Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Individuals should adopt a vegetarian diet.

The consumption of meat and the slaughtering of livestock (such as cows and pigs) is ethically indefensible, evolutionarily unsound, and detrimental to health. Furthermore, the meat industry contributes to environmental problems like pollution, deforestation, and unsustainable land use; all of which exacerbate the challenges faced by our growing global population.

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

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

"I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got " Too " big for the current food market" Yes, the market will adapt as the population increases, but there's only so much a market can adapt before it starts to run out of raw material. Space is already such a big issue in food production, that meat production accounts for 70% of all amazon deforestation. Whats more, land cleared for intensive cattle farming uses up vast amounts of water every day, far more water than if the same space of land was used for arable farming. Food manufacture is one of the most water intensive activities in the world and it takes far less water to produce plants than meat. "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." I find it very hard to believe that there would be any difference in the amount of staff needed for growing crops compared with cattle. The meat production industry could be re-modelled to produce plant based foods over hundreds of years, meaning no jobs would be lost. "Iron and protein tablets would become like oil" Iron and protein are actually very easy to find in a vegetarian diet, and its hardly likely that an all-controlling supplements industry would spring up since their products wouldn't really be needed any more than they already are. So, in answer to your question; no, it doesn't seem like a better world, it just doesn't seem very likely.

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

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.

Thanks a lot for your argument, it is much appreciated. My rebuttal for all three of the above arguments offered by pro is very similar. All of these studies are observational. They demonstrate correlation, but not causation [1]. I can attribute this to the fact that many vegan eaters are more health conscious in general, as veganism is normally applied as a health choice, and are more likely to be healthy, not because of their vegan habits, but because vegans are more likely to exercise, less likely to smoke, and more likely to be married [2]. All of these factors have also been attributed to longer life. This is especially applicable to the third argument offered. There is no reason antioxidants cannot be obtained from an omnivorous diet, as omnivores can eat all of the same foods vegans can, and therefore have the same amount of sources for antioxidants, with additional benefits and nutrients as well as essential amino acids offered from meat, eggs, etc. Although the above arguments cannot be proven to stem from causation, even playing the devil's advocate, if they could be proven so, they still could not outweigh the positive effects of omnivorism, e.g. protein, certain vitamins, amino acids, omega-3's. A health conscious, natural-eating omnivore has a better chance at a healthy life than a vegan. In a recent study, Adkins-diet (high fat, low carbs, a healthy, omnivorous diet) using overweight women were compared with Ornish diet (high carbs, low fat. Basically a vegan diet) using overweight women. (These women were randomly assigned to the diets) The Adkins diet users lost more weight and had more beneficial metabolic results [3]. This study DOES demonstrate causation as the women were randomly assigned to the diets and were not pre-existing omnivores/vegans. Thank you for your time. [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://qz.com... [3] http://nutrition.stanford.edu... And here's another interesting article, if you would like to take a look: http://www.marieclaire.com...

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

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.

Should it be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat? Firstly, before I even go into the stipulations of this debate, I would like to set the definition of sentience: Awareness; feelings A cow is sentient because it can become aware of you stroking it gently, and perhaps feel good as a result. A cockroach is not sentient as it may or may not be aware that you’re standing over it (it can sense you, yes), but it certainly would not, as far as we know, feel good when you stop standing over it (i. e. insects are animals, but not sentient animals). I would like to make the reasonable assumption that animals do suffer, and not have to get into lengthy discussion as to whether a dog yelps when struck on the head with a shovel because it is suffering, or whether a cow might not suffer when being skinned alive (without the external influence of drugs). I think it is generally accepted that animals suffer (at least the sentient ones), so I am going to make this part of the assumed information for this debate, especially so we don’t waste time.

"This is true, however, it's just not easy, and I think we can both agree on that." Con Veganism is mostly difficult because there are insufficient vegan choices at restaurants and not that many vegans worldwide. The more vegans, the easier it would be to be vegan. "Worldwide veganism would bring just as many cons as it would pros." Con Con has not proved this point. Pro has shown how worldwide veganism would help. "But let's take a look at the cons: A radical change: Going vegan is a huge change" Con The status quo is not self justifying. "and can sometimes be even more complicated if you are not allowed to eat certain ingredients such as soy." Con In a previous round the discussion of relying too heavily upon soy was discussed. Over consumption of soy is different than the complete elimination of soy. Relying too heavily upon any ingredient will most likely lead to food allergies. The exception being water. Pro does not think you can get a food allergy from drinking too much water. Soy in moderation is healthier than meat in moderation. Soy has phytonutrients and fiber which meat doesn't have. ""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." Con Pro calls the entire complete vegetarian protein a large misunderstanding. Just eat a variety of vegan foods and enough protein and you will be fine. Your body can synthesize ten out of twenty of the amino acids. "Myths abounded about the necessities of combining certain foods in order to obtain complete protein. In reality, protein deficiencies are uncommon in vegetarians who eat eggs and dairy products, according to the Harvard Women's Health Watch. Vegans, who eat no animal-based foods, can get enough protein by eating nuts, grains and seeds, which offer incomplete proteins that nevertheless meet your body"s needs when consumed responsibly." [30] In summary, don't worry about complete proteins. "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." Con There is some question of whether or not the body can use calcium from milk. "The galactose in milk may explain why milk consumption is associated with significantly higher risk of hip fractures, cancer, and premature death." [31]. Calcium can be found in leafy greens like collars and kale . Kale contains 9% calcium and only 33 calories per cup [32]. Soy milk also has a large amount of calcium. [33] As for diabetes. Meat and dairy consumption can cause diabetes and insulin resistance. Fiber and phytonutrients help with blood sugar spikes. "Red-meat consumption is already linked to higher levels of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis, heart disease, and stroke). Now researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have added an increased risk of type 2 (adult onset) diabetes to that list. " [34]. "Low-fat vegetarian and vegan diets are associated with weight loss, increased insulin sensitivity, and improved cardiovascular health." [35]. Links 34 and 35 prove meat and dairy increase the risk of diabetes. Link 31 proves drinking milk increases chances for hip fractures. "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." Con True, this is why its imperative to ban meat, eggs, and dairy. Then, many more vegan choices would be offered in restaurants. "Loss of essential vitamins and minerals: There is evidence to show vegan diets do not contain vitamin B12, an essential nutrient." Con Some vegan diets are healthier than others. There are supplements. B12 comes from bacteria. Bacteria can be found on raw fruits and vegetables. "There has to be a balance of diet, exercise and a proper fitness regime." Con There is wisdom in these words. If you are sedentary, not matter what diet you are on you will not have ideal health. "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..." Con Pro has proven through scholarly peer reviewed journals that a vegan diet is healthier. Even if animals weren't sentient, a vegan diet would still be healthier, the environment would benefit, and land designated to feeding livestock could now feed hungry humans. Pro has once again refuted Con's claims. Save animals, humans' health, the environment, and feed the hungry by eating vegan. Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Vote Pro. Links 30. http://www.livestrong.com... 31. http://nutritionfacts.org... 32. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 33. http://nutritionfacts.org... 34. http://harvardmagazine.com... 35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Vegan Diets Offer Health Benefits

1. Comparing Well-Structured Diets
The assertion is that well-crafted vegan diets are more beneficial than diets that include meat. When contrasting a well-organized vegan diet with a well-thought-out meat-based diet, the key is to ensure that both diets provide all necessary nutrients while avoiding excesses that could be detrimental to health. The argument that a well-planned vegan diet is less healthy than a poorly planned diet with meat is flawed. Vegans are usually more health-conscious than the average person, and comparing the average vegan to the average non-vegan does not prove the resolution, as the latter often does not adhere to the "well-planned diet" requirement. For example, the residents of Okinawa, the world's longest-lived population, consume a balanced diet that includes moderate amounts of animal proteins alongside vegetables. This is not a typical non-vegan diet but a good example of a well-planned non-vegan diet that is healthier than many vegetarian diets.

2. Cholesterol in Moderation is Acceptable
Proponents argue that cholesterol in meat is dangerous, but cholesterol is essential for health in moderation. Just as vitamin D is necessary but toxic in excess, a well-planned vegan diet will avoid excessive saturated fats, as will a well-planned non-vegan diet. For instance, while coconut oil may be cholesterol-free, it is highly saturated and potentially more harmful than seafood, which contains protective polyunsaturated fats that cause the liver to produce less harmful cholesterol and more beneficial HDL cholesterol.

3. Obesity is About Caloric Intake, not Meat
Obesity is a risk factor for health issues, but it is not exclusive to meat-eaters. Some vegans are obese, and many non-vegans are not. Obesity is primarily caused by excessive calorie consumption and lack of physical activity. A well-planned non-vegan diet ensures proper calorie intake, regardless of the source of calories.

4. Statistics Do Not Show a Vegetarian Benefit
If non-vegan diets were inherently unhealthy, vegans would consistently outlive non-vegans. However, studies show no significant advantage for vegans. A meta-analysis of several studies found that fish eaters and vegetarians had lower mortality rates than regular meat eaters and vegans, but this was largely due to the lower prevalence of smoking in vegetarian cohorts. Other studies suggest that non-diet factors, such as not smoking, higher income, and lower stress levels, contribute

Sorry I thought "vegan" was short form of "vegetarian". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. "Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with." Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. "Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans." Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too.

If a society is poor and cant survive without hunting or using animals, then I guess it is not practical to tell them to switch to starvation. But this is not what this debate is centered around. The debate is centered around, the billions of lands land animals that die needlessly every year. Animals cause disease in humans. Humans aren't carnivores like lions and wolves, which eat raw meat and suffer no consequences of the cholesterol that is in the meat. Humans need to process the meat very well for it to be edible. That includes removing the bad parts, removing germs and bacteria (especially from fish) and heating the meat. Milk is another product which is not healthy to humans, it is meant for calves and baby goats. All those products are linked to diabetes, cancer, heard disease and more diseases. Animal farming leads to ecological damage such as increased global warming, imbalance in the food chain or the ecosystem in general (it back fires at fishers in poor african countries) and deforestation. As you can see, it backfires at you in the end, even if you dont care about animal pain. Watch the documentary 'Earthlings' on youtube, before you post your next post.

No need for apologies. I hear you, school absolutely does suck. I'm glad we can find some common ground though. Let me clarify my position a little. Personally, I don't think eating animal flesh is wrong in itself. I think if a person doesn't cause an animal pain before slaughter, kills it swiftly, and this action doesn't hurt any other person, there is nothing unethical about the consumption of the meat. I see 3 problems with the ethics of eating meat: Factory farming causes great pain for the entire life of the animals involved. 99% of the animals we eat are raised and slaughtered on a factory farm. Meat production in mass quantities causes ecological problems. Three-quarters of the world's agricultural land is devoted to raising livestock, either for grazing or for growing feed. Meat production causes us to have less food. Meat returns a fraction of the food we put into it. A study in 2011 found that if we ate less meat, the world food supply could double. On the health issue, this isn't directly related to ethics. What I'm saying about health is that a person (in a rich country at least) can be JUST as healthy without eating meat. So, eating meat is a preference rather than a necessity. I do agree that more tests need to be conducted about a balanced meat and vegetable diet, rather than extremes. You mention people in poor countries who rely on meat for survival, such as Eskimos and tribes in Africa. These people are not the worst offenders. If they continued their practices, we'd be fine. They can't afford factory-farmed meat and they don't produce animals an a massive scale. What they do is NOT unethical. But the reality is that the poor don't consume or produce much meat in comparison to rich countries. Over 80% of meat eaten in the world is consumed by people in the richest half of world countries. We in rich countries are the main offenders. The average American eats around 280 lbs of meat per year (more than recommended for health), the average person from Sierra Leone or the Republic of Congo eats only 10 lbs of meat. Why should Americans eat more meat than recommended while people from other countries have little food at all? It is the excess of rich countries like America that is unethical, not the small tribes of the world. Let's address the issue of eating plants, which sometimes share 15% of our DNA. Who says we shouldn't discriminate between different forms of life when choosing what to eat? After all, we must eat something that is alive. Everything that is alive shares some of our DNA. If we didn't discriminate between different forms of life, we would starve. Let's look at it this way. Humans share 99% of there DNA between each other, humans are obviously not ethical to eat. Bacteria shares around 2% DNA with us, we kill and eat bacteria constantly, every day. But that's OK, because it is unavoidable and bacteria doesn't feel pain. A plant shares a little more DNA with us, around 15%. They are not much more like us than bacteria, plants also don't feel pain. However, a cow shares more than 5 times the DNA with us than a rice plant, 80% similar to ours. It is proven that cows feel pain. Isaiah 1:11-17 (NIV) 11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—what are they to me?” says the Lord. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings,of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. 12 When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? 13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your worthless assemblies. 14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! 16 Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. 17 Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” God may have called for sacrifices of animals at one time, but it was always more important to “defend the oppressed.” After the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, animal sacrifices became obsolete. This matches the message of compassion Jesus brought. Excuse me, but I don't understand how I did not refute the statement that if we all ate plants only, we'd have an oxygen shortage. Less plants are killed by a vegetarian diet than a meat diet. This is a fact, it is not disputable. It takes 41 tons of plant protein to produce 7 pounds of animal protein. Most of the plants we grow are fed to animals, who inefficiently convert it to animal protein, losing 83% of the protein in the process. 3/4 of the world's agricultural land is used for livestock production, which provides less food for us than plants. http://www.news.cornell.edu... Again, I don't think eating meat is unethical in itself. Two-hundred years ago, I don't think it was unethical at all. It is the processes of the modern meat industry that cause undue animal and human suffering. It is the 99% of the modern meat industry that is unethical. Sources http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... http://www.census.gov... http://vegetarian.procon.org...

Good luck and good debate. 1. Health Benefits - "A recent study indicated that the average vegan diet is higher in vitamin C and fibre, and lower in saturated fat than one containing meat. In addition, statistics show that vegans have a lower BMI (height-to-weight ratio) than meat eaters " in other words, they are skinnier."[1] 2 Weight Loss - "According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Centre for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry."[2] 3. Longer Life - "If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. 'People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.'[3] [1] http://www.jamieoliver.com... [2] http://www.vegetariantimes.com... [3] Ibid

My assertion is rooted in the premise that to inflict unnecessary harm and suffering upon a conscious, Sentient creature is wrong. There's no justification for the standard of torture endured by animals in the meat industry and to actively pay for it is to happen is to be accountable on some level.

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

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

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.

By "survival of the fittest" I mean that people should rise up and take what humankind wants. And that chaos within our own species will cause more harm than good. Why can't we do what we please to animals while we uphold human morality? Furthermore, the food argument. I can't fathom how many people are involved and center their lives around livestock farming. A majority of these people exist in third-world countries, causing a lack of jobs and turmoil in Africa, South America, Central Asia, etc, etc. This would surely cause a further disbalance between those communities. Don't joke and say that they should all transfer to biology.

Con, your last argument is 100% wrong. If you are a vegetarian you must be an animal abuser. Did you not see the graph I posted in the comments? Animal cruelty as defined by wikipedia: "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." Wikipedia There is no kind way to make the statement I'm about to make. You sir or madam are an animal abuser. You have indirectly caused suffering and harm upon non-human animals for purposes other than self-defense or survival. If you eaten eggs, milk, cheese, or any other animal product within your lifetime you have endorsed animal cruelty. Do you think those egg laying chickens and dairy cows simply appeared out of thin air? No, they were born. Born from parents who were mistreated and spent their entire life in captivity. What happens when the chicken or cow is spent? It is slaughtered. You don't need to eat eggs, milk, or cheese to survive. There are plenty of healthy vegans. As I see it anyone who eats eggs or milk has caused more animal cruelty than Cecil the lion's killer. What is the difference between a cow, chicken, and lion's suffering anyways? Can you honestly look at the humanemyth.org pages and tell me you haven't endorsed animal cruelty? The parents of the egg laying chickens and dairy cows. The field animals killed in harvesting the livestock's feed. I see it as hypocritical to be against animal cruelty when you openly admit you are a vegetarian and thus help cause animal cruelty. You might as well slaughter the egg laying hens yourself. On the other hand, I'm alright with animal cruelty. I am not a vegetarian nor a vegan. Yes, there is animal blood on my hands. Yet, you haven't answered the question. What makes animal cruelty wrong or unjust? I say might makes right. Humans got nuclear weapons and lots of other weapons. Also humans' ability to cooperate. " But in addition, we are intensely interested in what other people are doing and thinking, and this is something the cognitive psychologists have come out with pretty clearly in recent years, that people are superb, all of us geniuses, at reading the intentions of others in order to get cooperation, to develop dominance, bonding and so on. And that is what is called social intelligence." NPR.org http://freefromharm.org... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://humanemyth.org... http://www.bbc.com... http://www.npr.org...


Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

THW consider adopting a vegetarian lifestyle

Thanks for your previous responses. I will reiterate my arguments and explain why I believe I have the upper hand in this debate. Here are the reasons why one should become a vegetarian:

1. You’ll protect yourself from disease. A vegetarian diet is healthier than the typical American diet, particularly in preventing, treating, or reversing heart disease and lowering cancer risk. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the most effective way to prevent or halt the progression of coronary artery disease. Cardiovascular disease, which claims one million American lives annually, has a lower mortality rate among vegetarians, according to Dr. Joel Fuhrman, author of Eat to Live.

2. You’ll maintain a healthy weight. The standard American diet, high in saturated fats and low in plant-based foods, contributes to obesity and related health problems. A study by Dr. Dean Ornish found that overweight individuals following a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept it off for five years. They lost weight without calorie counting, portion measuring, or feeling hungry.

3. You’ll extend your life. Adopting a vegetarian diet can add about 13 healthy years to your life, according to Dr. Michael F. Roizen, author of The RealAge Diet. Animal products can clog arteries, drain energy, and slow down the immune system. Meat consumption is also associated with accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.

4. You’ll build strong bones. A balanced vegetarian diet can provide the necessary calcium and other nutrients for bone health. Foods like dry beans, tofu, soymilk, and dark green vegetables are excellent sources of calcium for those who avoid dairy.

5. You’ll alleviate menopause symptoms. Phytoestrogens, found in foods like soy, apples, beets, and yams, can help maintain hormonal balance during menopause. A low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can also help manage weight gain associated with menopause.

6. You’ll have more energy. A well-balanced vegetarian diet is free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products, which can slow you down and sap your energy. Complex carbohydrates from whole grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables provide the body with plenty of energizing fuel.

7. You’ll help reduce pollution. The meat industry contributes significantly to environmental pollution. According to the EPA, chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms pollutes over 173,000 miles of rivers and

I agree that factory farms are the most efficient way to produce food, but they are not the most sustainable. If we took all the grain used to feed factory farm animals and gave it to humans, world hunger would end. As for your most happiness to the most people, more animals are being held in factory farms, bullfights, etc. than there are humans that benefit from them. And even more are affected by the pollutants that factory farms produce. I would like to say now that I forfeit, but not because you convinced me. Debate over.

Thanks for the invitation! I'm sure this will be a great debate.http://www.youtube.com...---RebuttalsPro makes two main contentions about livestock slaughter: That vegetarian diets are less healthy for humans than meat-inclusive diets (Points 2, 5, 6, and 7) and that livestock slaughter is better for the environment than no livestock slaughter (3 and 4). I will address each.DemocracyPro's Point 1, however, is somewhat different compared to the other arguments. Pro points out that most humans in the US eat meat. I concede this point, but fail to see its relevance in this debate. This debate is not concerned with a particular government policy, but only about whether or not livestock slaughtering ought to continue. Thus, the fact that slaughtering for meat is commonplace is irrelevant toward the question of whether or not slaughtering for meat ought to exist.Furthermore, Pro's suggested "democratic society" only extends towards humans. In 2013 there were 8.6 billion chickens, 239 million turkeys, 113 million pigs, and 33 million cows actively resisting their demise [1, 2]. A democracy is a "rule of the majority" [3]. If all relevant voices were heard (and believe me: they are loud and clear [4]), a consensus would clearly swing in the favor of resisting livestock slaughter. After all, more "livestock" are slaughtered in the US in one year than the number of humans in the world, plus several US human populations.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com... (audio/video)HealthPoint 2: EvolutionPro suggests that because evolution has given humans the tools to eat meat that that means they must or should eat meat. There are a few problems with this line of thinking. First of all, evolution is merely a description of what kinds of things continue to exist; it does not tell humans what or what not to do. Everything in the status quo is a result of evolution by definition--from murder to rape to computers to diabetes. The claim that something is "natural" due to evolution misses the dynamic nature of evolution; the world is constantly changing, and not slaughtering livestock will make it better. Thus, even if our teeth are able to eat meat, that doesn't mean that they should; just as the ability or desire to murder does not justify murder.In fact, humans' earlier ancestors were insectivores and vegetarians. In terms of evolution, meat-eating is a relatively new diet, developed as humans started building tools, which allowed them to compensate for their non-weaponized teeth. However, humans never lost their ability to have a vegetarian diet and need for non-animal foods [5]. Currently, however, humans' biological cravings work against humans. The sweet and fatty foods that were rare for their ancestors are common for most contemporary human societies due to the massive influx in technology in a short time--so common that humans' cravings are doing massive harm to themselves [6]. They crave ice cream and steak when these empty calories are harmful. Furthermore, early ancestors were constantly running or walking to find these high-energy foods--in a society that does other things besides scavenging and escaping predators, humans are have far too much surplus fat and sugar [6], which leads to obesity, lack of nutrients, diseases, heart failure, and diabetes. Thus, an evolutionary perspective reveals that humans' "natural" cravings are actually harmful, and that their diets are in need of change, such as by removing high-calorie high-fat foods like meat from their diet. Moreover, the actual ancestry Homo sapiens reveals that a meat-inclusive diet to be a relatively recent development, and that vegetarianism is also in our ancestry. Also, the teeth we have allow us to eat animals, but don't help kill them [5].[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...Point 5: Lack of nutrientsPro states that a vegetarian diet cannot allow appropriate nutrients without supplements. However, two of Pro's own sources (www.nhs..., www.eatlife... ) contradicts him: "With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy balanced vegetarian and vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs to be healthy without the need for supplements." (nhs)"Eating vegan or vegetarian is not a problem. Eating processed vegan or vegetarian is." (eatlife)Apparently vegetarian diets aren't a problem if done carefully, according to Pro's sources. According to the Nutrition Society in Oxford, vegetarian and vegan diets are not worse than non-vegetarian diets. Obviously, vegetarian diets ARE able to provide the correct nutrients.According to the American cancer society: "Vegetarian diets also provide more fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and other phytochemicals (plant chemicals) than diets that contain meat." [7]Furthermore, much of the US already has vitamin deficiencies [8].[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...Point 6: Alternatives Pro's own source admits that eating processed foods is not inherent to or necessary for vegetarian diets. Furthermore, even these alternatives are far less harmful than the actual products. Veggie burgers are much healthier than meat burgers.In contrast, livestock farms are the #1 source of food-related illnesses, and responsible for hundreds of human deaths and millions of sicknesses [9, 10]. Ending slaughtering practices will end these diseases.However, there is a more tragic disease that meat eating is responsible for, that can no longer be stopped so easily: HIV/AIDS [11].[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...Point 7: Fat is healthyNo, as it turns out saturated fats are very bad for you, contrary to the book's "riveting storytelling." They greatly increase the risk of heart disease, failure, and stroke [12]. The majority of these fats come from animal sources [12]. Starches are also good to avoid, but this is irrelevant to the debate.According to the American cancer society: "Some studies have linked vegetarian diets to lower risk for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and certain types of cancer, such as colon cancer" [7]. Thus, meat causes massive health problems--problems that vegetarian diets solve.[12] http://tinyurl.com...EnvironmentPoint 3: Farming could be sustainable (one day)Pro admits that livestock farms are currently unsustainable, and fails to show that they could be sustainable in the future. Improving doesn't mean fixing, and Pro doesn't even say how improvement will occur.Livestock farms have contributed to water and air pollution that killed hundreds of thousands of fish, miles of wildlife, and many humans, with hundreds of thousands sick [13]. Global Warming. The United Nations found that livestock farms contribute to 25% of ALL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS [14]. These emissions are more than all transportation combined [15]. Because of global warming, freshwater will become scarce, diseases will spread, and species will be wiped out [16]. Thus, maintaining these practices will aggravate global warming.Livestock biodiversity loss is a huge danger [17, 18].[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://preview.tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] tinyurl.com/kh393zsPoint 4: Need to feed carnivoresObscure real-world examples are excluded from the debate (R1). Feeding dying endangered animals is one such extreme; thus, this concern is beyond the scope of the debate.Even if it were part of the debate, slaughtering "livestock" wouldn't be necessary. Zoos find that allowing the carnivore to hunt is healthy, so the human needn't slaughter. Furthermore, the slaughtered animal needn't be "livestock."---I will further address the nonhuman animal next round.

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

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

Today I will be defending the proposition that it is morally wrong for humans to eat animals, and that people are unjustified in causing suffering and death to other sentient beings for reasons of pleasure, satisfaction, or amusement.

"or any real life cases about the topic related to Christianity." I've talked about factory farming in r1. It is well known that Christianity is around 70% in the USA and factory farming is rampant the USA. [3]99% of animals are raised on factory farms in the USA. [4] The majority of USA citizens are Christian. 99% of animals raised in the USA are from factory farms. Factory farming is infamous for its terrible cruelty. Therefore there is a strong positive relationship between Christianity and factory farming. I can only come to the conclusion that Christianity causes animal cruelty. As for other religions, this may also be true, but is a red herring. If religion x causes cruelty to animals, this won't change the fact that Christianity causes cruelty to animals. As for judging a religion by its religious texts, I've already gone over this in this debate any many others. Religious texts have many contradictory passages. Since people are self motivated they often select the passage that benefits them the most, using conformation bias to ignore the contradictory passage. "Gee, God says animals don't have souls, gave us souls, gave us dominion over animals, Jesus ate fish, and Jesus said it was moral to eat meat." Completely overlooking the anti-cruelty passages. If I had to point to one event that turned me from a Christian to an agnostic it is this.Nevermind that the body is a temple of the holy spirit. That if you defile your body God will destroy you. Oh no, Jesus ate one fish so then we can rationalize every single misdeed we perform to animals based upon this. I just found it was impossible to convince Christians to turn vegetarian. I honestly lost my faith arguing vegan issues with Christians on this debate site. I couldn't help but see my opponent's as heartless, ruthless, merciless, self interested, ignorant, self destructive, and just plain old evil. Thanks for debating. Sources3. http://www.answers.com...4. http://www.aspca.org...

You should adopt a rescue dog instead of a dog from a breeder Pets can add to the health and happiness of the individual who adopts them t takes a few minutes with a dog or cat to feel less anxious and less stressed. Your body actually goes through physical changes, in that time it make a difference in your mood. The level of cortisone, a hormone associated with stress, is lowered. And the production of serotonin, a chemical associated with well-being, is increased. Reducing stress saves your body wear and tear. People who own pets often feel the need to care for them, and makes the person feel needed. You aren"t supporting dog mills or pet shops. dog mills- a terrible place were dogs are breed in huge mass and inhumanely, they are under minimal car. they are sold to dealers and pet stores there are more than 5000 puppy mill in the US and after the female in "of no use" or can"t make any more babies she is killed It saves a life 8 million stray dogs are taken by shelters , 3.7 million (almost half) are inhumanly killed 11,000 pets every day shelter uthanation is the #1 reason why animals die Seventeen million Americans acquire a new pet each year -- that is more than double the number of shelter animals! Sadly, only 3.5 million people, or about 20 percent, choose to adopt their new pet. The rest choose to buy their pets from pet stores or breeders, or they choose a variety of other cheap or free sources, such as friends, neighbors or Internet ads. In the 1970s, American shelters euthanized 12-20 million dogs and cats, at a time when there were 67 million pets in homes. Today, shelters euthanize around 4 million animals, while there are more than 135 million dogs and cats in homes. This enormous decline in euthanasia numbers"from around 25 percent of American dogs and cats euthanized every year to about 3 percent"represents substantial progress. We will make still greater progress by working together to strike at the roots of animal overpopulation.

I will begin by providing the definitions of three key terms in this debate.1. OmnivoreOmnivores are animals whose diet is primarily composed of a mixture of plant and animal matter. [1]2. CarnivoreA carnivore is an organism whose diet is primarily composed of meat. [2]3. HerbivoreHerbivores are animals whose diet is primarily composed of plant matter. [3]Now, I will clarify my opponents basic contention, around which he is basing all arguments."Humans have no evolutionary adaptations suggesting the consumption of meat. "I will now illustrate the evolutionary characteristics that classify Humans as Omnivores.1. Teeth. [4]This graphic compares omnivore teeth to herbivore teeth. Note that only omnivores all types of teeth. [5]Here is a graphic of the Human tooth structure. Please note that Humans possess all types of teeth, classifying them as omnivores.2. Digestive enzymes This is the digestive enzyme Amylase. It is found only in the saliva of omnivores and herbivores [6]. Humans have this enzyme, excluding them from the carnivore class. But only Omnivores couple this enzyme with a medium length digestive tract [7]. Digestive tract classification of any given species is measured by dividing actual length of the digestive system by the length of the organism. Using this method, the Human digestive tract is of medium length[8], excluding them from the herbivore class and including them in the Omnivore class. Sources:1, 2, 3: Amateur Entomologists Societyhttp://www.amentsoc.org...4.http://fl1504041.edublogs.org...5. http://www.pitlochry.pkc.sch.uk...6, 7, 8: http://www.lhasa-apso.org...I could expand this argument to well over 8,000 characters, but I am limited to 3,000 and I will have to suffice with this for now.

I understand that my opponent has a specific line of argument in mind, but I'll address it once it has been argued. 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.

Pro has used "vegan diet is healthier" tactics in nearly all of his rebuttals, but then again comes one of my first arguments, which was: "Vegan diets also recommend that people shun added sugar, refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and trans fats. This is probably the reason for any health benefits, not the removal of unprocessed animal foods." Thank you for this debate.