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced." [Con 7] is my personal favorite. By citing this source you show how truly desperate you are to grasp at straws. This source made me understand why you did not disclose them in your debate, as it has no scientific value whatsoever, it simply bullet points propaganda without any evidence. Let's read some of the findings of SupremeMasterTV.com. Eating meat causes "Blue tongue disease", what is this? Oh right it's a disease that only affects livestock and not humans [7]. The other diseases are food borne illnesses from improper cooking. In your rebuttal you state "Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all." Meaning that those who drink milk and eat eggs along with vegetables have the best diet of all (this is not a vegan diet, in Round 1 you said you'd argue as a vegan). But Lo! [Con 7] says drinking milk is bad! It causes "Breast, prostate and testicular cancer from hormones present in milk; Listeria and Crohn's disease; Hormones and saturated fat lead to osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes and heart disease; Linked to higher incidences of multiple sclerosis." Still think drinking milk is cool? [Con 8] is written by the same author as [Con 4] and as such contains the exact same arguments. Also I don't think you actually read this article because the author lays out a plan for rational meat eating in the section "Toward Rational Meat Eating" so yea ... you're helping me with this one. [Con 9] I admit this article does seem legitimate and has sources. However this argument doesn't help you in the way you might think, it focuses on factory farming and it acknowledges meat can be environmentally friendly "Chicken is probably the best land animal to eat, certainly in terms of climate change impact. Fish have a low greenhouse gas impact but are being eaten in such large quantities that many are at risk of extinction." "Even limiting one's meat consumption to chicken yields major environmental benefits--not to mention health and financial benefits." So eating chicken yields health benefits ... Interesting. [Con 10] was about jacana birds being influenced by human scientists to commit infanticide. I don't see how this proves anything more than humans encouraged behavior that only humans would consider immoral. If anything this goes to show killing animals is not an issue of morality. For the sake of science (as suppose to survival) humans encouraged these birds kill each others babies. Are these scientists immoral for encouraging nature? Eating Meat Can be Healthy: For the bulk of this section please read Round 2. This section is for counter arguments. Given that none of your statistics are properly cited they can be seen as fiction. You clearly dramatize the negative health effects of meat, if meat was so bad then why would doctors recommend it as part of a balanced diet [2][3][8]? Quoting Con "Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues." Ah yes, Harvard disagrees quote "Environmental Protection Agency " calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer"but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. Second, levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are very low, similar to levels in meats, dairy products, and eggs. Third, more than 90 percent of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from such non-seafood sources, including meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables." [3] Morality of Meat: Appeal to Nature In Round 2 I specifically acknowledge the possible flaw in this argument "However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals." It"s important to note humans are animals, and as such comparison to other animals is legitimate (it's kind of how biology and anthropology work). You yourself make this a moral underpinning in Round 1 "" it is wrong to kill [animals], as it is wrong to kill humans." But why? What makes them like us? You argue mammals are sentient like us, they feel emotion like we do, so they should be spared. You think that just because chimps can love each as humans can love each other this somehow negates the fact that chimps are equally enthusiastic about killing lesser yet still sentient primates like monkeys [Con 4], humans eat monkeys too ya know. Because we can feel love somehow all mammals are entitled to our good graces. Even if I agreed with your pan-mammalism philosophy fish and chicken aren't mammals what claim to familiarity do they have? When it comes to rape and infanticide there are obvious pro-human arguments against it, if your only argument against eating mammals is 'well you wouldn't eat a human!' then I'm afraid the moral connection falls flat. New Citation: [7] https://www.princeton.edu... [8] http://www.mayoclinic.org...

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