Question: Should Individuals Opt for a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

The human anatomy is naturally inclined towards herbivorous eating habits. We are not naturally omnivores. It's commonly assumed that humans are omnivores, based on the fact that we consume a wide range of plant and animal products. However, this classification doesn't take into account cultural, traditional, and educational influences on our dietary choices. As a result, simply observing our eating habits isn't a reliable method for determining what constitutes a "natural" human diet. While we are indeed "behavioral" omnivores, the question remains whether our bodies are truly equipped to handle a diet that includes both animal and plant sources.

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.

First, I want to say thank you to Envisage for accepting! =) I'm going to address this debate in parts, rather than present all of my major arguments in the first round. I. Health Risks Involved in "Factory Farming" 1. The unhealthful conditions livestock live in compromise the success of medical treatments for people. Many livestock animals live in their filth and feces in confined spaces with little to no lighting or fresh air. Living conditions like these can cause livestock a lot of stress, [1] and stressed animals are known to behave aggressively in response. They may harm other animals and even themselves. Animals have trampled one another because so many other animals are contained within the same space. [2] Because of this, these animals are at serious risk of infection and health issues. Consequently, use of antibiotics on livestock is a popular practice. According to PETA, factory animals are, "Fed drugs to... keep them alive in conditions that could otherwise kill them." [3] "The Food and Drug Administration... put in place a major new policy to phase out the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in cows, pigs and chickens raised for meat, a practice that experts say has endangered human health by fueling the growing epidemic of antibiotic resistance... This is the agency's first serious attempt in decades to curb what experts have long regarded as the systematic overuse of antibiotics..." [4] So why does it matter if livestock get antibiotics? Well, as my source pointed out, the overuse of antibiotics can endanger human health. As bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics, treatments for people will become less successful. This wouldn't just be detrimental to health outcomes for people with a sinus infection, but also for people with serious conditions like pneumonia, post-surgery infections, food poisoning, and Tuberculosis. In other words, a lot of people could die because of increased bacterial resistance through mistreatment of livestock. By providing livestock with better living conditions, the need for antibiotics would drop tremendously. In my fifth source, a speaker even discusses how bacteria could more easily combated through less antibiotic usage. [5] 2. Not minimizing stress experienced by livestock before slaughter increases risk of food contamination. There's a neat little fictional book called "Toxin" that was written by a doctor who worked at Harvard Medical School. In it, he conveys how the rapid slaughter of cows - in an assembly like fashion - truly heightens the stress that cows experience. Upon hearing the loud noises of machinery, cows will defecate. Everywhere. [6] Increasing the risk for contamination via E. Coli and other bacteria. This is supported by a peer-reviewed study: "Contamination of beef products primarily occurs during slaughter when meat is contaminated by fecal material." [7] Apparently, fecal matter contamination isn't just an issue for cows. "Potentially harmful bacteria was found on 97 percent of chicken breasts bought at stores across the United States and tested, according to a new study." "And about half of the chicken samples had at least one type of bacteria that was resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics, the investigators found. The tests on the 316 raw chicken breasts also found that most had bacteria -- such as enterococcus and E. coli -- linked to fecal contamination." [8] Furthermore, "When animals, for example poultry, are slaughtered, the content of the intestines may contaminate the meat with salmonella microbes." [9] Couldn't caution and precision stop this, for the most part, from happening? This would likely require less reliance on factory methods. Even a little further back before slaughter, the transportation livestock receive can have a huge impact on food contamination. The ride to slaughterhouses are often long. The animals are confined and sometimes they're mixed with ill animals. This is not a recipe for healthy animal products. "Barham and colleagues found the average prevalence of Salmonella within feces and on the hides of cattle was 18% and 6%, respectively, before transport. After the animals were loaded onto a vehicle and trucked for 30 to 40 minutes, the levels of Salmonella found in feces increased from 18% to 46%, and the number of animals with contaminated hides escalated from 6% to 89% upon arrival at the slaughter plant. Fecal pathogens on the hide may then end up in the meat supply. Similar results were found in pigs and chickens raised for meat." [10] So is food contamination that serious? Let's take a look: "CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases." [11] Now, 42% of these illnesses and 44% of these deaths come from meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs - the industries of relevance to this debate. [12] 3. The careless handling and care of livestock allows for further food contamination. Now, if the all of the fecal matter contamination mentioned above wasn't caused by stress before slaughter, then we can fairly assume it's a matter of cleanliness and health concern for the animals throughout the whole raising process. Aside from fecal matter contamination, here's why the handling and care of livestock is important: -Unethically treated animals probably don't receive veterinary care. So sick and diseased livestock can easily be overlooked and mixed in with healthy livestock. They will in turn get passed on to the consumer. As I discussed in my first point, poor conditions already put livestock at risk for sickness and disease. Even for something as simple as egg products, we should be concerned... "Eggs from an infected chicken can also become contaminated." [9] -Machinery and factory equipment can injure livestock, as well as increase the chance of letting sick livestock pass through onto consumers. Take a look at my 13th source to see how massive some factory farms are. [13] If we take a look at my next source, it can be seen how young turkeys get caught on equipment and expose their blood and internal organs to other livestock (WARNING: GRAPHIC FOR SOME VEIWERS). [14] Seeing both of these sources, it can be said that managing the unethically treated livestock can be an overwhelmingly difficult task. Furthermore, what about making sure no sick or diseased animal products get passed along onto the consumer? That might be impossible in some factory farms considering the vastness of the quantity of livestock. [1] http://www.reed.edu... [2] "Forks Over Knives" - film [3] http://www.peta.org... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] https://www.ted.com... [6] "Toxin" by Robin Cook - book [7] http://www.marlerblog.com... [8] http://consumer.healthday.com... [9] http://www.infonet-biovision.org... [10] http://www.hsi.org... [11] http://www.cdc.gov... [12] http://www.cdc.gov... [13] http://www.farmsanctuary.org... [14] - video (MAY BE GRAPHIC FOR SOME PEOPLE)

I am actually unsure of animal rights, but I will be arguing against them. Rebuttals... "1. Many famous people agree that animals should have rights. If they agree, we should listen to them because they are the experts on what we should do." This appears to be an appeal to authority, take this for example. A scientist must provide sufficient evidence for his science, if he does not then his ideas are invalid. The same goes for debating. We should never listen to someones ideas without sufficient evidence or logic, if they lack this their ideas are invalid. If one is famous, their ideas are not valid by the fact that they are famous. "2. Humans have evolved from animals as Darwin's theory proves. As humans have rights, animals too should have at least the basic rights. Not giving rights to animals is equivalent to not giving to human beings with mental impairments." The difference between other animals and people with mental impairments is that people with mental impairments belong to our race. Humans are social creatures, so we take care of each other in many settings. Humans have evolved to be omnivores, through both social and natural evolution. Though we originally ate less meat, we now eat much more partially because we now raise live stock. "3. Animals suffer, too.Since all pain and suffering is undesirable, humans should not inflict pain of animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments." Pain and suffering will always occur. In nature species dominate other species. Once again, it is different than discriminating against those who are handicapped. Because those who are handicapped are of the same species, they are familiar to us and we have the instinct created SOCIALLY, not naturally, to protect them. Humans destroy that which is foreign to our species to survive and thrive. My own arguement is this, because the debate only specifies general animal rights I would put forth this arguement: It is impossible to get rid of meat because we will never be able to deny our own nature. Full animal rights are as likely as world peace, both go against our nature. Perhaps one day when we can alter our nature we may be able to stop eating meat. Thank you for this debate.

To your earlier claims. There is such a thing as sexual deviance and abuse against animals in factory farming, the peta have seen this, and posted it http://www.peta.org... . They have been their on multiple occasions in different places and have seen this and witnessed the cruelness. I take in some of your arguments and agree to a point, however not speaking as a professional but speaking as a person, animals are living creatures, my quote Fully grown chickens screaming for help as chicks, this was written in an article in a well read newspaper. Investigators went to two different factory farms, one being partly ok, hay and small sticks on the floor with enough room to move, however the next was appalling, with what looked like fully grown chickens were actually baby chicks that were fattened and in pain. 23/24 hours a day lights are kept on in factory farms meaning the chickens are continuously eating, 3/4 of the chickens have ammonia burns, heart failure and deformed bones, with the others being DEAD, DEFORMED, UNABLE TO WALK OR IN THE MIST OF DYING. With FACTORY FARMING CAN EITHER BE OK, I WAS STATING THE FACT THAT ON A RARE OCCASION 1/58 FACTORY FARMS ARE REPORTED OK. PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND. WHY FACTORY FARMING SHOULD BE CHANGEDYes, with traditional methods of farming "The cost would increase by 40%" however this doesn't mean we have to use tradditional methods of farming, Factory Farming as it is today should be banned however it should be adapted for future use. CLEANLINESS Animals suffer from ammonia burns in factory farms due to laying and eating in their own faeces, They are given limited room, or in most cases no room to move. They are dragged by workers, on there burns and beaten with poles and canes. Cow Factory Farms Are also very bad for climate change. Worse than cows in an ordinary fields.ECONOMICSyes many people are given jobs however they are not fit to work with the animals. If you can give me any source to which workers treat the animals well then i will reconsider this part of debate however until then, you are being hypocritical and doing exactly what you stated "no sourcing of any kind". CHEAP FOOD Yes this is a solution to cheaper food, howvever if you think the average of £7 for a medium sized broiler chicken is cheap then im sure your mistaken. Finest Free range chickens cost an average of £7.89, and have been treated fairly and given space, organic chickens with an average of £8.20 for a medium chicken, I think you should reconsider that argument. CHICKEN FEED Chicken feed has contained inorganic arsenic increasing the risk of lung problems and many other problems. These chickens are fed to us and were increasing the risk of lung cancer. CANNIBALISM Chicken feed in factory farms can contain chicken! Disturbing as it may seem some feeders give chickens feed which can contain their own meat. CONCLUSIONFactory Farming is abusive, only around £1 cheaper than free range chickens of the same size, has in the past caused diseases and problems for consumers, These are only around a hundredth of the reasons to change factory farming my sources are at the bottom of this page. These animals are meant to be outside roaming free, not cooped up inside in small cages being killed. 1] http://www.peta.org... 2]http://factoryfarming.org.uk...3]http://www.peta.org.uk...4]http://www.google.co.uk...5]http://www.animalaid.org.uk...6]http://www.animalsuffering.com...7]http://www.acompassionateworld.org...8]https://secure.peta.org...9]http://www.youtube.com...

We should keep pets. There are a number a good reaons for keeping pets such as.1.Having a pet at home will reduce the chances of kids developing allergies later in life. The study was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The study showed the results in the blood of newborn babies and compared it to samples from the same participants a year later.2.Cats and dogs can be great for people suffering from high blood pressure and stress.A study showed that pet owners would do better in stressful situations than people who never adopted a pet, according to Blair Justice, Ph.D., from University of Texas School of Public Health. The benefits can be seen in people with stressful careers and even in those that are coping with different types of illnesses. 3.A study published by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and conducted by psychologists at St. Louis University and Miami University found that having pets provided their humans with a great deal of psychological benefits. They found that pet owners had great emotional returns, and pets can also help get over feelings of exclusion. The study also found that dog owners are healthier because they have to frequently take theirdogs for walks. 4.The American Heart Association published the results of a study in their journal Circulation. This study showed that pet owners usually have lower cholesterol and blood pressure levels. They also have lower chances of being obese, all of which contribute to lowering the risk of heart disease. The authors do point out, however, that the amazingness of what cats and dogs can do for their humans is partly because pet owners themselves tend to be more active. 5.So we already know that having a pet may lower your risk of developing heart disease, but studies from the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that having a pet can help your heart health in general.It will lower your triglyceride levels, cholesterol and blood pressure, and all these elements combine to reduce your future risk of heart attacks. Some studies even show that having a pet will help you recover from a heart attack more quickly.The combonation of the above surely saves lives and a monumental amount of cash thus , being superior to the alternative, no pets, we should surely keep pets.

I would like to add that I am a meat eater and love meat. I am not vegetarian. My argument is not that eating meat is wrong. My argument is that meet eating is harmful to the environment and that to stop climate change we need to switch to a vegetarian diet. Con's argument of the food chain does not help his argument. Con states "The pig eats the corn, and we eat the pig. But, we also eat corn. It's not like we're carnivores. We're omnivores; we eat both plants and animals! (and candy) " If the pig eats the corn and we eat the pig aren't we eating the corn through the pig? The corn gets its energy form the sun. The pig then eats the corn and then we eat the pig. However the corn will use up some of the suns energy so by the time the pig eats the corn, the pig is not receiving as much of the energy as the corn did. Then the pig uses up some more energy so there is less energy when we eat the pig and so it is ineffective and we should just eat the corn not the pig. Con then uses the argument that if we take out humans from the food web the chicken, co and pig will increase in population however this is not true as humans provide the habitat for these animals to live in. Take out the humans from the web and the chicken, pig and cow decrease in population and the corn increases. Now for my argument: If you turned vegan you will cut your carbon emissions by 50%. In a world where the climate is getting hotter it is time we started getting serious and one of the best ways to cut our emissions is to switch to a vegetarian diet. 80% of the deforested amazon is now used for cattle pastures. Deforestation destroys precious habitat for animals and releases harmful greenhouse admissions stored in the rain forest. Forest are the lungs of the earth and by deforesting them for livestock gets rid of earths lungs (trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen). Now you may say that producing vegetables uses just as much of the world's resources as meat does. Wrong. One pound pf meat uses 12 times as much land as one pound of soy. It uses 13 times as much fossil fuels to make meat over soy and it uses 15 times as much water to produce meat over soy.

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.

To clarify, the title is exactly what I meant to put. I'm going to run through my stadard opening. .. 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, without consent, 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. Conclusion Killing 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.

= Disambiguation = 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. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate. If Con is in need of clarity, is should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate. I repeat posting anything other than 'I Accept.' will lose you the debate before it even starts. = Rules = 1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be on clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round. 2. The BOP will be shared between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast. 3. No semantics! = Definitions = [1]Circumstance: a condition that accompanies or influences some event or activity [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......

Again I would like to say thank you to Con for that brilliant argument. Response: In Con's argument he states that by just eating a cheeseburger it will not harm the environment. However a cheeseburger cannot exist without an intelligent life form creating it. Now how does the modern day world make a burger? The burger will come from a cow. The cow will need water, grass and other food. They will needed to be herded into different fields. They will need a factory to make the burger and will need a McDonalds to put the ingredients together and to sell the item. If Con hunted a wild , then killed the cow with stone/wooden. Before finally making a burger on a wooden fire this would not create enough fossil fuels to be a concern. However this is inefficient as he/she would use up more energy making the burger than he would get back by consuming the burger. Also who does that in a modern age. Argument: Now for my argument. If I ate a burger produced using fossil fuels then that would not cause a problem but there 7 billion people on the world. Most people in the western world eat meat that would have been produced using fossil fuels. This puts dangerous greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This causes global warming and harms the environment.


Question: Should Individuals Embrace a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

A plant-based lifestyle is superior to a carnivorous one for several reasons. In this discussion, I will emphasize two key aspects: animal rights and health benefits.

Animal Welfare: Adopting a vegetarian lifestyle not only benefits the individual but also saves countless animals from harm and slaughter each year. It is inhumane and unethical to kill animals when viable vegetarian alternatives exist. Animals possess emotions and social connections, and scientific studies have shown that cattle, pigs, and chickens, among other warm-blooded creatures, experience stress, fear, and pain. Each year, 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds are killed for food, unnecessarily. Animals raised for food in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) suffer in overcrowded, filthy conditions. Practices such as tail docking, beak clipping, and horn removal without pain relief are common. Pregnant pigs are confined in metal gestation crates, and baby calves raised for veal are tied up in tiny stalls for their short lives. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) requires cows to be unconscious before slaughter to reduce suffering, but birds and pigs have no such protections, and slaughterhouses often ignore the HMSA.

Health and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet offers comprehensive nutrition with additional health benefits not found in meat. According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat-based diet as it meets protein requirements, provides essential amino acids, and improves overall health. Vegetarian diets can provide all necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals. The USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations confirm that meat is not essential for a healthy diet. Vegetarian sources of iron, like leafy greens and beans, are healthier than heme iron found in red meat, which has been linked to increased risks of colon and rectal cancer. Vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters, building stronger bones. High renal acid levels in meat can leach calcium from bones, leading to urinary calcium loss. Vegetarian sources of calcium include tofu, dark leafy greens, and fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet reduces the risk of heart disease and lowers blood pressure, preventing hypertension and reducing stroke risk. Eating meat increases the likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes, but a vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins can improve glycemic control in diabetics. Vegetarians have a longer lifespan, with studies showing a 12% reduction in all-cause mortality and increased life expectancy

====== Case Con ====== Contention 1: Rights and Preferences "From where do rights flow? Clearly, there is no consensus on this. I agree with my opponent that suffering should be minimized, and I agree to an extent about the idea of preferences. But I disagree that animals can truly have preferences. Very few animals are self-aware (. http://www.wiu.edu......) (. http://www.americanchronicle.com......) (. http://earthtrust.org......); all other animals are incapable of having true preferences. They may have evolutionary directives, but that is a much more superficial concept. Self-awareness is necessary to have true preferences. Therefore by my opponent's ethical standard, it is ethically possible to eat meat purely for pleasure. " I completely agree with you. This doesn't detract from my argument in the slightest. It merely adds to the list of exceptions I have already carved out. There is nothing absolutist about my position and I've never claimed that all animals can hold preferences. The resolution is not "consuming meat for pleasure is always wrong regardless of circumstances". Snails probably aren't self aware therefore I wouldn't be opposed to eating them for pleasure. Chickens, cows and pigs however are self-aware, however primitively, and thus can be included in our moral purview. And even if certain animals weren't self aware, by your standards, they would still be capable of feeling pain insofar as they had evolved a nervous system. Contention 2: The Moral Imperative "Humans have no loyalties to members of other species. In survival of the fittest, we may do whatever we please to further our own goals. " A. )This is a very dangerous slippery slope that my opponent is going down. I'm reasonably confident that I could overpower my antagonist if not physically then certainly with the aid of a gun and take his money. Insofar as this increases my chances of survival then why shouldn't I do this? If my own selfish desires were all that's relevant to questions of ethics what moral boundaries would prevent me from subjugating the weak or using slavery to further my own goals? What's to prevent me from raping women that I find to be attractive? After all, I would be propagating my genes and thus acting naturally. Chimps do this all the time in the wild and even in captivity. [1] On top of all this my opponent also committed the naturalistic fallacy. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) In other words he posits that if X is natural then X is good. In this view survival of the fittest is a natural principle and therefore it is a moral principle for guiding our decisions about ethics. B. )My opponent apparently views membership in a species as being significant to questions of ethics. At the potential expense of your patience allow me to take you on a thought experiment. Imagine that a mad scientist took your brain and placed it inside the body of a chimpanzee. You would still be the exact same person with the same mind, desires and goals except now you would be trapped into the body of a chimp. Would I be right in locking you in a cage and treating you as my pet merely because you are now a member of a different species? I think not and unless my opponent is willing to defend the view that he should be removed from our moral sphere if he were in the body of a chimp then my contention stands. Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering "I can provide several cases in which eating meat for pleasure is not unethical, and in doing so I win this debate. " A. Come on stop playing around. You know full well that I wouldn't be opposed to eating meat if it didn't lead to the death or suffering of a conscious creature. I've already stated that there is nothing prima facie wrong with the consumption of meat if it doesn't lead to animal suffering e. g. (eating road kill), (eating tissue grown in a lab) etc. Insofar as an animal is incapable of suffering then I wouldn't be opposed to eating it. Ergo I wouldn't be opposed to eating ants because I'm fairly confident they can't suffer their own destruction in any meaningful way. Your casuistry does nothing to further the debate. B. The argument you brought up about painlessly euthanizing livestock is quite interesting but it doesn't reflect reality. Its first fault lays in the fact that it is flagrantly unrealistic. This just isn't the way factory farms operate. Its second, and more crucial fault is that it disregards the importance of animal's future abilities to feel happiness. The future potential to experience happiness, insofar as that ability had been previously present, is relevant to questions of ethics. If I were to painlessly murder everyone in a city in their sleep I would be acting in a way that did absolutely nothing to increase my victims suffering. Therefore by your own standards there would be nothing wrong with this action. I'm tempted to say Q. E. D. but I think I overuse it sometimes. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Contention 4: Source of Morality "Morality is but a code of conduct that is useful for communal creatures. These communities that we live in consist of humans, so morality relates to humans and humans alone. We do not cooperate with other animals (although sometimes we force them to do our labor), so conventional morality does not apply to them. " Contention number 4 makes the exact same mistake that contention number 2 makes. It views membership in a species as inconsequential to questions of ethics. So, allow my previous arguments to carry over. ====== Case Pro ====== Contention #1 Humans do not need meat to survive. Contention #2 It is wrong to cause a conscious creature to needlessly suffer. Contention #3 Eating animal meat for pleasure is unethical insofar as the animal eaten has the capacity to suffer. Contention #4 Membership in a species is no more relevant to questions of ethics than skin color or gender. Contention #5 We share a responsibility in the suffering and death of animals when we eat meat because we empower factory farms when we buy the meat they produce. Best, Freeman Sources [1] . http://www.thesun.co.uk...

Yes Beef should be banned in India. As due to moral obligation and sentiments related to it of Hindus.Cow is considered as "Gau matta" or Cow as a mother, nobody wants to kill their mother in any circumstances. How it is possible to cut the mother of around 1028 Million just due to the taste of tongue. Spiritually we are bounded with certain rules,regulation and sentiments. We should follow them and try to maintain a healthy religious sentiment among different sect. Scientifically according to research cow meat produces around 5 times more green houses gases and 6 times more reactive nitrogen which is harmful as it will increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.After effects of eating a beef are cardiovascular disease,Types-2 diabetes and many other.So it is your choice how you take it to prevent the caw slaughter.

I also enjoy debating political points but this issue of ethics also interest me very much. In reference to your points: You said: "Animals eat as they are designed to do". I disagree. It's not the design so much that forces them to eat the food they eat. It's their lack of choices. Animals cannot grow vegetables and farm crops such as corn and soy. Animals eat what they must. The beauty of human anatomy is that humans can cook and eat vegetarian food and prevent animal suffering. As you agreed, capabilities alone do not justify actions. This was my whole point. We can make ethical and rational choices and cause less suffering on this planet. As to your second point: "Eating meat is ethical because it is accepted in society. " Child marriages are accepted in Sharia law in Pakistan. They were once accepted in mormon societies also. A girl aged 13 can be married off in Pakistan if she is past her initial puberty period in her life. Child labor practices are common in Nepal, India and parts of Africa. Slavery is accepted in parts of the world although it's not called slavery. Many societies perfectly accept second class status of women yet we frown upon them. USA has had slavery, women once upon a time could not vote, yet we threw out all those "unethical and irrational" belief systems long ago to treat others with dignity and respect. Thus my argument that we can change and live a compassionate life. Capabilities does not justify actions, as seen in the case of violence and sexual offenses. We restrain ourselves to prevent harm to other humans. Why can't we do the same to prevent suffering of animals?

R1Pro asserts that there is a generic right against pain and suffering. However, there are certain responsibilities that come with having rights. Most notable is not harming others' rights (as it was agreed that humans lose their rights when committing an immoral, such as murder). Animals fail to meet these responsibilities. This was addressed in my third contention, but I'll discuss it here too. Pro cites the golden rule, but as mentioned every carnivore and omnivore kills other animals or humans and often makes them suffer in the process; since these animals don't want to be killed or suffer themselves, they have absolutely no way of following the golden rule. However, animals don't just kill other species or kill just for food. For example, male lions who want to join a pride will kill the pride's existing cubs. (1) If a human did that to another human they'd automatically lose their rights, but it is in male lion's nature to do this. Many animals will never follow these responsibilities and won't even understand them. Therefore, animals should not receive rights. I will elaborate more on the responsibilities of rights in R3.Pro asserts that collard greens, leafy greens, tempeh, and tofu have vitamin B-12. However, it is impossible to get 100% of one's daily recommended vitamin B-12 amounts with these foods. I have no way of checking Pro's source, but according to the USDA 100 grams of collard greens (both raw and boiled) contain 0µg of of vitamin B-12. (2) Same with other leafy greens, such as lettuce, spinach, and kale. (3, 4, 5) One hundred grams of tempeh has only 0.1µg of vitamin B12 (1% of one's daily recommended amount) and tofu has none. (6, 7) Moreover, although, walnuts, seeds, and flaxseed oil all have omega-3 they have ALA. (8) Omega-3 experts recommend that adults should consume 500mg of EPA/DHA a day, which cannot be attained from any of the foods listed above. (9) Although ALA can be converted to EPA and DHA, it was found to be unreliable and restrictive way of attaining them (DHA especially). (10) By the way, omega-3 supplements are dangerous. Studies found that the majority of omega-3 supplements are oxidized. (12) Oxidized omega-3 creates a chain reaction with other PUFAs that someone's ate and make them toxic. (11) Finally, some people have no choice, but to hunt for food (not for sadistic reasons). There are still several hunter-gatherers in existence today, which rely on hunting to survive. (13) Therefore, vegan diets are harmful to humans and taking away meat from them, fails to give each human their due, and therefore animals should not have rights.C1Even if animal testing is not always effective, when it is, it allows humans to live longer and healthier lives. I have already provided several examples of how animal testing has already and is currently advancing medicine. However, Pro does admit that animal testing is sometimes required and can be done in humane ways, such as giving painkillers or anesthesia. However, animals sometimes will have to die in animal testing. A famous example was Griffith's Experiment (which is what allowed us to discover genetics), where mice had to die. (14) Also, if alternatives to animal testing exist and are more effective, they will be used. However, the FDA (and Pro) admit that sometimes animals needed to be tested upon. (15) Therefore, animal testing is sometimes necessary and will sometimes lead to the death of animals.R2As already mentioned, animal testing has brought cures to certain diseases animals suffer from. However, there are other examples of humans giving back to animals, while using them. For example, some farms often raise their animals in a healthy environment before they are killed for meat. Also, most farm animals are unable to survive in the wild, so merely holding them in captivity is an example of a give and take where the animal is ultimately being used, as many of the animals would have no chance in the wild. (16)R3The argument that because infants and mentally handicapped receive rights, animals should too is flawed. It is based off a false premise that sentience is the reason people have rights. Pro backs this claim up with the fact that those who are mentally handicapped and infants have the same rights as mature, rational, adults. Infants are given rights because they will likely grow up to be fully mature, rational, adults themselves. However, that argument doesn't apply to the mentally handicapped, except for the fact is a cure was found they would now be rational humans, while animals would still be animals. Although we agree that all humans have rights, we never agreed that all humans inherently have rights. Those who are mentally handicapped don't inherently have rights. Even though the idea of human rights has existed for centuries, the mentally handicapped haven't have had completely equal rights until the past few decades. (17) However, they were given rights by more mature humans. Like pets, there can be an exchange, such as an exchange of love between the mentally handicapped and other humans. This is much like pets, who are given rights for similar reasons. They aren't inherently there and if humans did not find a useful exchange they would not have these rights. However, if the mentally handicapped or pets commit an immoral act, they'd lose their rights (which is why dogs are killed if they harm a human). However, animals as a whole cannot be given rights since most will follow their instinct and violate the rights of others.1-http://en.wikipedia.org...2-https://www.google.ca...3-https://www.google.ca...4-https://www.google.ca...5-https://www.google.ca...6-https://www.google.ca...7-https://www.google.ca...8-http://www.flaxcouncil.ca...9-http://meg-3.com...10-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...11-http://www.hindawi.com...12-http://www.nature.com...13-http://www.huntercourse.com...14-http://en.wikipedia.org...15-http://www.fda.gov... 16-http://thepetwiki.com... 17-http://www.nbcnews.com...

"What if a family lives of meat? " Some families do rely on meat to live, For example in some third world countries, The privilege of picking and choosing your food from a supermarket isn't an option. Families who live in these conditions show examples of /necessity/; their infliction of suffering upon animals, While unfortunate, Is a literal necessity for their survival. My argument addresses specifically the /unnecessary/ infliction of harm and therefore such cases are barred. "Even in the West many people still eat meat. If lets say meat was removed what would they eat instead? " Again barring places where killing animals is a necessity, Here in the US and in Western first-world countries, The answer is as simple as picking out a different food item in the supermarket. If you want to know what can be eaten instead, Simply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you will find pastas, Beans, Grains, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren't meat. We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nutrients with which meat products are fortified. "The source below states that in 2013 8. 6 billion chickens were processed. What would fill that gap? " - Factory farming isn't going to disappear overnight; we're not going to wake up suddenly with no more chickens and wonder what we're going to eat and sell instead. If veganism was globalized, It could only happen gradually; as more people decided that human beings are not mere animals and don't have an excuse for unnecessary killing and hurting, They would start avoiding paying for it to continue happening. Consumerism for meat would begin to reduce, And therefore the market would eventually (probably over decades) reduce to irrelevancy. Like I said, It can't happen all at once, But the market for chickens would very gradually be replaced by agriculture, Which is the short answer to your question. "Sentient creature is wrong. " - What if it in the end of its life cycle? It is not an absolute wrong if the creature is already dying or will not be capable of sustaining itself for the duration of its life. I would half-agree with you on this point and rectify my original statement. If the creature is not viable anyway, I won"t maintain that killing it would be wrong. Even dying humans are permitted to be euthanized in many places (although it"s very controversial. ) However, This doesn't pertain to the meat industry - it's not as though only animals who are already terminal are being killed and made to suffer. In fact, Even animals held on dairy farms who aren't fed through meat factories live much shorter than their natural lifespans. So sure, It's not an absolute wrong to kill an already dying animal, But that doesn't pertain to the meat industry. 100 chickens or 100 humans? - You assume inaccurately that I hold animals to the same degree of worth as human beings. I don't. I personally hold the opinion that the life of a human being holds more inherent worth than the life of an animal, And therefore that the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. So when you ask me if it would be more "ethically sound" for 100 humans to survive or 100 chickens to survive, The obvious answer is 100 humans, And I'm betting almost anyone will tell you that. However, Like you said, That's not a real world example, Nor is that dilemma representative of the meat industry. In a situation where eating meat is a necessity to save a human's life, I have already stated that the harm done to animals in those cases is unfortunate but NECESSARY. You used Americans as an example, Claiming that we rely on meat. However, It's not a reliance that we have on meat, It's a preference of palatability. We /like/ meat and that's why we pay our money to factory farms, Not because we have nothing else to eat (see paragraph 2. ) Therefore the suffering we are inflicting is not a necessity. "I highly doubt obese people who have an addiction to meat would not be able to drop meat straight away" - Pointing out that meat-addicted obese people probably wouldn't be able to drop meat straight away is irrelevant; the fact that some people have an addiction to something is not actually a reason to support that thing. For example, I oppose the street market of meth even though I highly doubt those addicted to it will be able to cease their use straight away. "Basically human life is valued more then animal life. Whether or not it is right is debatable. These are my opening arguments. Next round I would like you to explain why animal life should be valued on the same level as a human life. You did say sentient and conscious but I want to elaborate more or give me other ways they should be valued the same way. " You're right, It's debatable. However, Mentioning animals" sentience/consciousness was not stated in a way that indicated that animals are the same as human beings; its point was that they have the same capacity to suffer. Inflicting unnecessary and undue suffering is wrong, Especially to the degree of extremity at which animals in the meat industry suffer. 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.

So your argument is that eating meat is morally permissible because A. no species will go extinct and B. once an organism has reproduced, it's life has no value. While in an evolutionary sense this is true, as breeding means ensuring the survival of the species, in a moral sense this is a horrifying way of thinking. Think of it this way. In the movie "Logan's Run", all people are executed at the age of thirty. The species survives, and there are no old people using up food and space and healthcare resources. Does this sound like an ideal world? I think we can agree that we would not want to be executed after we have had kids. So, the argument that "It is right to eat meat because their species will survive" does not hold up. A species is actually a pretty abstract concept. A species does not have rights, or thoughts or feelings. It is just a collection of animals that are biologically similar enough to reproduce. In summary, the argument that eating meat is morally acceptable because it will not cause extinction is a weak one, and the argument that a being that has reproduced can be killed simply because it has fulfilled it's "duty" of reproducing is mortifying. I once again challenge you to demonstrate why killing animals for food is permissible.

I accept but I must clarify a few things. I am not a proponent of harming ANY animal without a meritable, socially acceptable reason. As such, I will not be advocating those practices in anyway. I will, however, show that consuming, hunting and testing animals for ones own benefit can be perfectly moral, well in line with the laws of nature, and has nothing to do with my wanting or not wanting to be eaten by another animal. Legally, an animal's life is not as important as a humans. Morally, some people may agree with the simplicity of that statement, however very few people would actually practice a lifestyle that did not contradict that belief. If an animal's life is equal to human then you have a moral obligation to insure you never assert your importance over their own. Did you check to make sure the state/city/neighborhood you live in did not displace/kill thousands of animals while being created? If not, then you clearly don't live by a standard of equality with any animal other than your own species. Eating animals to survive is both natural and benifical to you and the environment, without this process being repeated throughout nature, the circle of life would not exist. Being human, and understanding that it may be unpleasant to the party being consumed, does not remove us from the circle. If humans did not hunt and kill a pantheon of the animals that we share this world with we would be overrun by them and our way of life would be next to impossible. If they have to be hunted, why should they go to waste instead of being eaten or even used for some sort of testing?

Hi my name is Sahaam and I believe that we should NOT eat dogs. My 1st point is that there are some animals we can eat and some animals that we shouldn't eat, like dogs.Its just cruel, dogs are said to be mans best friends which plenty of people think is true. My 2nd point is that dogs have always been there for us.There have been plenty of cases, of dogs that have saved humans lives.For example a little girl was drowning and a dog came to the rescue, and dragged her out. Also dogs help blind people walk to places, making blind people feel more secure.Dogs also fight crime by catching burglars, and they also have a great sense of smell to catch people with drugs. So dogs have always been there for us, so who are we to kill them and eat them? Its not that nice.How would you feel if you helped people all your life and in return you get killed and eaten?

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.

So you are basically saying that eating meat is not unethical. And therefore my claim that eating meat is less ethical than being a vegetarian, is false. However, I am skeptical about your reasoning. Your method of judging ethics is new to me. You mention a part of the brain that triggers when we do something unethical, this is not exactly accurate. I mean the leading scientists say the brain is still not truly understood. Could you elaborate this point further and name the part of the brain that does this please so I know where to begin in debunking it. 'Ethics' is just the vocalization sound I have used to help describe the phenomena of the consideration for others. If you want to talk about brains and physiology then consider this: What we understand as 'love' or 'compassion' is an evolutionary tool to keep us in social groups and 'persuade' us to raise our young. (solitary animals don't feel it-for they have not needed to maintain the group in order to survive). 'Love' is actually a 'thing', its a hormone, it can be measured. It has been 'created' by evolution. There is no 'ethics' part of the brain, there is a hormone that is produced that encourages us to love, and that is it. We therefore have love, but it only extends to our family and our tribe, as its evolutionary function is to maintain group loyalty and family groups. As humans become less ignorant and more aware and connected, there 'love' expands to meet a wider group of beings as we learn to understand them. So we learn that the other tribe are actually quite similar and we encorperate them as well. People are still hateful of other nationalities, other races, people they don't understand or see as themselves, but 'good' people recognise that we are all equal, no matter how different we are. So my argument is that to incorporate other species into our circle of love is a step forward in ethics. How can cruelty to other earthlings be more ethical than not being cruel? I don't agree with your view on how we should determine ethics. Also, even with your view on ethics I still think I am right. For instance, killing an animal makes us feel horrible (until we desensitise), and if feeling horrible and cruel isn't a reflection of 'bad ethics' in my brain, then what is ?


Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Plant-Based Diets: A Healthier and More Ethical Alternative to Animal-Based Diets

Why should people consider a plant-based diet over an animal-based diet or one that includes animal products? After thorough research, the answer is surprisingly straightforward. Here are ten compelling reasons to adopt a plant-based diet:

1) Dairy is unnecessary for those living in developed countries. Cow's milk is designed for baby calves, not humans. In the USA, where protein and calcium sources are abundant, milk is not a necessary source of these nutrients. The belief that milk is essential is often based on misinformation.

2) While meat is the only known source of Vitamin B12, B12-fortified foods are widely available. Research suggests that the body absorbs B12 from fortified foods as effectively as from animal products. Meat is the only nutrient in animal products that can't easily be found in other foods.

3) Factory farms are responsible for the suffering and slaughter of 56 billion animals annually for human consumption. These farms often employ unethical practices, such as gestation crates for pigs and artificial insemination of cows. The consumption of these products can also lead to the intake of hormones and antibiotics.

4) Western society consumes too much meat. Chronic disease charts and the correlation between meat/dairy consumption and disease indicate that most people eat more meat and dairy than is healthy. Meat and dairy are not necessary in large quantities.

5) Excessive animal protein increases the risk of osteoporosis. Contrary to popular belief, animal protein is not the healthiest source of protein. Plant-based diets, which include complete and incomplete plant proteins, are healthier in the long term.

6) Plant-based diets are associated with better overall health. Vegetarians and vegans tend to live longer than omnivores, not because they don't eat meat, but because they are more conscious of their food choices. Awareness of food sources and production methods is crucial for nutrition and health.

7) Plants have fewer calories and 400 times more micronutrients than meat and dairy. Vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are high in protein, calcium, vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and minerals like iron and magnesium. A plant-based diet can help address obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other lifestyle-related chronic conditions.

8) Nutrient deficiencies are common in both omnivores and vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron deficiency is more likely to affect females than males. Vitamin D

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

Just to let you know, I am all for animal rights, but, I will debate against it for the sake of the argument.

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

Banning slaughterhouses, if it is what the majority wants, is fine. People should be able to vote on if they don't want the slaughterhouses. If someone wanted to raise cows to eat on their own, that would be their own decision and should be legal. People will not lose their lives over this. They will be able to get different jobs instead. That is a ridiculous point as people get laid off all the time.

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!

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.

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.

I accept. For Clarity's sake, I am an ex-Hindu, I am therefore am familiar personally with most customs and traditions of Hinduism. No Beef should not be banned in India. While yes the cow holds a deep religious sentiment among many people in India, it is completely unjustifiable to ban beef altogether. It is a gross negligence to the freedoms of all Indians because India is a secular state. Therefore, we shouldn't let the belief of the majority, subjugate the will of the entirety. With regards to your "Scientific Data", "'5 times more greenhouses gasses and 6 times more reactive nitrogen'". 5 and 6 times more what? Secondly, can you definitely link beef alone to any of those health problems.

"It is morally wrong to condemn animals for a plethora of reasons. [1]One being that we break the Golden Rule." What is the golden rule and why shouldn't it be broken? "[2]Name a trait present in animals, which if present in humans, would justify the treatment proposed by omnivores if applied to a human." Who said I thought that it wrong to kill a human? "[3]If you believe in human rights, that we all have a fundamental baseline for the right to life, then I believe it would be logically inconsistent of you to not extend said rights to animals." Who said I believe in human rights? I've made absolutely no claim, therefor hold absolutely no burden of proof.

Animals are sentient beings. There is no need to exploit them within this society. Therefore there is no justification because it is needless. The American and British dietetic accosiation recognises a vegan diet healthy for all stages of life. The bottom line is that we can sustain and thrive without consuming animals in modern society. Therefore there is no reason to kill them and use their corpse for our pleasure.