Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

The notion of everyone transitioning to a vegetarian lifestyle is flawed and impractical. Unless my opponents have thoroughly considered the points I've raised, I've provided reasons to challenge their arguments. Given the absence of structured rounds, I'll proceed as follows, ensuring I haven't overlooked any arguments. C5) Vegetarian diets may alleviate menopause symptoms. This scenario suggests a benefit from consuming vegetarian foods, but it doesn't necessitate a vegetarian lifestyle. People can still consume vegetarian foods to manage menopause without fully embracing vegetarianism. The argument about "many foods containing nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women" excludes men, focusing on women. This doesn't apply to everyone in America, as the resolution pertains to the nation as a whole. This argument shouldn't factor into the debate since my definition specifies "America." C6) Energy levels won't necessarily increase. The claim that "too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won't open properly and that your muscles won't get enough oxygen" is misleading. Without protein, how can we develop muscles? Vegetables and plants lack the same amino acid profile as meat, making them less bioavailable. Protein deficiency leads to slower wound healing, unhealthy skin, difficulty in muscle tissue development, weakness, and digestive issues. While beans may be healthier short-term, they can't sustain human needs long-term, especially concerning Vitamin B12, crucial for health and only found in meat. C7 and C11) Vegetarianism won't reduce pollution or save the planet. Meat substitutes' production can be energy-intensive and highly processed. Livestock generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Discarding meat could worsen climate change and increase pollution. C8) Vegetarianism doesn't address famine. Extreme poverty and world hunger are complex issues unrelated to meat consumption. C9) Animal welfare doesn't justify vegetarianism. Overpopulation of animals would result if we ceased consumption. Animal rights aren't equivalent to human rights. The long-term human health consequences of a lack of protein and Vitamin B12 are more significant. C10) Vegetarianism doesn't save money. People can save money by reducing meat intake without going vegetarian. The argument's focus on choice is confusing. If it's a matter of preference, why force it on America? The right to choose one's diet is paramount. Meat consumption is a personal choice without legal repercussions. My stance is that enforcing vegetarianism is impractical and unnecessary, given the difficulties in implementation and the health risks associated with

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...

First link of yours didn't work. "I would end this by asking is it sustainable or moral that we grow more grain and sanitise more water for cattle than we do for ourselves. (humans)" Pro While the above may be true, would you mind proving an outside link? "The modern methods for producing cattle are swiftly destroying our natural environment." Pro You imply that one method of cattle raising is much more environmentally friendly than another. There are a multitude of indisputable facts evidencing this point. Which I will elaborate on further." Pro Do you care to elaborate now? Outside sources will increase the validity.

Your argument is, I believe, that eating meat is morally acceptable because you enjoy it. This is the most popular argument for eating meat, but I believe it is a flawed one. There are many things that some people, maybe even most people enjoy doing, that are morally wrong. Someone would not be justified in killing their neighbour because they enjoy killing people. Nor would someone be justified in eating a human infant because he thinks they taste good. Therefore, the argument that eating meat is morally acceptable because it tastes good is a bad argument. Meat is an excellent source of protein, as well as essential fats and other nutrients. However, eating meat is not the only way to acquire these nutrients. Therefore we have to morally justify that it is right to eat meat BEFORE we begin to talk about it's nutritional value. I ask you to prove that killing animals for food is morally justifiable. Cheers!

Whist I acknowledge all of the points you have made. In particularly the quote from wbur.org, let us not confuse the issue. I do not support veganism for the population, I believe meat is an important part of our diet, as it has been for as long as we have known. The environmental destruction I refer to is not just consolidated to species destruction, of course as you correctly surmised this is an important aspect however in this debate I seek to raise attention to deforestation, water contamination, over production, contamination and the imbalance in nature that extensive cattle rearing has on today's environment. Whilst it would be an amazing ideal for a cow to thrive in the desert and in turn create lush grassland from arid dry lands, the statistics do not support this ideal, as it stands the average cow in hot weather will consumer nearly 2 gallons of water per 100 pounds of body weight. A lactating cow requires nearly double this. If we consider this statistic, how is it sustainable for cows to turn arid desert into lush grassland when the main commodity they require other than grass is water. A commodity the desert lacks. Whilst I acknowledge some cows may survive in the desert, these animals would not meet the current high global demand for beef. The cattle in agribusiness today is a commodity and a high growth rate is required. To meet this requirement we must provide the cattle with excessive amounts of water and grain. A 'free range' desert cow would meet the requirements of agribusiness no more than tofu would satisfy the greatest carnivore. I propose that we continue eating meat, but we greatly reduce our consumption to say meat every other day in oppose to the meat 3 times a day we currently consume. I would end this by asking is it sustainable or moral that we grow more grain and sanitise more water for cattle than we do for ourselves. (humans) And at what cost to our resources? www.Beef.uni.edu/amountwatercowsdrink www.foodispower.org

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

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...

1. why is it bad for us and not for animals? I have an instinct to run, but I fight. Animals can not control themselves, but technically, we are in kingdom animilia. This means we are animals so we have a right. 2. Humans need meat for many reasons. Here is the things vegetarians are doing to themselves when they don't eat meat. B12 Because this vitamin is mainly found in meat, dairy products and eggs, vegans must get it from other sources such as supplements, fortified breakfast cereals and Marmite. Deficiency can lead to irreversible nervous system damage. Vitamin D Our skins make vitamin D when exposed to the sun's ultraviolet rays. But with desk-bound jobs, long winters and unpredictable weather, it is not always possible to get enough. Vitamin D is crucial for bone growth in children, and deficiency can result in rickets. Oily fish is one of the best dietary sources, but vegans can obtain it from fortified breakfast cereals and margarine. People living in Scotland may need to take greater care over vitamin D, as may people from cultures that require them to cover up. Calcium Found in dairy products, this is essential for strong bones. It is often lacking in a vegan diet unless taken as supplement. Iron Without sufficient iron, vegans and vegetarians can become anaemic. Deficiency can also delay growth in toddlers. Iron is commonly found in meat, but vegetarians can source iron from pulses and leafy green vegetables. Calories Although childhood obesity is an issue today, not enough calories can mean children don't grow properly. This can be a problem in high-fibre diets. Protein High-biological-value protein is found in meat, fish, eggs and dairy products. Low-biological-value protein is found in nuts, pulses and wholegrains. Separately, the latter don't contain all the essential amino acids, but do when combined correctly. Knowledge of which foods to mix together is therefore crucial. Minerals In addition to offering significant protein, meat provides a wide variety of minerals to support the optimal functioning of your cells and tissues. For instance, it is an important source of both iron and zinc. Iron helps carry oxygen to and throughout your tissues, while zinc is required for a strong immune system, wound healing and enzyme activity within your cells. The phosphorus content of meat helps keep your bones strong, the sulfur it contains can be incorporated into new amino acids and the chromium found in meat assists in metabolizing your dietary sugars. Vitamins A number of B vitamins are available from the meat you consume. Thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid and biotin help your cells extract energy from the foods you eat each day. Vitamin B-6 keeps your nervous and circulatory systems healthy, and it functions in both protein synthesis and protein metabolism. This vitamin also assists in the absorption of vitamin B-12, another vitamin essential for circulatory and nerve health, as well as energy production. Meat is an especially important source of vitamin B-12, because, unlike other B vitamins, B-12 is not found in any plant-based foods. Fats Although you need a limited supply of fats in your diet for good health, the saturated fats found in meat can be detrimental to your well-being. Consuming high levels of saturated fats can increase your risk of atherosclerosis, a condition in which plaque deposits form on the walls of your arteries, and can lead to heart disease. Taking in too many dietary fats, such as from fatty cuts of meat, can result in accumulation of fat stores in and around your organs, causing eventual organ damage. High fat intake can also lead to an increased risk of obesity and diabetes. Selecting lean cuts of meat and trimming off excess fat help minimize the harmful effects of meat while allowing you to benefit from its rich nutrient content. Supplements. We all know they are nothing like the real thing. we need meat. it supplies us with so much of the vital nutrients we need. 1. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com... 2. http://www.independent.co.uk... Ladies and gentleman, I have proved that: The human body needs meat

It is a nice break from most of the government-related (or theological) arguments that seem to be predominant. Don't get me wrong, those debates are great. But every once in a while, we must have a break from the monotony of repetitive resolutions. I will be representing Con in this argument. I stand resolved that: Eating meat is NOT unethical. First I believe we should establish an imperative definition in this debate round. This is the definition of the word "ethical". Ethical, as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary, is: 1- of or relating to ethics <ethical theories> 2- involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval<ethical judgments> 3- conforming to accepted standards of conduct <ethicalbehavior> 4- of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor's prescriptionI propose we use defintion 3. "Conforming to accepted standards of conduct" If the Pro would like to use a different definition, I encourage him to provide it and a reason why it is more accurate to this round than mine. I will be running three different main arguments. C1: Animals eat as they are designed to do. Humans should, too. First, other creatures perform and diet as they are created to do. Our physical build implies that we, as humans, should consume meat. True, just because we have capabilities to do things, we shouldn't necessarily do them. However, as far as diets are concerned, there is not a single mammal that is not designed to eat what it doe, in fact, eat. C2: Eating meat is ethical because it is accepted in society. Society defines what is "ethical" and what is not. If we are to be looking at whether or not meat eating is truly ethical, then we have to follow the definition. I truly hope for a great debate round, and eagerly await your response.

:). 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.

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


Question: Should Individuals Opt for a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Adopting a vegetarian lifestyle

While it's often argued that a vegetarian diet is healthier, it's equally important to maintain a balanced diet that includes a variety of nutrients, which can be achieved through a combination of meat and plant-based products.

Thanks very much to Pro for his/her consideration! ---Cost/BenefitIn Pro's summary, s/he clarifies that her/his position is to lower 99% of livestock farming, and challenges me to provide reasons for removing the extra 1%. I will gladly do so. However, I first want to point out that in conceding that 99% of livestock slaughter should be stopped, Pro is effectively conceding the entire debate. By removinh 99% of the livestock farming, any "benefits" of livestock farming would be reduced by 99%. The only two benefits that Pro has managed to argue for are health and increase of life. By conceding that 99% of farming should be removed, the health and life "benefits" are cut by 99%. In fact, by proposing that absence of 99% of livestock farming is good, Pro is essentially conceding to the calculous of absence of livestock farming being better than livestock farming. The fact is, the last 1% isn't special. Consider that Pro has conceded that the benefits of 99% is better than 100%, that 98% is better than 99%, and so on. Essentially, the harms of each percentage of livestock slaughter is worse than no livestock slaughtering. Thus, it is the same for each percentage, whether it be the difference between 86% and 85% or 1% and 0%. For example, each 1% of livestock farm contributes to .25% of greenhouse gases. Pro agrees that reducing livestock farming by 1% ninty-nine times. Why not 100 times? The fact is, removing livestock farming is the easiest way to fight global warming there is. Global warming will still be a problem when the livestock farming is removed, however. Why hang on to a slight bit of livestock slaughter when removing it altogether would be more beneficial? If removing livestock farming is the best solution to livestock farming, then it only makes sense to remove it all the way. GameGame animals are free until capture and following death, and not made into livestock, who are slaves. Game are wild animals; they do not live in captivity. Game animals could be used to feed endangered species. PollutionPro makes that plant farming is as bad as livestock farming in terms of pollution. To avoid new points, I'll concede this. ---Pro's alternativesPro does not say how much livestock slaughter will contain insects. However, it seems her/his plan will include some large animals because part of his solution to environmental problems is bush feeding, which would not benefit large animals. Furthermore, Pro does not say any unique benefits in either heath or environmental impact with insects over current livestock, so we have to assume that they are the same or worse in this regard. Furthermore, insects are hardly a profitable business. Pro gave no evidence for their being sellable. Insects are everywhere in America. Spending vast amounts of money to kill insects and not sell them is pointless slaughter and a waste of money. There are no advantages for this in terms of health, life, or money. HealthPro also claims to reduce meat consumption in people's diets by 99%. However, that is not necessarily the case. Reducing slaughtering would only raise the prices of meat. Thus, a different demographic would be able to obtain large amounts of meat in their diet--this meat would not be distributed evenly. Thus, all of the health problems that exist in the status quo would occur. I previously showed how meat consumption is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and making tens of millions sick. Reducing these numbers by 99% would still cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to be sick and thousands to die. Whereas continuing to kill animals kills thousands of Americans, not doing so will allow them to live. Pro gives NO health benefits for eating meat, since vegetarian diets provide more nutrients and less deaths and diseases. Thus, I have already won that it would be a better world. Obviously, the statistics from vegetarians show that our bodies are indeed very able to handle being vegetarian. The diseases would not be eliminated by making the conditions less cramped, even if reduced. Pro gives no mention of where the money for these changes would come from. ---Global Warming/BreedingCurrently livestock farms cause certain species to have greater numbers than are natural, so that more meat may be produced. Notice that this is not mercy--they simply want more slaves to render into meat through their deaths. The quantity and quality of live is unnatural in these environments. Currently, they are bred without their concent through a probe being stuck in the females reproductive organs [21]. It is these unnatural quantity of slaves that is causing global warming. Pro immidiately jumped to the conclusion that I want them all killed to stop global warming. Again, I am shocked at my opponent. I advocate simply allowing these animals to live out their natural lives and allow fewer to breed (through their own choice, not sexual violence). Their numbers would reduce to natural quantities, and they would eventually be able to return to the wild.25% of greenhouse gases would be reduced. This is an amazing offer! More greenhouse gases would be reduced by ending livestock slavery than by stopping all of transportation. Pro says to keep 1%, but gives no reason to stop there. There are many reasons not to, including reducing the greenhouse gases from that 1% and improving health. [21] . http://www-naweb.iaea.org...--- "Grey area"Pro essentially says what I was planning to argue. The fact is the life is not black and white, but grey. For example, it would be silly to suppose that only one type of animal deserves not to be senselessly killed, while all others are mere objects. The fact is other animals besides humans are capable of thinking and feeling and making rational decisions. Pro concedes this point. Pro rebuts that plants may also deserve moral consideration, and are essentially the same as animals. Because humans are a type of animal, Pro is saying that plants are the same as humans, which is a strange argument to make. Of course, if plants were found to be sentiant they certainly ought to be afforded moral consideration and not be slaughtered. However, Pro gave no evidence that the plants that humans eat are sentient. Even if that were the case, not slaughtering plants is not the debate we are having. Still, I think it is strange that Pro sees plants and animals as being the same, despite having different Kingdoms, while humans and nonhuman animals that share the same Kingdom, phylum, class, order, and family are seen as immesurably different. Pro claims that the livestock animals would do the same to humans, but none of the livestock are predators to humans--only herbavores, granavores, and insectavores. Fellow animals are being senselessly slaughtered. They are enslaved and killed young for no reason. There is no justice in that. There is also no logic--the meat that the humans consume is tainted with fats and diseases that are killing the humans. The livestock process is creating greenhouse gases that are killing us all. SummaryVoters are required to look at which possible world is preferable on weighing their impacts. Pro gave no benefits for keeping livestock slaughtering at 1%, while not slaughtering livestock animals saves human and nonhuman lives, and prevents global warming.

Even though I am the Pro, the Con is technically advocating that Animals should not be eaten or tested on, meaning she is PRO animal rights. I am also Pro animal rights, but i sleep well at night knowing we can eat animals and that we use them for tests. Reasons for the consumption of meat and for testing on animals Consumption: 1 - Meat can be healthy 2 - It is natural 3 - It is usually humane Testing on animals 1 - Saves lives 2 - Not all tests put the animal's life at risk 3 - Testing on animals can help other animals be healthier 1A) Meat is high in protein, and it is even recommended to have meat or fish servings in one's diet. The proteins are packed with amino acids necessary for any life form to function, and even though you can get these elsewhere, you need to eat a low of extra stuff just to match the quantity of protein you can find in meats. Some meats can be bad for you but not all meat is bad, and so since meat can be healthy, it shouldnt be banned. http://www.livestrong.com... 1B) Animals eating other animals is natural, its been like that far before humans ever walked the Earth, and unless a catastrophe of epic proportions wipes out all life forms, animals will still eat other animals long after humans are gone... What is natural in most cases is acceptable, and shouldnt be outlawed. 1C) When humans eat animals, the animals are usually humanely killed before being processed, excessive torture is frowned upon, outlawed, and those who do treat them poorly are often prevented from continuing to continue. Humans have the means to humanely kill other animals to consume, and no other animal has the means of doing that or even the will to. Humans eating animals is taking something that is already natural, and making it more humane. 2A) Testing on animals saves lives, its as simple as that. It could come as testing vaccines, it can come as actual parts that are integrated into a human (transplants can work across species), and it flat out saves people. Coal miners would often bring canary's down into the mines and if the canary died, it was because there was an unsafely high amount of dust in the air that could make a single spark into an explosion, killing dozens of miners. Vaccines developed from animal testing has helped treat what were debilitating diseases completely treatable and even preventable. http://www.mofed.org... http://www.farmanddairy.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2B) Not all testing puts an animals life at risk, People use animals to test new kinds of pet foods, to test cognitive abilities to humans, to point out similarities in humans and animals organ systems, etc. If you want to ban animal testing solely on the grounds that it kills animals, then you would only be banning about 10% of animal testing. For a science project I used a hamster as a test animal, I put the little thing in a cardboard maze, a hunk of cheese on the other side, and I recorded the results. Every time the animal was in no danger and 33% of the time he even got a nice hunk of cheese out of the experiment. 2C) Testing on animals can help save the lives of other animals. Animals arent tested on just to make vaccines for humans, they are often tested to find vaccines to fight diseases in other animals as well, such as apes, rhinos, elephants, chimps, etc. http://www.caller.com...

Thank you for accepting. :)Let's begin.Ecological ConcernsIn 2006, the United Nations calculated that the total climate-change emissions of animals bred for meat was 18% of the global total; this is more than cars, planes, and all other transportation combined. Besides greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide, cows and pigs produce many other polluting gases.It takes 108 pounds of water to produce one pound of wheat. It takes a pound of beef around 20,000 pounds of water. Farming uses 70% of the water available to humans.The majority of plant food grown on farms is used as animal feed. It takes 8.4 kilograms of plant-food to produce 1 kg of pork. The 7 billion livestock animals in the US consume 5 times as much grain as the entire population directly consumes. A Cornell analysis states: "Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein,""Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption. About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from grains and 15 million tons from forage crops. For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein.""If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,""More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.""On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. . . . Grain production, on average, requires 3.3 kcal of fossil fuel for every kcal of protein produced."So, by producing meat, the population loses a vast majority of protein. In addition, the amount of energy and land used is far greater than that of plant food. On top of this, the soil erosion and greenhouse gases produced by raising livestock makes it far less sustainable than plant foods.All these facts are from:http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://www.news.cornell.edu...Animal RightsThe first thing to address here is the most basic question, "why should we care about the plight of the animals involved?" Ok, that's valid. After all we're humans, we have to look out for our own species first. However, we are the most intelligent of animals (probably), so we can examine ourselves and other species logically. Modern science concludes that humans evolved from other animals, specifically apes. Since we evolved from these creatures, they are basically distant relatives (of course, plants are much more distant relatives). Coming from the same ancestors, we have many similarities to other animals, especially mammals. The DNA of the chimpanzee is 98% identical to that of humans. Of course, not many of us eat chimpanzees. The cow's (Bos taurus) DNA is 80% similar. (Source 1) On the other hand, we share 15% with a rice plant. (Source 2) So what does this similarity mean? This brings us to animal intelligence. A dog, for instance, is thought to hold an intelligence that measures up to a 2 to 2.5 year old human. (Source 3) Pigs are thought to be more intelligent. Some apes are able to communicate with humans via simple sign language. Some chimpanzees have been found to perform some intellectual tasks better than humans. (Source 4) This isn't to say they are more intelligent than humans, it's just a testament to the fact they are somewhat intelligent.It is the widely accepted by scientists that an animal's brain complexity is directly linked to their ability to feel pain and suffering. The Discovery Channel stated, "Psychologist B.F. Skinner proved that animals feel pain in a clinical test in which animals were shocked with electrical current as they approached their food." (Source 5) A recent study indicates that even crabs feel pain. (Source 6)Ok, so we've established animals are somewhat intelligent and can feel pain (similarly to that of a young child). Now, does the meat industry cause suffering to the animals used?Well, take a look. A pig's natural lifespan is 15 years, pigs are generally killed for pork at 6 months of age. Male pigs are usually castrated without anesthetic. They often have their tails removed and teeth clipped. Many pigs die in the bad conditions of transit. (Source 7)In 2010, 62 billion animals died for American food. Here's the ones that made it to the slaughterhouse:23,627,000 ducks35,330,800 cattle110,367,000 pigs242,619,000 turkeys8,790,478,000 chickens7.3 billion fish12 billion shellfishIn 2010, the average meat-eater's diet is responsible for 207 animal deaths. At that rate, it is around 16,000 animals over the course of a person's lifespan. (all from source 8)Human ConsumptionThe above arguments must be balanced with this. How is meat useful to humans? Humans are, after all, naturally omnivores. However, there is much research that indicates humans lived almost solely on plant matter as recently as 10,000 years ago. (Source 9 and 10) This isn't to say they were strict vegetarians, like the great apes, they very occasionally ate meat. However, it is likely that humans ate much less meat than they do today.Probably the hardest arguments about vegetarianism is health. Can you be healthy without eating meat? Well, apparently, vegetarians live on average 8 years longer than regular meat-eaters (this is comparable to the difference between smokers and non-smokers). (Source 11) The protein and vitamins of meat can be derived from vegetable sources, except without the cholesterol and fat. That's not to say that all vegetarians lead a healthy diet, if they replace meat with high-fat dairy, it does little good. But, on the whole, vegetarians live longer.ConclusionToday, we live in a society where it is possible (and beneficial) to choose a vegetarian diet. Perhaps in some parts of the world, eating meat may impact health or survival. But if you aren't in poverty, you don't need to sacrifice health to abstain from meat. Therefore, for us, eating meat is a choice of leisure, rather than need. A vegetarian diet greatly lessens our ecological impact and decreases the food we need to produce. A vegetarian diet undoubtedly lessens the hardship on animals as well as other human beings. I would call that more ethical.Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. -- Albert Einstein.Sources1. http://www.sciencemag.org...2. http://eugenes.org...3. http://www.sciencedaily.com...4. http://www.nature.com...5. http://curiosity.discovery.com...6. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com...7. http://www.chooseveg.com...8. http://animaldeathcount.blogspot.com...9. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...11. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

<> I accept your definition of "animal". < question: Could you kill an animal to eat? >> Yes I can. I have done it many times as I hunt duck, deer, quail, dove, pheasant, hog, and geese. I also fish quite often, both freshwater and saltwater. < (www. youtube. com/watch? v=bJfXami4haU)>> That video, unfortunately, is true and it's terrible. However, not all food is grown in conditions like that, as they follow the rules and regulations for raising livestock. Seen at the following link: (. http://www.bffairrodeo.com...) 10. All exhibitors shall furnish necessary feed, grain, troughs, and water buckets for their animals & arrange for their care. Bedding will be furnished by the fair. 11. Entries limited to space available. 12. For livestock limits, see individual departments. 13. Exhibitors must keep their animals, barn area and grooming area clean or premium monies will be forfeited. 17. Exhibitors found to be using abusive practices and/or drugs on animals will be banned permanently from the fair. The fair will notify all fairs in Washington State of its decision. 5. Fair veterinarians will inspect all classes of livestock and poultry before they are exhibited to determine that the livestock and poultry show no clinical indications of contagious infectious disease and ectoparasites. 6. Fair veterinarians will reject any animal with infectious or contagious disease or ectoparasites. Exhibitors should be made aware that ringworm, warts, pink-eye, strangles, contagious ecthyma, scabies, lice, mites, ticks, and fleas fall into these categories. As you can see, what you saw in those videos was not always legal. Which means that we already are trying to stop atrocities such as that. If everyone followed the law, then those animals wouldn't be in those situations. Farmers and ranchers are required to keep their livestock in good health, well fed, and in sanitary conditions so to say that the majority are (as you seem to be inferring) being maltreated is not true. To save characters I will simply answer my opponent's points on her numbers, not quote them. >The Environment 1. However, the US also has to import agricultural crops as they do not make enough locally. So it takes about 127 calories of aviation fuel to bring 1 calorie of lettuce from the UK to here, 97 calories of aviation fuel to take 1 calorie of asparagus from Chile, and 66 calories of aviation fuel are consumed for every 1 calorie of carrot from South Africa. (. http://www.energybulletin.net...). Also, plants take up carbon dioxide in the air and reduce greenhouse gases. This means that as a vegetarian, you are destroying what is fixing our planet, while if you eat more animals you will be trimming down the root of the greenhouse gases. 2. Give me a non-biased link for this please. 3. Some of these grains, corn, and beans are grown specifically for livestock purposes. If there was no more livestock, a significant portion of farmers who use to sell food to the livestock would have a hole in their pockets. Efficiency is not an issue here, as humans are the number one priority for making food. This means that if the food amount started to get low then (assuming your statistics are true) livestock would become less profitable and crops would start to be grown instead. 4. If everyone was a vegetarian then more land would have to be cleared for crops. Crops aren't as good as holding soil as the previous vegetation of grasses, shrubs, and trees. The crops will also suck up the nutrients faster and over a couple years the productivity of the land would severely decrease. The farmers would then move on to the next land leaving a bare and desolate area behind. You can see proof of this in Africa with desertification and with the destruction of rain forests in South America. 5. The two major causes of losing the rainforests are poor farmers and corporations. Poor farmers need it to feed their families, but the corporations only for their own greed. These corporations constitute of both ranchers and farmers, depending on what part of the rainforest is being taken. Some areas are best for livestock and are used as such, yet others are used for crops. If either livestock or crops were to suddenly disappear, then the land would just be taken up by the other. This means that getting rid of livestock for crops would not decrease rainforest destruction. >Personal Health 6. I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plants, I believed a balanced diet is required for the upmost efficiency of one's health. 7. The only fat that is actually bad for you is transfat which is made artificially from humans. All other fats are simply stored calories. So to put it simply, the amount of fat you take in doesn't matter, only the amount of calories. The human body needs cholesterol to survive. "Cholesterol, a waxy substance produced by the liver and found in certain foods, is needed to make vitamin D and some hormones, build cell walls, and create bile salts that help you digest fat. " Although your body makes enough of cholesterol on its own having a little extra wont' kill you. It's like dessert, it's good in small quantities and okay to eat as long as you keep it under control. In fact, fats are required to live (. http://www.visionlearning.com...). 8. Once again, the balanced diet is more efficient for fat and protein intake. 9. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat it. Should we stop eating ice cream? People should be allowed to eat what they think tastes good as long as it doesn't interfere with the morality of society. Besides, meat contains many other essential vitamins "One way or another your body has to have protein, iron, calcium, enzymes, Vitamin B12 and amino acids every day. " Meat is the only substance that has ALL of these substances readily available for easy digestion (. http://www.powerofmeat.com...). 10. True, but many types of pesticides and other chemicals are used on plants to protect them that aren't used on animals. 11. Please post a link so I know what you're specifically talking about. I'm not going to look up your information for you. 12. Most bacteria and viruses are destroyed when cooked. So as long as your not eating your meat raw you should be okay. 13. Meat stays fresh for a long time as long as it's kept cool. 14. As do many diseases in animals. They will start to act sick, have diarrhea, and other symptoms of the specific disease. 15. Link please. 16. This is a gross overstatement by the media to sell their stories. It is much more likely for cancer to be caused by genetics, obesity, and physical inactivity. Plus "In fact, he says, the polyunsaturated fatty acids or PUFAs in vegetable seed oils are the bane of human health — they actually cause cancer, diabetes, obesity, aging, thrombosis, arthritis, and immunodeficiencies. Their only appropriate use, he says, is as ingredients in paints and varnishes. " Soy beans are also believed to make carcinogenic substances when cooked. (. http://www.newtreatments.org...) 17. Only with improper care and illegal activity such as selling meat taken from a sick animal. >Personal Finances 18. Most vegetarians cook their foods and use vegatable oil to cook it which is extremely unhealthy. They also have a fat deficiency where the only fats they do get are unhealthy poly-unsaturated (vegetable) fats. 19. They cost less because the food is smaller in quantity and calories. >Ethics 20. I love animals as well, in fact, I hope to become a veterarinarian. Not enough characters left, I will continue on your list in the next round.

VaguenessI do not believe I have been vague in my previous statement, I believe I have been very clear. We are arguing over two possible worlds, one with "Livestock" slaughter and one without. I think Con is confusing vagueness with choice, I propose that a world with a variety of methods and food sources is preferred to one with limited choice. I cannot see any point made within my arguments where "shrub and insect alternatives seem mutually exclusive" I request Con to clarify what aspects of these they are referring to as being unable to co-exist.Theme 1: ChoiceFrom Con's statements, there seems to be no consideration to the impact on people that do not want this world. I am not arguing, solely on the basis of peoples opinions but on the impact this change would have. A world that involves limiting what people can or cannot do involves a restriction in free choice. I asked for clarification of "ought to" for a reason, it is subjective and provides no clear ground for debate.The reason I brought in government enforcement goes back to the fact that even if the majority of people chose not to eat meat there would still be some that wanted to. If not by government enforcement how would this world come to fruition?Theme 2: Health Evolution Con has simply dismissed by arguments without providing any rebuttales Our bodies are not designed for a purely vegetarian diet, It is difficult to get all the beutriants we need from a vegetrain diet due to this. Heart failure/diseaseCon claims I have not given methods for reducing the Diseases yet I did provide two and gave links. My argument around "livestock" diseases being caused by cramped conditions were clearly stated. The solution is clearly to reduce the cramped conditions and this would easily be achieved with a reduction in meat consumption. Diseases cannot be eliminated only reduced, so we are talking about two different worlds, both containing diseases. If we had more pressure on the amount of plant based food we had to produce, there would be an increase in the amount of diseases from these food sources, as shown by the same reference. Disease is caused by population density not by the consumption of meat whether the population be plants or animals.To quote con, "Significantly reducing this will save hundreds of thousands of lives" I agree completely, however, eliminating it will have no benefit above this.NutrientsCon has not provided any evidence showing a vegetarian diet has a better nutritional content to that of a largely vegetarian diet. Con also has not address my points around the increase difficulty in achieving a balance diet when solely consuming non-meat products. Con also has not address my point that the majority of people fail to choose a balanced diet while we have more choice and that in limiting the choice this would actually worsen.Theme 3: EnvironmentGlobal WarmingAll animals produce CO2 whether farmed or not, so by Con's arguments we should kill all the animals on the planet including humans. Con has provided much the same argument as they have previous and not provided any details of how completely stopping livestock farming will be better than massively reducing it. Again elimination of livestock farming would not stop methane and CO2 production just reduce it, so why is this beneficial over reducing the impact of livestock farming and the scale of livestock farming.http://www.agr.gc.ca...PollutionTo address the point raised by con, I give you a breakdown of fertilizers currently used to grow crops to levels currently in demand. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu... Nitrate and ammonia pollution would only rise with crop farming increasing.From link originally supplied by con with regards to pollution http://www.nrdc.org...All the issues here can be linked to one of the following, population density, poor livestock management, isolated incidents. These kind of issues are not isolated to livestock farming either http://www.huffingtonpost.com...BiodiversityImpact caused by scale, all human activity has impact on these thing, stopping livestock farming does not stop the impact, reducing livestock reduces the impact. Game meat deliberately kept for feeding to endangered species would be livestock being slaughtered.Theme 4: "Livestock"I did not say we should ignore them but I request some sort of proposition as to how what you suggest animal voting would be achieved. Give animals a vote and they would vote to kill their predators and competitors in order to improve their own survivability. Death Slaves The meat industry seeks to sell meat not death, death is just inevitable in the process. The meat industry does not reduce life, I take you back to the 8.6 billion chickens, 239 million turkeys, 113 million pigs, and 33 million cows you mentioned, these animals would not exist if not for livestock farming,And again I ask you to tell me what would happen to these animals in a world without livestock farming? "Life in the industry thus becomes merely a means to more death" - All life is followed by death Bad Faith Claims There are methods for killing livestock do not involve pain. Rationality within animals effects this discussion how? We do not consume animals solely based on their intelligence levels but based on sustinance. Animals with the power to do so kill for the benefit of their species. (in particular mammals, group survival is a relatively recent concept in terms of evolution) If the animal within it's mind feels as free as it does in the wild, or even more due to the lack of predators, then where is the sufforage? All mammals have social structures of some form or another, I fail to see the bearing. The majority of these arguments could equally be applied to plant life and I request that Con provides good reason for killing plants over killing other lifeforms. All animals eat other living this, most living things consume other living things, why draw the line at the point that you have given, the plant/animal border? Where would the following fit in your world?http://www.livescience.com...http://news.discovery.com...http://www.sciencedaily.com... The universe operates on a grey scale while we try to make everything black and white, considering we have yet to define life itself, I don't see how we can make a clear distinction between killing of plants or animals. SummaryEverything Con has argued could be achieved by a reduction in meat consumption and an improvement in methods used. If we were to reduce meat consumption by 99% all of the issue rasied by Con would be reduced to a point where the were negligable, although at the same time the impact from crop farming would rise. With the complete removal of livestock farming. I ask Con to provide reason to go that extra 1%. I see a world with reduced meat consumption as a better world to one without it.

Ok, Sorry for putting God into this debate. I had gone back to the bible and it surely didn't say anything about human eating livestock. The reason we should eat cows is simply because we need to eat it. We have a natural appeal towards meat. The reason we don't feel guilty and sympathy is because they are livestock. Cows are way dumber than dogs and elephant and they don't have self awareness. Human consume beef because they are born to be eaten by human. That is their life purpose.

“"My opponent has committed the non-sequitor that if it should be considered to kill animals for their meat, that the farmers will lose their land and that they have to get rid of their cows." When my opponent speaks of committing a non-sequitor he has clearly done the same thing for an entire two paragraphs in which he states that suffering as well as animal suffering is "bad". I have experienced first-hand with my personal exposure to agriculture, that cattle do no suffer when they die. They are shot and instantly killed with no pain.” Before I address the latter part of my opponent’s argument here, I would like to highlight that he has not addressed the criticism here, rather using the logical fallacy of ‘tu quoque’ to say that I have also committed the non-sequitor. This does not excuse his own logical fallacy, even if I have committed one. Furthermore, my opponent has straw-manned my argument in that he suggests my argument said that suffering was bad, therefore animals shouldn’t be killed for their meat. Clearly, I made an argument against the imposition of killing animals, which is a required part of my argument – it is the combined suffering and imposition that make it immoral. “I know that a carnivorous, starving sentient animal would without a doubt kill a human. So what is stopping us from doing the same? Did we give that wild dog permission to kill us and eat us?” This is not moral philosophy. This is simply: ‘he did it to me first! I should have every right to do it to him!’ “I would find it extremely immoral if we killed sentient animals and not utilized as many body parts as we could like we do so today.” Obviously, you would have to kill them in the first place in order to make use of their body parts. However, if you killed them to save them the burden of having to live in agonising pain, and then made use of their body parts, this would be moral. It’s simply that you can’t kill them for their body parts – the intention makes it immoral. From round 3… “1.Become overpopulated.” How will they become over-populated if they are not allowed to breed? “"The government of the country could help subsidies the cattle’s existence, and the cattle can be stopped from reproducing so that the problem does not become permanent." This sounds extremely immoral from my stance. Not being from a rural area you do not understand that a mass operation such as this would be extremely difficult. A cow is not going to stand still while it is made sterile. Take it from personal experience.” Extremely difficult =/= immoral. You consistently argue differing levels to which my argument is difficult to enact, when this isn’t all that relevant to a moral debate. “This is how slavery and raising cattle is different. We do not make cattle do work, we feed them regularly and keep them healthy, move them to different areas so they do not overgraze…” You missed the point. The point is that both were considered ethical at one point, but this doesn’t make either of them moral. You appealed to popularity, so I showed why the popular thing isn’t always the moral thing. “I have pointed out how it is immoral to take away what an entire family's life has revolved around for hundreds of years.” They are doing the wrong thing in the first place. If someone had a black-market industry of selling pre-teen prostitutes and super-hardcore drugs, that had existed for more than 100 years, it would obviously be the right thing to abolish the awful business, despite the livelihood being generated from it and whatnot. “I have also pointed out that it is immoral to simply keep cattle from reproducing.” I would like to borrow David Benatar’s Asymmetry for a quick response. (1) If a person exists, then his/her pain is a bad thing. (2) If a person exists, then his/her pleasure is a good thing. (3) What does not exist cannot suffer (therefore this non-existing pain is a good thing). (4) What does not exist cannot be deprived of any pleasure (therefore this non-existing pleasure is not a bad thing). Therefore, it is immoral to reproduce, given that not bringing sentient animals into existence should be preferred; therefore, it is not immoral to stop cattle from reproducing. Besides, my opponent no convincing reasoning as to why it is immoral to stop animals from reproducing. “1. That I gave all possible scenarios not just for animals being shipped into the wild, I also gave examples of what would happen if they were taken care of.” You continue to address the difficulty of stopping the mass slaughtering of cattle, when the moral aspect is far more relevant in a debate on morals. Even if it would be very difficult to deal with the cattle, it would still be the moral thing to cease slaughtering them for their meat, let alone preventing it on a mass scale. “2. My opponent has also failed to address the face that even will government funding no amount of money will keep these cattle from overgrazing. Even if this would happen isn't our government in enough debt where as they shouldn't have to keep cattle alive with no benefit whatsoever to the American people or themselves. It sounds immoral to fund a cause with no return profit.” Again, this is another argument against the difficulty of it, and you wonder why I didn’t bother addressing either of these. If you want to argue against the difficulty of implementing something moral, go do so away from a debate about the morality of harming animals. “3.My opponent has again failed to address how it is morally right to let an animal die painfully by natural causes instead of being kept in a safe environment and being peacefully killed when it reaches it's mature age.” From what you suggested, the imposition on life would be immoral (i.e. breeding cattle so that we can eat them). It wouldn’t be moral to knowingly let an animal die painfully; when did I ever argue the opposite? I haven’t yet addressed these arguments because they are either an appeal to difficulty (rather than morality), or a straw-man of my position. “My opponent has also spoke of an alternative method to get protein called "In vitro meat." He has failed to cite any sources for this so called vitro meat so I will cite. This method also is extremely costly to produce and we won't see it for another decade. So how do we get our protein for an entire ten years…” I couldn’t find any credible sources on In Vitro Meat (and nor has my opponent in quoting Wikipedia), so I will drop this argument . However, my opponent assumes that protein can only come from meat products. This is simply not true. Tofu is extremely rich in protein. Conclusion My opponent continues to centre his argument on the difficulty of stopping the slaughtering of animals for their meat, rather than the moral aspect. As this is the case, a lot of his argument has seriously diminished value in a debate about the morality of killing animals for their meat. Again: difficult =/= immoral. In the few places that he does address my moral framework, he either straw-mans it or misses the point. For example, he concludes that [according to me], “All that matters is suffering is bad. Even though livestock is killed peacefully.” There is a section I wrote that is headed with the title: Killing animals is morally wrong,which involves explaining how killing animals for their meat is morally wrong, even if they don’t suffer. This is, once again, an example of another straw-man.

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.

Everyone being vegan is not going to create a better society, it would just exacarbate a food shortage that is killing people around the world. 7 billion people need to be fed, and more are being created every day. Being vegan is a luxury and wouldn't solve any problems at all. I don't understand why you say that "the world would a much more loving place" when, really, being vegan is not going to make people more loving. In my opinion, you aren't thinking about experiences beyond your own, where eating meat is how people survive.

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


Question: Should Individuals Opt for a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

One doesn't need to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle to be a devoted environmental advocate. Notable instances of environmentalist carnivores encompass figures like Theodore Roosevelt and Native American tribes. These environmentally conscious meat consumers honor the origin of their meat, the creature it once was, and strive to maintain a sustainable ecological equilibrium. As long as you adhere to these values, there is no inconsistency between consuming meat and being an environmentalist.

Everyone being vegan is not going to create a better society, it would just exacarbate a food shortage that is killing people around the world. 7 billion people need to be fed, and more are being created every day. Being vegan is a luxury and wouldn't solve any problems at all. I don't understand why you say that "the world would a much more loving place" when, really, being vegan is not going to make people more loving. In my opinion, you aren't thinking about experiences beyond your own, where eating meat is how people survive.

For more than 2 million years, humans have been primarily meat eaters. Our bodies are designed for it. We have our incisors and molars that are designed for eating meat. It helps keep blood sugar levels steady due to its fat and high protein content. There are no proven health benefits to not eating meat. While I do feel as if a vegetarian or vegan diet can be good for you, I have been eating both pork and beef my entire life and I have had no health problems. We have enzymes in our intestinal tract specifically to digest meat, and meat helps us grow. Larger brains have benefited from meat eating. So, in conclusion, I feel as if humans should eat pork and beef.

Thanks again to Pro for the excellent topic and first case. Without further ado, I would like to concede most of my opponent's first round, including her/his analysis on "suffering is bad," "animal suffering is bad," and MOST of "killing animals is morally wrong," as well as the strawman argument that "nonhuman animals do not have rights" really is. The parts where I oppose my opponent should be readily apparent by the end of this round. I will launch a four-pronged attack. The first will be that there are cases where killing for one's meat is not morally wrong. My first round will outline three such cases: 1. Euthanasia plus giving up one's body for consumption (I am ready to defend both euthanasia and cannibalism) 2. Starvation 3. Ignorance These three cases operate as if my opponent's ideas on morality are acceptable. The latter two, while not being morally good, are at least ambiguous enough not to labeled as a "moral wrong." My final (at least this round) contention will deal with my opponent's use of "morality." I will argue: 1. Moral binaries are problematic. Animal executions and cruelty is a complex phenomenon that can't be divided into "good" vs. "evil" or "morally good" vs "morally wrong." In fact, approaching the topics in this way may be bad for animal rights. 2. By arguing for the labeling "morally wrong," my opponent holds people to some standard of "moral rightness," and attacks deviating from that standard. This moral right/wrong divide categorically excludes people into ingroups and outgroups--a divide that structures systematic oppression including the oppression of non-human animals. Euthanasia-meat One must be careful not to generalize too broadly a wrong, such as "killing." Under certain circumstances, aiding in one's death may be morally admirable, or at least not morally wrong. One such admirable circumstance is allowing one to die immediately rather than living a few extra weeks in order to benefit one's family or friends. Allowing oneself to die sooner in order to save their family potentially millions of dollars. This is an example of selflessness sacrifice that should be honored, rather than labeled a "moral wrong." In an extra step of selflessness, one may wish to donate her body for the sustenance of others. This step may be justified for several reasons: for one thing, one ought to be able to do with one's body what one will. While some choose to bury their bodies in coffins, while others prefer to burn their bodies, neither of these options particularly benefit those the deceased person left behind. Allowing her body to be eaten gives substance to others, whether these others are human or non-human animals. Calling the eating of one's body after death a "moral wrong" is ethnocentric, rejecting a particular cultural acceptance of eating human flesh for the classic European disgust of the same. In fact, giving up one's body is a brave decision, and allowing others to be benefited after death is an example of moral bravery. Jesus effectively allowed himself to be killed to benefit others according to the Christian/literary tradition: Most would agree that this was a moral right. Allowing oneself to die quickly (killing oneself, a sentient being) for meat in this case is an example of moral goodness. Starvation: If one were to kill oneself in order to use one's body to save a starving friend, she/he would be doing a moral good. If one were to kill another to save a starving self, this may not be a moral good, but we should not be so quick as to judge her/him as committing a moral wrong. This is a move of desperation, a moral gray area. Ignorance: I would not hold a child responsible for eating meat in a culture that condones eating meat. This is the same for adults who never encounter animal rights arguments. Blaming such persons is not helpful to the vegetarian/vegan movement. Instead, one should seek to educate, not condemn. Thus, these persons' eating meat should not be considered a moral wrong but an unfortunate act of ignorance that ought to be remedied through education. We ought to change these things; blaming is in this case unnecessary and unhelpful to the cause of change. Moral Binaries: See above. I will elaborate next round. (Unfortunately I need to travel during the next 24 hours). Moral Right/Wrong Moral "Wrongness" implies a deviation from a moral "Rightness." This particular label endorses only a select in-group, based on anthropocentric, ethnocentric ideologies. If one group of people is "right" and the other is "wrong" (deviant), then one set of social values is raised above all others. This subscribing to only particular cultural norms automatically in effect assigns epistemology preference for a particular culture and a particular species. This shuts out the voices of minority values (such as cannibalism), and the values of other species. Let me be clear: It is fine to hold particular beliefs, but to categorize the behavior of others a "right" or "wrong" (deviant) devalues the less empowered or minorities. It is this same ignoring the values of the oppressed/minorities that has caused homo sapiens to ignore the plight of non-human animals in the first place. My opponent could have said that killing sentient animals for their meat is "hypocritical," "problematic," "an enormous disservice to the inherent value in the sentient animals," or any other number of word combinations; however, by choosing to talk about "moral wrongness" by opponent unintentionally structures the same mentality that has caused non-human animal oppression in the first place. We should stop talking about moral wrongness and rightness so that we can better engage with and change the problematic societal structures instead of reinforcing them. The above arguments suggest exceptions to "moral wrongness" and also attacks moral wrongness in general. Notice that my exceptions still minimize suffering, and actually seems to create a better world than the kind my opponent advocates. Thanks for reading! Looking forward to my opponent's response.

I would like to apologize if anything in my previous arguments came off as offensive. There is little that I would like to say at this point. I simply would like to pose the question as to what is the right thing to do? Should we let our animal friends die or help them out in times of trouble? Endangered species should be preserved.

Thanks very much to Pro for his/her consideration! ---Cost/BenefitIn Pro's summary, s/he clarifies that her/his position is to lower 99% of livestock farming, and challenges me to provide reasons for removing the extra 1%. I will gladly do so. However, I first want to point out that in conceding that 99% of livestock slaughter should be stopped, Pro is effectively conceding the entire debate. By removinh 99% of the livestock farming, any "benefits" of livestock farming would be reduced by 99%. The only two benefits that Pro has managed to argue for are health and increase of life. By conceding that 99% of farming should be removed, the health and life "benefits" are cut by 99%. In fact, by proposing that absence of 99% of livestock farming is good, Pro is essentially conceding to the calculous of absence of livestock farming being better than livestock farming. The fact is, the last 1% isn't special. Consider that Pro has conceded that the benefits of 99% is better than 100%, that 98% is better than 99%, and so on. Essentially, the harms of each percentage of livestock slaughter is worse than no livestock slaughtering. Thus, it is the same for each percentage, whether it be the difference between 86% and 85% or 1% and 0%. For example, each 1% of livestock farm contributes to .25% of greenhouse gases. Pro agrees that reducing livestock farming by 1% ninty-nine times. Why not 100 times? The fact is, removing livestock farming is the easiest way to fight global warming there is. Global warming will still be a problem when the livestock farming is removed, however. Why hang on to a slight bit of livestock slaughter when removing it altogether would be more beneficial? If removing livestock farming is the best solution to livestock farming, then it only makes sense to remove it all the way. GameGame animals are free until capture and following death, and not made into livestock, who are slaves. Game are wild animals; they do not live in captivity. Game animals could be used to feed endangered species. PollutionPro makes that plant farming is as bad as livestock farming in terms of pollution. To avoid new points, I'll concede this. ---Pro's alternativesPro does not say how much livestock slaughter will contain insects. However, it seems her/his plan will include some large animals because part of his solution to environmental problems is bush feeding, which would not benefit large animals. Furthermore, Pro does not say any unique benefits in either heath or environmental impact with insects over current livestock, so we have to assume that they are the same or worse in this regard. Furthermore, insects are hardly a profitable business. Pro gave no evidence for their being sellable. Insects are everywhere in America. Spending vast amounts of money to kill insects and not sell them is pointless slaughter and a waste of money. There are no advantages for this in terms of health, life, or money. HealthPro also claims to reduce meat consumption in people's diets by 99%. However, that is not necessarily the case. Reducing slaughtering would only raise the prices of meat. Thus, a different demographic would be able to obtain large amounts of meat in their diet--this meat would not be distributed evenly. Thus, all of the health problems that exist in the status quo would occur. I previously showed how meat consumption is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and making tens of millions sick. Reducing these numbers by 99% would still cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to be sick and thousands to die. Whereas continuing to kill animals kills thousands of Americans, not doing so will allow them to live. Pro gives NO health benefits for eating meat, since vegetarian diets provide more nutrients and less deaths and diseases. Thus, I have already won that it would be a better world. Obviously, the statistics from vegetarians show that our bodies are indeed very able to handle being vegetarian. The diseases would not be eliminated by making the conditions less cramped, even if reduced. Pro gives no mention of where the money for these changes would come from. ---Global Warming/BreedingCurrently livestock farms cause certain species to have greater numbers than are natural, so that more meat may be produced. Notice that this is not mercy--they simply want more slaves to render into meat through their deaths. The quantity and quality of live is unnatural in these environments. Currently, they are bred without their concent through a probe being stuck in the females reproductive organs [21]. It is these unnatural quantity of slaves that is causing global warming. Pro immidiately jumped to the conclusion that I want them all killed to stop global warming. Again, I am shocked at my opponent. I advocate simply allowing these animals to live out their natural lives and allow fewer to breed (through their own choice, not sexual violence). Their numbers would reduce to natural quantities, and they would eventually be able to return to the wild.25% of greenhouse gases would be reduced. This is an amazing offer! More greenhouse gases would be reduced by ending livestock slavery than by stopping all of transportation. Pro says to keep 1%, but gives no reason to stop there. There are many reasons not to, including reducing the greenhouse gases from that 1% and improving health. [21] . http://www-naweb.iaea.org...--- "Grey area"Pro essentially says what I was planning to argue. The fact is the life is not black and white, but grey. For example, it would be silly to suppose that only one type of animal deserves not to be senselessly killed, while all others are mere objects. The fact is other animals besides humans are capable of thinking and feeling and making rational decisions. Pro concedes this point. Pro rebuts that plants may also deserve moral consideration, and are essentially the same as animals. Because humans are a type of animal, Pro is saying that plants are the same as humans, which is a strange argument to make. Of course, if plants were found to be sentiant they certainly ought to be afforded moral consideration and not be slaughtered. However, Pro gave no evidence that the plants that humans eat are sentient. Even if that were the case, not slaughtering plants is not the debate we are having. Still, I think it is strange that Pro sees plants and animals as being the same, despite having different Kingdoms, while humans and nonhuman animals that share the same Kingdom, phylum, class, order, and family are seen as immesurably different. Pro claims that the livestock animals would do the same to humans, but none of the livestock are predators to humans--only herbavores, granavores, and insectavores. Fellow animals are being senselessly slaughtered. They are enslaved and killed young for no reason. There is no justice in that. There is also no logic--the meat that the humans consume is tainted with fats and diseases that are killing the humans. The livestock process is creating greenhouse gases that are killing us all. SummaryVoters are required to look at which possible world is preferable on weighing their impacts. Pro gave no benefits for keeping livestock slaughtering at 1%, while not slaughtering livestock animals saves human and nonhuman lives, and prevents global warming.

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

Suffering is bad Suffering, in itself, is a bad thing. This can be determined by simply asking any sentient, rational being the question: "in a world where there is only suffering and non-suffering, which would you prefer? " Some may argue that suffering can be good if it means to strengthen character, or if to suffer less in the long-run. However, without any kind of context, with this dichotomy, we can determine that no rational being would ever pick suffering over non-suffering. Thus, suffering is bad (unless there is reason to suffer). Animal suffering is bad Animals that have meat, like humans, have feelings. If it is bad that a human is suffering to an extent, than it is equally that if another animal is suffering to that same extent. It is irrelevant how intelligent the animal is, whether it did something silly to make itself suffer, or how much ‘better’ humans are than other animals (humans are animals too). It is the suffering that is bad, and as to whom or what is suffering is of no consequence. I will now argue that the suffering simply isn’t required. So, specifically, let’s look at Hilal meat were it is a requirement that the animal suffer before death (the slicing of the throat, followed by a draining of blood etc. ). Clearly, the suffering inflicted of zero benefit (religious benefit, to be precise) and could be avoided by putting the animal to sleep beforehand. Thus, when it comes to the mass consumption of animal meat, suffering should never be a requirement in terms of both morality and practicality. Killing animals is morally wrong Let’s say that there was a woman sleeping, and that you found yourself hungry. So, you inject her with a poison that causes her no suffering, but kills her. You then begin to eat her, which was the reason for you killing her. It this moral? Clearly, it is not, because of the imposition on another sentient creature’s life for personal gain. If the woman was killed so that she may suffer less, and that she gave consent in a stable state-of-mind, then that killing could be considered moral, but such was far from the case. Similarly, putting a cow to sleep before killing it is not moral, as it is imposing on its life for personal gain and without consent. Therefore, killing animals for their meat, under any circumstance, is immoral and should be considered as such. Non-human animals do not have rights This seems to be a favourite counter-argument of my opponents, and it is in fact a straw-man of my position. I will now demonstrate it to be a straw-man. Animals not having rights means that animals do not have basic human liberties (the right to vote, freedom of speech etc. ). However, it is not from having a right that a non-human animal should not receive suffering, rather, it is by experiencing suffering and having humans recognise that it is suffering do we, as humans, have a moral obligation to prevent suffering wherever we see. Suffering, by itself, is always bad, regardless of what or whom is experiencing it. Furthermore, if the non-human animal were put to sleep and killed, then the imposition on life would be immoral as the non-human animal would surely resist death should it have been awake and understanding of the impending death, meaning that it has not consented. With the context of being required to be eaten in order to sustain human life, humans still understand the burdens of suffering and imposition on life they could inflict, therefore it remains immoral to kill a non-human animal for personal gain. ConclusionKilling animals for their meat can bring suffering to the animal, which makes the act wrong. It is also wrong to impose death upon another sentient creature without consent and for personal gain, which should make it immoral even if the animal is asleep (i. e. a lack of pain does not mean that an animal is consenting or that taking advantage of it is justified). It is from human capacity to understand suffering and imposition that we are morally obliged to act in accordance; non-human animals do not have 'rights' per say, but they do have sentience which should be respected.

Ok this is a debate about veganism in a general sense, and whether it is a good or bad lifestyle choice. Any type of argument can be used. There will be three rounds, first will be opening arguments, second will be rebuttals, and third will be final rebuttals/closing statement. I'll start the argument here, so all you have to do is accept the debate and get right into your opening statement. I will start with an argument about the purpose of eating meat. Since the dawn of man, animals have been a primary source of food, and they appeared long before any humanoid creature. Whether God or just natural forces placed animals on this earth, all signs point to a natural inclination of human beings to consume meat. Almost every Paleolithic diet included, and usually was dominated by, meat. (An exception is the Paranthropus, which died out due to a possible lack of a limited diet). Humans were naturally intended to consume animal meat. This is furthered by the presence of necessary nutrients found only in meat. For example, vitamin B12 is found almost exclusively in meat and egg products, as are vitamin D3 and Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA). If you need more information on these nutrients, here's a link: http://authoritynutrition.com... Although it is possible to gain these nutrients through supplements, a diet including naturally occurring nutrients will be healthier, easier, and will save money on supplements. Another problem with veganism is a lack of protein. Protein helps heal the body's muscles and in athletes, make the body stronger. Synthetic protein sources technically do work, however are unnatural and expensive, and often include large amounts of unhealthy saturated fat. A natural diet is the best way to go, as evidenced by the large amounts of obese Americans who eat a largely unnatural, fast food filled diet. Especially bad cases for veganism occur when an athlete uses the diet. It can be very difficult for a vegan athlete to achieve the nutrients they need for recovery without meat or eggs. Although veganism in theory could be successful to an extent, it could not work as well as a full, "normal" diet, comprised of all of the available foods given to us. Fruits, vegetables, and meat should all be eaten in order to maintain a healthy diet. Veganism is in no way as healthy or as successful a diet as omnivorism.

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

:). 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.