Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Is chocolate milk beneficial for your health? Greetings to all, here is my viewpoint... I believe that chocolate milk is good for you as it is healthy for your body and teeth. It provides essential nutrients that contribute to overall health and can even have dental benefits, contrary to common misconceptions about its sugar content.

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

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

Firstly, all my original points remain unrefuted by con. He needs to rebut them. Rebuttal 1. I concede that point. However, the same article says "Sounds great right? Not quite. In terms of micronutrients, a vegan diet is actually more susceptible to being nutritionally poor. A vegan diet is naturally low in calcium, vitamin D, iron, vitamin B12, zinc and omega-3 fatty acids". These nutritional negatives outweigh the benefits by far, so a vegan diet is still unhealthy. 2.Firstly this is a very biased source, given that it is dedicated to people taking up vegetarianism. Secondly, your quote is about low-fat vegetarian diets, not about veganism, and is therefore irrelevant to this debate. 3. Dr Michael Roizen's theories about ageing are not credible. For example, he has claimed that it is possible to live to 120 with the quality of life of a 45 year old [1]. Surely the 13 year figure is an extreme exaggeration if it comes from Mr Roizen. I have refuted all of con's arguments, and he has not touched mine. Veganism is indeed unhealthy and unjustifiable. [1]http://www.cleveland.com...

The Pro is arguing that mosquito's are the most dangerous animal in the world, which is funny because we all know that mosquitos havent been proven to be real, like evolution. (Thats humor, not trolling, i acknowledge mosquito's exist) Anyways I will be arguing that the most dangerous animal in the world are HUMANS. Human- Vary in size but much larger then the mythical mosquito. Contention 1: HabitatHumans are much more widespread then Mosquitos, humans currently inhabit all 7 continents, everywhere else in between, and a few of us are even spending time up in space right now. Humans do not hibernate over winter like mosquitos do, so they have an entire extra season to terrorize other life forms while Mosquitos are in nap time. Mosquitos can drink up to .3 Liters of blood a day but an average human can drink 3 liters of water, beer, milk, soda, etc. Humans consume 10x more liquid in a given day then mosquito's, and no liquid is safe from them. Not even Cherry Pepsi. The Pro goes on to argue that mosquitos are dangerous because they are widespread and carry harmful bacteria, but humans do the exact same thing but on a much larger scale. Humans have invented the means of transporting illness across the world potentially in hours, as demonstrated in the movie "Contagion". Mosquitos cant even spread a disease to a new area without hitching a ride on some form of human transportation to get there, so really any harm they can do also counts as damage humans can do. Contention 2: Means of SpreadThis whole argument justify's my point about how mosquitos are completely incapable of spreading new diseases to new areas without human help. If anything its humans who are the primary player in introducing these new diseases to new areas, and its not just diseases either, invasive species of plants, animals, bacteria, etc all can be spread around the world and upset natural habitats that were previously isolated, and humans can do it in a matter of hours. Contention 3: DiseaseThe pro lists many diseases that mosquitos can spread, some of which can be spread by humans as well. Diseases that humans can spread that mosquitos cannot spread include AIDS, HIV, various strains of the flu, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Herpes, and humans can actually alter the environment itself to also cause the spreading of Ebola, Ecoli, Hepatitis, Dysentary, and the worst one of them all............ Cooties. Also theres this thing that prevents mosquito's from spreading disease, and its this miracle product called 'bug spray' where all a human has to do is aim towards a mosquito, spray the bug spray, and the mosquito dies. Bam, no disease spread anymore. Mosquitos dont have access to 'human spray' where they can kill humans before spreading disease now can they? Hell the Pro went ahead and LISTED ways that humans can counter the effects of Mosquito's" - Vector control aimed at mosquito control or eradication. - Disease prevention, using prophylactic drugs and developing vaccines. - Prevention of mosquito bites, with insecticides, nets and repellents. - Since most such diseases are carried by "elderly" female mosquitoes, some scientists have suggested focusing on these to avoid the evolution of resistance."So even the Pro must concede that humans are much better at fighting mosquito's then mosquito's are at fighting humansContention 4: Fatalities per year. There are two flaws in the pros argument that mosquitos are the number one cause of death of humans. #1, the pro CONVENIENTLY left out that HUMANS are the number 1 killer of other humans#2, nobody has ever died from an ordinary mosquito bite, they die from the disease that the mosquito was carrying. It is invalid to conclude that the mosquito was the killer since the mosquito was just the mode of transportation. If a person gets shot in the face and dies, the gun didnt kill the person, the bullet did. On the other hand, if those deaths can be attributed to mosquitos, then the following examples of how humans kill other humans becomes completely valid. WarGenocideCar accidentsPlane CrashesMurder (includes shootings, stabbings, suffocations, poisoning)Looking into the ArkTelling people to not worry about getting that mole checkedAccidental deaths caused by texting or calling someonePeoples pets attacking other people Falling off of roller coasters ad other amusement park ridesThe list goes on and on. The point is, Mosquitos only affect humans if they are carrying diseases, and the diseases are the ones doing the killing, not the mosquito, and humans are much more dangerous to humans then mosquitos. ==========================================================================Contention 5: impact on environmentHumans have an infinitely larger impact on the environment then mosquitos do, which jeopardizes the safety and survival of entire species. Urbanization, industrialization, globalization, and modernization have all attributed to massive alterations done to native habitats on land, in the sea, and altered the air, which puts almost all species at risk. Mosquitos on the other hand have never done anything to alter an environment. What makes an animal dangerous is how much of a threat their actions are to the survival of other species, and humans blow mosquitos out of the water on here. Contention 6: capabilities of both differ greatlyLets look at how Mosquito's and humans have evolved to kill people over timeMosquitos: Usually takes one or more to spread a disease to a single person that may or may not kill them, other mosquito's are needed to infect other people Humans: Can annihilate entire cities or entire groups of people with the use of nuclear warheads, weaponized biological weapons, chemical weapons, etc. Mosquitos: By themselves, can kill a max of one person and the odds of doing so are incredibly smallHumans: By themselves can inadvertently have a massive impact on the environment around them just by existing, can kill a large number of people if they have access to the right weapon and the movie theater is showing a good movie. Mosquitos: If one flies into your windshield, nothing bad ever happensHumans: If one flies into your windshield, you should stop drinking and drivingMosquitos: If an unwelcomed mosquito is found in your house, you can quickly eliminate him without fear of losing your lifeHumans: If an unwelcomed human is found in your house, youre probably getting robbed and the chances of you getting hurt or killed increases drastically. Mosquitos: Can be eliminated by being hit with a fly swatterHumans: Cannot be eliminated by being hit with a fly swatterMosquitos: Not responsible for polluting rivers, oceans, or pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rateHumans: ARE responsible for polluting rivers, oceans and pump CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rateNo matter how you compare Humans to Mosquitos in how much harm they can do or how you can eliminate them as a threat, Humans always will be more dangerous to other humans and to other species completely. Back to you pro.

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

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.

A vegetarian diet is better than one of a meat eater's for various reasons, but in this argument I will stress on two.Animal Suffrage: Having a vegetarian lifestyle helps not only you as an individual, but also helps save millions of animals that get harmed and slaughtered yearly.It"s cruel and unethical to kill animals when vegetarian options are available.- Animals have emotions and social connections.- Scientific study shows cattle pigs and chickens and all warm-blooded experience stress, fear and pain- 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds killed for food each year.-; These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.-; Raising animals in confinement is cruel. -; 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. -; In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers. - Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are. - Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). Animals raised for food in US not slaughtered humanely.-HMSA (Humane methods of slaughter act) necessitates that cows be unconscious before slaughter to readuce suffering - Birds and pigs have no rules of such- And slaughter houses still mostly ignore HMSAHealth and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet gives one a complete nutrition with additional health benefits that meat cannot provide.- According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat eating diet because- Vegetarian diets meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids), and improve health. - It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one"s health. - According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. - Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. - Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. -Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.- There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.- According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters. -A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.- A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women - 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.- A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. Vegetarians live longer. - A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease. - A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years. - A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women. - On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortalityA vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. - According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians.- Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.-Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. [124] Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. - According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer. - The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further. - A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. World Hunger: Eating Meat uses up many of the plant resources and causes most third world countries to not be able to grow enough food. A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. - Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.- If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide. Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people.

I will now present my case that water is not actually the best choice for daily life. Instead of water, I propose that tea is the best choice for our daily life and will back this up in my arguments. A1: During the process of creating tea, you have to boil water. “Boiling water is the safest method of purification… boiling water kills germs and parasites… Naturally occurring water can contain bacteria, such as Giardia, that can cause digestive issues and, in some developing countries, potentially fatal diseases, such as cholera. Water that looks clean can still contain harmful bacteria, which are invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, it's important to purify your water if you suspect it has not been treated even if it looks safe to drink. ” (1) By drinking tea instead of drinking water, you decrease the risk of the transference of parasites, viruses, bacteria, etc. which leads to a healthier body. A2: “Epidemiological evidence has shown an association between tea consumption and the prevention of age-related bone loss in elderly women and men. Ingestion of green tea and green tea bioactive compounds may be beneficial in mitigating bone loss of this population and decreasing their risk of osteoporotic fractures. ”(2) In short, tea has many health advantages that water doesn’t. A3: “Water is essentially replacing fluid. Tea replaces fluids and contains antioxidants so it’s got two things going for it. ” -Dr. Ruxton (In a BBC interview) (3) "Drinking tea is actually better for you than drinking water. Water is essentially replacing fluid. Tea replaces fluids and contains antioxidants so it's got two things going for it. " –Dr. Ruxton (4) If you had one cup of tea and one cup of water, tea would be better for you to drink. Conclusion: I have stated by case for why tea is a better drink than water and backed up each assertion with evidence. I await my opponent’s response, thank you! . http://traveltips.usatoday.com... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . http://healthland.time.com... . http://lifehacker.com...

So you are arguing that reading makes better communication and I am arguing that the fact that it strains your eyes is quite dangerous and a reason why so many people have glasses/contacts. POINT 1. Public schools in general have desks and, for many kids who sit in the back of the rooms, have to strain their eyes anyways just to see the whiteboard/blackboard/Smart-board. The kids go home, do their routine--which may include watching TV, where they could be damaging eyes (that is a controversial subject)--and then the kids have homework which most of the time includes reading. This is another place where the kids hurt their eyes yet again. POINT 2. It is very easy to overlook (see what I did there) the fact that, if you are reading without enough light, your eyes will be effected for the worse later in life because of straining. This is a problem for a lot of people, adults and kids, and it is a factor for why so many people have glasses. POINT 3. Reading at an early age effects their eyesight later in life. Is it good when kids learn to read at an early age? Particularly girls, since not many boys find interest in reading at an early age, like to read aloud to themselves when they are very young and take eager practice to learning new words. This is where #2 (above point) comes in. If they do not have enough light and are practicing--sometimes hours a day--at as early as 3-4 years old, reading can't be very good for you. In other--Asian--countries most schools do not allow kids to be taught to read until a certain age, for different reasons, but for one because it starts to slowly destroy your original eyesight. CONCLUSION: children shouldn't be taught to read at as early an age as below 6 years old. (That's an opinion of course, but that's what we're debating here.) REBUTTAL TO YOUR ARGUMENT: You are arguing that the technology and engineering part of reading is good, the part which advances society, but the debate here is about YOUR experience with reading and if it's healthy for you. The reason that the debate is not about what you were saying is because I agree with you on that. SOURCES. http://america.aljazeera.com... http://health.howstuffworks.com... http://www.theage.com.au... http://www.theage.com.au...


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Moderate consumption of beer is more beneficial for health than drinking milk.

Contrary to popular belief, consuming milk isn't necessarily the healthier choice when compared to beer, especially when consumed in moderation. The argument that milk is inherently healthier is often overstated, especially when we consider the potential contaminants and health implications associated with its consumption.

Milk can contain a variety of contaminants, ranging from pesticides to synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which are commonly administered to dairy cows to increase milk production. The use of antibiotics is also prevalent in the treatment of mastitis, an inflammation of the mammary glands caused by excessive milk production. This can result in antibiotic residues being present in milk and dairy products, potentially affecting human health.

Pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can accumulate to harmful levels, affecting the immune, reproductive, and central nervous systems. There are also concerns about the presence of hormones and growth factors naturally produced in a cow's body, which can impact human health when consumed in milk.

In contrast, moderate beer consumption has been linked to various health benefits. It contains no fat, significantly less sodium, no cholesterol, and fewer calories than milk. Moderate beer intake has been associated with a reduced risk of diabetes, strokes, heart disease, dementia, and lower stress levels. Beer can also help maintain healthy bones and improve cognitive function in older adults.

It's important to note that while some people may argue that non-alcoholic beer and lactose-free milk are healthier alternatives, the original definitions of beer and milk provided in this debate clearly distinguish between the two beverages. Beer is defined as an alcoholic beverage made from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops, while milk is defined as a liquid secreted by cows, goats, and other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of dairy products.

In conclusion, moderate beer consumption is more beneficial for health than drinking milk. Milk can contain harmful contaminants such as pesticides, antibiotics, and synthetic hormones that can affect human health, while beer offers various health benefits when consumed in moderation. The debate on the health implications of milk consumption versus beer should take into account the potential risks and benefits associated with each beverage.

I thank Bennett for his response and of course willing to re-do the debate with me. Now before I begin I believe that a few details should be cleared out. So I will once more remind the voters that the burden of proof is on my opponent to show that eating meat is not unhealthy and nor immoral. Also I should mention that the links to the sources provided lead to only general sites. Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways. Now my negative arguments will in truth be also a refutation to my opponents points. My argument will be a combination. Lastly if my opponent must prove both the morality and the health of eating meat, if I can disprove even one I win this debate. Tier One: Eating Meat Is Unhealthy: It is clear that eating meat has many risks. Whether it be the best meat in the world or the worst. Of the 1.3 billion people in this world who are overweight or obese (ranked by BMI) only 8% of them are vegetarians. Meat is also high in fats and cholesterol. Research has shown that countries which partake in meat have a much greater rate of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular, diabetes mellitus and some cancers. Meat is other than being extremely high in saturated fats, and cholesterol also dense in calories, produces heterocyclic amines which are carcinogenic, increases the chance of colon cancer by 12%, is hard on the stomach where it often causes IBS, stomach cramps, prolapsed colons, haemorrhoids, constipation and many other problems. Eating meat increases the chances of autoimmune disease by 16%, carries a 9% risk of fatal bacterial diseases, increases bacteria in the body, causes hormonal balance, and may cause blue tongue disease. It is also untrue that one cannot survive without eating meat. Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all. I believe it is best summarized in the medical journal entry which I quote (links provided below): 'The American Dietetic Association states, "Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fats, cholesterol, and even animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, phosphate, folate and antioxidants like Vitamin C..."'. It is also clear that vegetarians like nearly six to twelve years on average more than meat eaters. Meat also contains Polycylic Aromatic Hydrocarbons which increase the chance of breast cancer by an astounding thirty percent! It is also stated that: 'Harvard researchers recently conducted a prospective analysis of 90,655 premenopausal women, ages 26 to 46, enrolled in the Nurses" Health Study II and determined that intake of animal fat, especially from red meat and high-fat dairy products, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Increased risk was not associated with vegetable fats.' Other than that Colorectal cancer is increased by 18%, prostate cancer by 14% and pancreatic cancer by 3%. The point is when you can have an excellent diet with vegetables it is unhealthy to eat meat because it not only raises the cholesterol levels, and increases the risk of cancer but also increases the uric acid of a person causing great amounts of pain. Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues. Tier Two: Eating Meat Is Immoral: Since there are more than statistics provided here I will first present a rebuttal to the arguments presented here. The first is that it may help the animals this is a blatant lie, I mean you are killing the animals! Also by slaughtering animals and/or domesticating them man has caused great amounts of environmental harm. A recent report by the Envireomental Working Group revealed lamb and beef to contribute greatly to greenhouse gas emissions. Producing one pound of pork creates on average a baffling 12.02 kilograms of CO2, which is only one third of the CO2 produced for one pound of beef, and only one fifth for that of lamb. Fishing and preparing aquamarine animals actually harms the oceanic life considerably. Now moving on to the next part. I should like to inform the voters that an appeal to nature is the name of a logical fallacy. My opponent gives the example of animals. The Jacan birds kill of their infants, shall humans do so as well? Lions when they find a new mate, kill of the their stepchildren, shall we today ask stepparents to kill their non biological children. Pedophilia, psychopathy, sociopathy are all natural. There is no benefit to animals. My opponent has not justified his burden. Lastly how can it not be immoral to kill off sentient life. Now the word meat is used. Many people like to eat monkey brains, or shark steaks. Do you realize that monkeys have their neo cortex built? They experience loss, pain, happiness and you or I would. Mamals have the spinal brain formed and take care of their young. Cows actually feel the loss of their children. Do you think it is still not immoral to kill of these animals? The resolution collapses. [1]http://vegetarian.procon.org... [2]http://www.evolvingwellness.com... [3]http://www.pcrm.org... [4]http://www.colostate.edu... [5]http://www.peta.org... [6]http://action.petaindia.com... [7]http://suprememastertv.com... [8]http://www.scientificamerican.com... [9]http://www.csa.com... [10]https://sora.unm.edu...

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

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

1. I apologize for unnecessarily dividing my arguments. You are incorrect about your interpretation of the debate, it is about whether prohibiting moderate consumption of alcohol would negatively impact health. 2. Although drinking black tea may decrease the risk of coronary heart disease, black tea consumption and alcohol consumption are not mutually exclusive. This is irrelevant. 3. Again, it is perfectly possible to consume alcohol, fish, and Vitamin E. My opponent has also failed to show that the amount of alcohol I specified in Round 1 is sufficient to cause alcoholism and other problems. It is only the minimum amount necessary to benefit from the healthy proprieties of alcohol. 4. That was not the purpose of my sources, they were intended to demonstrate the effects alcohol has on health. 5. As I stated, the amount of alcohol specified in the definition is, for most people, not enough to cause the adverse effects my opponent describes here. That small an amount of alcohol will not cause healthy people to "wonder why you woke up where you should've never been".

First, I thank clajen for giving me a chance to debate this topic. To start, animal tests are really helpful for the development of scientific studies. Animal tests are the experiment that the humans do for such medical development and scientific development. Animals are comfortable, fest, and easy for the humans to do experiments since they have similar body structure like the humans. For example, chimpanzees share 99%of their DNA with the humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to the humans. That may save the time of the experiment. Animal tests may give much help to the life time of the humans. Humans have life cycle, and these animal experiments may expand the humans' life cycles. It is because it deveops the medical curing system for the humans.Animal tests creates the products to be better and safe. Also, science became more and more important these days because of environmental problems and the development of technology. So, improving the science will be helpful. Also, animal tests may even benefit the animals themselves. If vaccines were not developed by animal testings, the animals might have died from some diseases. Animal testing benefits the health of the animals and the medical cares for them

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

At this point, the debate is over. Everything CON posted in the last round was plagiarized from this link: . https://www.chop.edu...One need only to copy and paste one of these argument into Google, and you come up with this source, which lays out everything. Con has not even taken the time to remove the headings, or the links allowing a visiter of this site to go "back to the top" of the page. Con has not provided a single argument of his own or responded to my arguments. He cannot possibly win this debate.

On animal government: I never said that they would have a congress and a military budget. They do have a social structure. Especially wolves, lions and whales. Don't jump too conclusions. On crops: No, if everyone went vegan, the amount of crops being produced would decrease dramatically. We slaughter 90 billion land animals per year. It takes a lot of food to feed that many animals. Most of our crops go to livestock feed. If you don't believe me, look at the simple math: It takes more crops to feed 90 billion than 7 billion, and cows eat more than people. 90>7. On B12 deficiency: Yes many vegans are deficient, so are many meat eaters. My favorite part: Morality My opponent has spent a lot of time writing about evolution and superiority. They imply that animals are inferior to us. So what? Does that mean they deserve to be oppressed and cut up into little pieces?! Whether or not an animal is a person is irrelevant and an arrogant way to think. All animals are sentient, so there is no excuse to abuse them, any more than a Nazi had an excuse for the holocaust. It doesn't matter if it involves a dog, cow, rat, ant, or whale. Animal abuse is animal abuse. Just because it involves bacon, doesn't change that. Let me list off the things that we have done, and continue to do to animals. Then, it will be obvious about whether it is right or wrong. 1. We brand cows without painkiller. 2. We rape them with bull semen. 3. We clip their ears without painkiller. 4. We often keep them in horrible living conditions. 5. We milk them to exhaustion. 6. We hang them upside down and slash their throats till they bleed out in a slaughterhouse. 7. We cut the teeth off of baby pigs, so they don't bite each other. 8. We also rip off their testicles. 9. We kill pigs with a bolt gun. (yes, a fast death, but would you want that to happen to you?) 10. We cut the beaks off of chicks. 11. We shred the male chicks alive into dog food. 12. We decapitate chickens on a conveyor belt. 13. Other times we gas the animals we want to kill. 14. We go hunting, shoot innocent animals, and take pictures with their corpse as if it is something to be proud of. 15. Animals are handled with cattle prods. 16. Circus animals are slaves, as are dairy cows. 17. Minks are other animals have their necks snapped to be made into fur coats. 18. We test harmful products on animals. 19. We skin cows for leather. 20. We catch fish with painful hooks, drown them in the air and beat them against rocks. My opponent cannot justify a single one of the above points. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is evil. We have an entire holiday dedicated to killing a turkey and shoving bread up its anus! Is that supposed to be a symbol of peace?! A tortured and murdered animal?! Really?! Eating meat never has been and never will be ethical. It's evil. Pure evil. You can vote for veganism or you can vote for animal abuse. It's obvious which one is morally right. [1]. http://www.news.cornell.edu... [2]. http://www.dailykos.com... [3]. https://www.ers.usda.gov...

"Meat- Banning meat will result in the fact that people will end up not getting enough proteins, and because of this, our cells wouldn't be able to repair themselves, and we wouldn't be able to grow" Con There is logic to this statement. If protein deficient then adverse health affects will result. Yet, Con fails to prove how much proteins humans need. Next, Con assumes that a vegan diet will result in protein deficiency. Pro will now prove how much protein humans need and prove that a vegan diet could have enough protein. Claim 1: Humans need about 10% calories from protein. Warrant 1:" If we do a few calculations we see that the protein recommendation for vegans amounts to close to 10% of calories coming from protein." [2]. Impact 1: A vegan diet is capable of supplying enough protein. On a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivore its possible to be protein deficient, just as its possible on the same diets to be nutritionally balanced. Vegans are more likely to be protein deficient but this is only due to ignorance. A few naive vegans should not ruin an entire lifestyle for millions of people. Claim 2: Million of people are vegan. Warrant 2: "About 2% to 3% of the population in the world is vegan. Since there are around 6.7 billion people in the world, this means there are approximately 168 million vegans." [3]. "In 2009, the world population was 6.787 billion, meaning there were approximately 407,200,000 vegans in the world." [4]. Impact 2: If nutritional deficiency was such a problem, there wouldn't be millions of vegans in the world. Claim 3: There are many vegan celebrities. Warrant 3: [5] and "Al Gore goes vegan, with little fanfare" [6]. Impact 3: Celebrities by their very nature must be good looking and healthy. If nutritional deficiency were such a problem these celebrities wouldn't be vegan. Claim 4: At least one vegan food contains 10% or more calories from protein. Warrant 4: Soy milk contains 24% protein [7]. Impact 4: Further proves vegans can receive enough protein. The negative impact on health of over nutrition of fat, saturated fats, and cholesterol are well known, thus animal products are unhealthy. Not well known is that animal protein increases IGF-1, insulin like growth factor one, production via the liver. Elevated serum IGF-1 levels increase risk for cancer. [8]. Therefore, consuming animal proteins increases risk for cancer. Claim 5: Animal products take at least twice as much grain per pound as opposed to straight grain. Warrant 5: "Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves." [9]. Impact 5: Meat is less efficient thus causing excess environmental damage and world hunger. Vegan diets can help mitigate both world hunger and environmental harm. Summary In summary Pro has forcefully disproved Con's notion. In the same round Pro has shown the benefits of a vegan diet while condemning the consumption of animal products with proof. Vote Pro. Links 2. http://www.vrg.org... 3. http://www.answers.com... 4. http://www.numberof.net... 5. http://abcnews.go.com... 6. https://www.washingtonpost.com... 7. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 8. http://nutritionfacts.org... 9. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

I got this from a friend and thought it would be interesting, everything is debatable. Please find one thing that there is no debate about. Thanks,


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Should chocolate milk be offered in schools? Yes, chocolate milk should be provided in schools because children enjoy it. It could potentially lead to kids reducing their soda intake if they start drinking chocolate milk instead. Surprisingly, chocolate milk contains calcium and vitamins, and it even has more vitamins than regular milk! You might think it's similar to a chocolate drink, but it's not. Chocolate milk can help keep kids from developing a soda habit, making it a healthier choice for them. By serving chocolate milk in schools, we might see a positive shift in children's beverage preferences, steering them away from sugary sodas towards a drink that offers more nutritional benefits.

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

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

At this point, the debate is over. Everything CON posted in the last round was plagiarized from this link: . https://www.chop.edu...One need only to copy and paste one of these argument into Google, and you come up with this source, which lays out everything. Con has not even taken the time to remove the headings, or the links allowing a visiter of this site to go "back to the top" of the page. Con has not provided a single argument of his own or responded to my arguments. He cannot possibly win this debate.

Thank for your great arguments. now on...*I wouldn't think anyone was going to accept this debate since we don't know much about where the animal that we eat come from or how we benefit from it everyday*Rebuttal 1: Animal Rights-It is true that animal cloning is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. But this same animal right that were violating is beneficial for humans because according to "123helpme the benefits of cloning animal states... "Now imagine it is the year 2007, and you are in dire need of a heart. The doctors do several tests to determine your genetic make-up, so they can find the right animal to match your needs. After replacing your heart with a pig heart, you recover and go on with everyday life. No one had to die, and you received your heart. With today's technology, this, and more human benefits, will be made possible with animal cloning. " Humans may suffer "immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and and other related diseases. Now for a human to suffer or die, Not really a humane thing to do, is it?""Since the first cloned mammal, scientists have worked to find a practical application for cloning that will produce advances for human diseases. In some inherited disorders, such as hemophilia, cystic fibrosis and emphysema, the only way to treat such patients is through therapeutic proteins, which are obtained through the milk of an animal (Straight). These animals carry a certain protein that is secreted in their milk or blood, which is then harvested and purified for use (Nagal). Drugs made from these proteins are extremely scarce and expensive. Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals ("Medical Uses.."). With the ability to clone, scientists will be able to genetically engineer animals for a particular protein and then mass-produce the proteins. In addition, cloned animals can be used to obtain a greater understanding for diseases and other mysteries of life. Researchers will be able to create better models of diseases with animal cloning, which will further progress in understanding and possibly treating such diseases (Nagal). "*Researchers' primary intention is to help cure diseases when natural methods do not work, not to act in harsh manners toward the animals, or to make a profit. *According to http://www.fda.gov... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food Rebuttal 2: commericial beneficial-Now i know that it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred, that fact of the matter of cloning speeds it up for more of it while naturally we have to wait for it. "A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it." most of these people may simplily be vegetarians. But the matter of fact is that... "After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine (pigs), and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. This conclusion stems from an extensive study of animal cloning and related food safety, culminating in the release of three FDA documents in January 2008: a risk assessment, a risk management plan, and guidance for industry. Researchers have been cloning livestock species since 1996, starting with the famous sheep named Dolly. When it became apparent in 2001 that cloning could become a commercial venture to help improve the quality of herds, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) asked livestock producers to voluntarily keep food from clones and their offspring out of the food chain until CVM could further evaluate the issue."*Proponents of livestock cloning see it benefiting consumers, producers, animals and the environment.**Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any clones, are as safe as food we eat every day." Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of safety-While it may not be exactly guarantee there is still safety. According to...http://www.fda.gov... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food FDA issued the risk assessment, the risk management plan, and guidance for industry in draft form for public comment in December 2006. Since that time, FDA has updated the risk assessment to reflect new scientific information that reinforces the food safety conclusions of the draft.“Our additional review only serves to strengthen our conclusions on food safety,” says Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones, are as safe as food we eat every day.” FDA’s concern about animal health prompted the agency to develop a risk management plan to decrease any risks to animals involved in cloning. FDA also issued guidance to clone producers and the livestock industry on using clones and their offspring for human food and animal feed. What Cloning Means to Consumers• FDA has concluded that cattle, swine, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food, are safe for human and animal consumption. • Food labels do not have to state that food is from animal clones or their offspring. FDA has found no science-based reason to require labels to distinguish between products from clones and products from conventionally produced animals. • The main use of clones is to produce breeding stock, not food. These animal clones—copies of the best animals in the herd—are then used for conventional breeding, and the sexually reproduced offspring of the animal clones become the foodproducing animals.• Due to the lack of information on clone species other than cow, goat, and pig (for example, sheep), FDA recommends that other clone species do not enter the human food supply. Animal cloning is beneficial for the human race, in agriculture and drug production, maintaing biodiversity, and biomedical research. Facts shows it that its beneficial for human, animal, and the enviroment. I look forward from hearing from my opponent. http://www.123helpme.com...http://www.fda.gov...http://www.fda.gov...;

I urge the voters to to disregard con's FF in round 4. Please vote solely on whose points outweigh whose. On that note, I hope all is well with Envisage. Summary/Conclusion: The unethical treatment of livestock... -Encourages and causes food contamination -Weakens the treatments available for not just food borne illnesses, potentially all illnesses treated by antibiotics -Pushes rising prices to consumers and unfair pay to farmers because of industries' monopolist market power -Raises the quality of meat people consume -May slightly reduce meat produced each year, with a good potential for indirectly decreasing the amount of animal products consumed by people. This may likely lower high rates of cancer and heart disease, the first two leading causes of death in America. -Costs the country (US) roughly $414 billion dollars each year in health, environmental, and animal welfare expenses. -Has a huge negative impact on the environment; meat-eaters produce about double the dietary greenhouse gas emissions than vegans do. With the ethical treatment of animals, producing a significant of animal products each year is still possible. Lessening factory-farming, and therefore lessening monopolistic control, would be good news for farmers who are left with very little options in buyers. It would even be good news for the job market because it would be more viable as a competitive industry. The ethical treatment of livestock does not threaten the food supply, nor do developed countries like America necessitate the need for such a significant amount of animal products. As I've pointed out, Americans throw away up to 40% of food each year, and a study suggests that the world's food supply could be doubled if people ate less meat. Which, if I say so myself, more than makes up for difference in meat produced ethically vs. unethically. Also, farms that uphold the ethical treatment of livestock do exist and can be very successful - like in the example I gave in round three. I will acknowledge, however, that it could be catastrophic if the US enforced the ethical treatment of livestock at once. This sort of system would require gradual, yet strict change. Once people have moved over to it though, it will more beneficial than the current system, in which factory-farming controls costs and indirectly wreaks havoc on people's lives. And to boot, the ethical treatment of livestock will also please the many people who consider it the moral road to take.

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

Im sorry I can't link the study, it's in a book made from 1986 and I checked online f it is there yet it isn't. It does hold value since you concluded plants can't talk, defend themselves, or think. I will make this link though since I could find it: http://www.bestchapter.com... "The problem with world hunger. . ." The four problems about this is that: 1. Not only are we sending aid to those countries, 2. Since the global population continues to grow in developed countries, 3. poor countries continue to fall in debt so they sell most crops (goes back to two) that should be used to support their local population 4. Really the only country that has a big starving population is North Korea where over 40% of its population starve(1) 28% climat too dry 23% chemical problems 10% climate too wet 6% permafrost 22% soil too shallow 11% suitable for crops(1) I use books to get my information so yes they have real editors on them, and so they are correct. I don't see any way animals destroy the environment, other then taking land (just like crops). Though yes, they produce waste so that destroys the environment. No, have you ever heard of biofuel? There is a factory that makes fuel out of turkey waste and the only by-product is water vapor. Of course many animals are stuck in cages or stuck in miles of waste but of course by meat from local farms that actually care for their animals don't get mass produced meat products. You will support animal rights and support local businesses. Without producing meat, many in growing countries will starve since many of them are herding nomads and that meat can fill you up in smaller quantities. Another article saying some stuff about we weren't ever able to actually eat rice. Though we may adapt. http://healthomg.com... When I brought up 11% of the earth can only grow crops is that if you think about it animals can survive on bad places of land as long as you feed and water them. Like maybe how herders carry their anmals through the desert to oasises. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... For health. (1)Talk Nerdy To Me copyright 2013

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

cavemen didn't eat rocks, i don't understand your logic. I don't understand much of your sentence structure. The fact of the matter is, this debate topic is all relavent to one's own perspective. I see that a meat eating lifestyle is better than a vegetarian lifestyle, that is a fact. Look, people buy from companies and factory farms that conduct animal abuse, but places like the EU have banned commercial farming and the abuses and the meat is no longer incredibly cruely farmed like in the US. OK, maybe meat eating is correlated with cancer, i still have a choice and a belief that it is still better than vegetarianism. Arguing as con, I would like to reiterate that farming these animals have protected their existence. If we farmed Dodo birds, maybe they wouldn't have sadly become extinct. Honestly, I have seen many vegetarians, and they look really unhealthy and seem tired all the time. My old science teacher once had a weird chronic illness that stopped once she started eating meat. Vegetarianism, like i have said previously, may not be economical for everyone and vegetarianism is quite costly. When money comes into the matter, meat is cheaper per calorie then 10X the veggies. This is why i prefer to be a meat eater, as well as the fact that bacon tastes really really good and makes me happy. I don't really believe in living a life where im constantly forced to not enjoy 75% of the food i enjoy to live longer, thats trading quality for the quantity of years you live. Vegetarianism is not worth the loss of health, money, happiness, and my own views. Meat eaters do not cause mass cruelty, factory farmers do and place like europe have banned them altogether. Plaigerism is an offense to debate, you should never debate by copying a majority of your arguments from a website. That's not debating, it's just posting a website on a debate forum.

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.