Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Eating meat can be beneficial for your health
My opponent has not managed to refute the points made about the health benefits of consuming meat. Meat provides numerous health benefits, and it's incorrect to suggest that its consumption leads to more negative outcomes than positive ones. Meat, especially beef liver, contains more nutrients than many fruits and is an excellent source of vitamin B12, which helps in reducing the risk of colon cancer and is essential for proper glutathione peroxidase function, an important antioxidant that protects colon cells from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins. [1] Calf's liver also contains high levels of zinc and selenium, which can help reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis. [2] Meat consumption, especially in the form of red meat, prevents iron and zinc deficiencies, which are common in babies, toddlers, teenage girls, and young women. [3] Fish can also cover your vitamin D needs.
Proper preparation and dosage are necessary for all foods, including meat. My opponent has focused on processed red meat and high consumption of it, but the resolution does not specify red meat or the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. Vegetables can also be harmful if not prepared well, as seen in the case of Lima beans, which can make someone violently ill if not cooked properly. [4] Meat and its alternatives can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses and if prepared poorly, which is not a valid argument against their health effects.
A strict vegetarian diet can lead to vitamin B12 deficiency and heart disease, while a more lenient vegetarian diet is also at risk. [5] A new study has found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage, or processed deli meats, was associated with a higher risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as beef, pork, or lamb. [6] Meat consumption has been linked to cancer and increased heart disease, but studies that rely on correlation data should not be taken seriously. According to research, those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside unhealthy food, and live a negative lifestyle. [7] A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined

Modern Animal Agriculture In the production of animal products, we confine animals for their entire lives and make them miserable. They are denied proper veterinary care, free space to move around and exercise, appropriate social interaction with members of their species, and anesthesia during the process of castration and other mutilations. Once these animals reach market weight, they are sent to a slaughterhouse where they are hung upside down and have their throat slit. This causes an immense amount of suffering and the animals are condemned to hang there dangling, while they scream in agony. Here is a short documentary of a collection of videos recorded by animal rights activist across the United States. From Farm to Fridge: The video I linked is not meant to spark an appeal to emotion. I put it there as evidence to support my claims, and to show the reality of today's modern farms. Here is a quote from a professor of animal science at Oregon State University who teaches people about animal agriculture. He says "If most urban meat-eaters were to visit an industrial broiler house, to see how the birds are raised, and could see the birds being 'harvested' and then being 'processed' in a poultry processing plant, some, perhaps many of them, would swear off eating chicken and perhaps all meat." - Peter R. Cheeke, Professor of Animal Science, Oregon State University The Ethical Argument Since the animals that are raised for our food endure a life of suffering, and are prematurely killed in brutal methods, I don't see a moral justification for continuing to eat them. We don't need to eat meat or any other kind of animal product in order to be healthy (which I will show later on in this essay.) So clearly, we have a case where we are causing suffering and death to sentient beings for reasons of pleasure, satisfaction, or amusement, which cannot be justified. To demonstrate this, let me use the example of dog fighting. Most people realize that just because a person may enjoy causing dogs to fight, those are not in themselves good enough reasons to inflict harm on those dogs. Same situation should apply to eating animals. Health The American Dietetic Association explains on their website that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes." This shows that we don't need to eat animals in order to be healthy. Link to their site: http://www.eatright.org... The Killing Plants Objection This is one of the most common arguments meat and dairy eaters make. It is an attempt to justify the continued killing of animals for food. The argument states that if it is morally wrong to kill animals, then it is also morally wrong to kill plants. In my view, only beings with conscious desires can be harmed in the morally significant since, so things like bacteria or a plant can't be harmed in the moral since. I don't think plants matter morally because they are not sentient. A plant is not a subject of conscious experiences and other mental states, who has interest, desires and a capacity to feel pleasure and pain like a nonhuman animal. Since plants lack all these characteristics, I fail to see how they can have any moral value. However, if we truly were concerned about plants, then I should inform the plant's rights activist that we would destroy less plants if we ate them directly, instead of feeding them to billions of land animals that we are going to kill for food. This means vegans, ironically, kill less plants than meat eaters do. World Hunger We feed large amounts of grain and soybeans to feed animals, and in doing so we waste most of the food value of the grains that we're feeding them. Depending on the species, the animals may return to us somewhere between 1/10th and 1/3rd of the food value of the grains and soybeans that we put into them. So we are just wasting huge amounts of food in order to produce the large amount of animal products. It would be better and more practical if we fed our grains and soybeans to people, instead of feeding them to billions of land animals. One acre of land can yield 30,000 pounds of carrots, 40,000 pounds of potatoes or 50,000 pounds of tomatoes. However, one acre of land can yield only 250 pounds of meat, which means that a meat and dairy diet is an unsuccessful way to combat world hunger, and that a vegan diet is a superior alternative. This is why Food For Life Global, the world's largest feed the hungry organization, only serves plant based food. As well as Everybody Gets Fed, Earth Save and Plenty. Links to their sites: http://www.ffl.org... http://www.earthsave.org... http://www.everybodyfed.com... http://plenty.org... Here is an article by Jeremy Rifkin explaining how we waste grain by feeding it to billions of animals: http://articles.latimes.com... The Environment According to the research of Professors Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, the World Watch Institute's report, and the November 2006 report from the United Nations, animal agriculture is one of the top contributors to environmental destruction. Links to their reports here: http://www.fao.org... http://www.worldwatch.org... http://pge.uchicago.edu... Conclusion In this essay I have demonstrated that eating animals has some very negative consequences, not just for the animals, but for the environment, and world hunger. Therefore we must accept that eating animals is morally wrong.

This debate is specifically to debate against the strict dietary values of veganism. I ask that a person who identifies as vegan take the Con position. Round 1 is for acceptance, definitions, and also a brief paragraph on position and beliefs (not hard evidence, just explain where you will be coming from). I agree that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is unhealthy with it being a high fat, high sugar and low exercise diet. However I believe the health problems associated with meat are not because meat is inherently unhealthy, but because Americans simply over consume it. Meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's diet in moderation. In regards to the morality of meat production the process of raising and killing animals can and should be reformed to ensure it's not done in a tortuous manner. In short meat is not inherently evil.

"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.

Physically - Related to the body Designed - Function, working purpose Omnivore - Eat food of both plant and animal origin We are unable to digest rocks and can't gain sufficient nutrition from them. If humans simply eat animals they are omnivores. We are "designed" (not by a god but nature) to be capable of eating both plant and animal origin to get the required elements to survive as a species. These give us elements our body needs to sustain itself and be healthy. These allow the human body to live a life cycle set as it is today by evolution. Our natural development and abilities have come from our needs to function. Of course you can avoid eating meat but in general terms nature hasn't enabled us to eat meat for meat. Just like we don't eat plants to eat plants. It's about what we need, minerals, fats, sugars, etc. we described creatures eating both as omnivores to help identify categories. If you think we're not supposed to eat meat because we weren't designed for it is wrong because we can eat it and digest it to nourish ourselves. But, fundamentally it doesn't matter what you call yourself or what you eat as long as you can get the required elements to sustain your body.

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

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

i would like to debate this with a pro meat person who knows the facts about human biology. this debate is about human biology, it is not can we eat meat nor should we eat meat is is are we meant to eat meat. you cannot argue other animals eat meat unless you compare said animal to human biology. anyone is welcome to join this debate but i strongly encourage meat eaters to give it a go.

People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.

Meat and Dairy animals have been domesticated since the beginning of time. The planets eco-system could not survive if the highly reproductive meat and dairy animals were not managed and controlled. The facts are that sound practices are implemented in livestock agriculture to insure the health and productivity of the animals that products created by them. The BEEF checkoff program for instance trains and promotes and offers premiums to producers that incorporate sound practices such as safe sweeping gate and fences, vaccinations only applied in the neck muscle to prevent pain and damage just to name a few. The earth could not produce enough plant and plant products to support 100% human and meat animal vegetarianism. I will provide several accurate facts to back these points further in the next rounds.

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


Question: Should Individuals Opt for a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

The World Should Embrace Vegetarianism

Individuals have a strong appetite for meat due to centuries of animal slaughter, which has normalized the practice. Nonetheless, this doesn't justify the continuation of such an act. Nations could repurpose the vast lands currently used for animal farming to cultivate extensive gardens. This shift would yield a greater volume of food, foster ethical communities, and promote a healthier populace. The surge in animal population is a direct result of human intervention. By breeding animals en masse, humans exacerbate the population beyond its natural equilibrium. A decline in meat consumption would decrease demand and consequently reduce animal overpopulation.

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

My Response: Con's first paragraph talks about the Energy Pyramid, which says Species A (Plant) has 100% energy, Species B (Herbivore) has 10% energy, Species C (Animal which eats Species B) has 1% energy, etc. In the Pyramid, we are "Species C", but we don't need to go on a veggie diet because the lack of energy. I'm not even sure there's a heavy lack of energy in the first place. Con's 2nd paragraph talks about increase and decrease in population? Where did that come from? Nowhere did anyone bring up a population declining or increasing. Actually, now that I think about it. .. none of this is relevant to the environment being harmed, which is the resolution, isn't it? Let's just move on. Rebuttal: "If you turned vegan you will cut your carbon emissions by 50%. " Can you back this up? How are we emitting carbon dioxide when eating meat? Anyways, a source is nessicary here. Also, Pro needs to clarify if our bodies are exhaling more carbon dioxide, or deforesting which releases smoke into the air, as he talks about later on. "Deforestation destroys precious habitat for animals and releases harmful greenhouse admissions stored in the rain forest. " I thought this debate was about becoming a vegetarian, not deforestation. Pro's argument is not really supporting the resolution of "Eating Meat harms the Environment". Sure, we're making farms on that land, but it's not eating the meat which is harming the forest, it's destroying the forest that's harming the environment. As for resource consumption, I would like a source as well. "12 times as much land" seems like an awful lot, maybe too much? I don't think a meat factory takes up that much space. Actually, how much space does it take? It's not that much if farms take up 1 to 5 kilometers. Anyways, source is required. Anyways, now that my rebuttal is done, I currently have no arguments myself. Let's fix that, shall we? (I concede the food chain didn't help my case at all. ) Us humans aren't the only ones eating other animals. Tigers, Alligators, Lions, Hawks, Sharks, and Wolves are all carnivores; they only eat meat! These animals, as well as the human race, ate meat all of their lives. And yet, I assert that this does not affect the environment in the slightest, other than we're eating other animals. You may be thinking "But they're Lions, Sharks, Hawks. .. How does that relate to us humans? " Answer: The resolution is "Eating Meat is Harmful to the World". I don't see how me eating beef is much different than a Lion eating a cow. We're both eating a cow. Albeit I'm eating a cooked cow, but does this change anything? We've eaten meat all our lives, yet how has it harmed anybody, except the poor cow I ate? Now, the (other) big question is: "Does me eating McDonalds harm the Amazon forest? " I see not how saying 'yes' to that question makes sense. I eat a Double Cheeseburger, in my room. The Amazon isn't affected at all. Manufacturing the meat, however, would indeed release smoke, carbon dioxide, into the air. But that's not EATING the meat, is it? Conclusion: Pro might have the resolution mixed up. He's talking about the manufacturing of the meat which harms the environment. That's not eating the meat. I've shown that eating the meat a) isn't manufacturing it, and b) it doesn't harm the environment. And with that done and said, let's hear what Pro has to say!

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

I said your resoures such as www.selfempowermentacademy.com, and www.meatstinks.com are obviously backed by an agenda, and not factual evidence based on research, statisics, etc. I really did not even NEED to go on www.meatstinks.com to come to the suspiscion that the sites creator(s) and/or contributors believed meat stunk. The equivilent of myself going saying vegetables are gross because the people at Ireallyhatevegetables.com said that it is gross. However, they could not provide substantial evidence to why, how, or even the flavor of the vegetable, perhaps because they had not tasted them for themselves, or perhaps, concluded they were gross, only after preparing them incorrectly, and blaming the vegetable on the unwelcoming taste. Perhaps someone farted on vegetable when they were not looking. I would like to explain my belief on why domesticated animals would destroy the world if we did not manage them, or consume them. Say the avergage life span of a cow is 10 years. a cow will calve once every 365 days. so if one cow produces 10 calves in a decade (not including twins) and we turn lose or "free" and no longer control the 1.2 billion hd of cows currently on earth. That would roughly be 24 billion head of cattle by 2018. it takes 2.5 acres of grass to sustain a cow unit(cow/calf/bull) 24 bill X 2.5 acres=60 bill. acres to sustain JUST CATTLE in 10 yrs if we didnt kill. ruining the eco-system, making it necessary.

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

None of the vegetarian options taste like chicken. Mostly, this is because you cannot mimic the taste of meat with soy products and chemical additives. Furthermore, there are plenty of recipes for non-fried vegetarian chicken. Just because the recipes exist (which your google result proves) does not prove that fried vegetarian chicken is better. You can search for about anything and get a thousands of results. Look I searched shrimp jello recipes: http://www.google.com... "if it didn't, wouldn't there be more baked chicken substitutes for vegetarians or people seeking healthy solutions opposed to fried chicken?" Did you check on this statement before you said it? Because I checked it and I found About 5,510,000 results for vegetarian fried chicken and About 43,800,000 results for vegetarian baked chicken. Read into that what you will. Moving back to real chicken, you argue taste which I responded to right off the bat with Royers taste test. Furthermore, how can we ignore health and the potential health problems fried chicken can bring a person. We are arguing which is better. And I think we can agree hands down that baked chicken is better for your body than fried chicken. So, one check toward baked chicken.

Eating Meat Is harmful To The Planet Eating meat is harmful to the environment. In order to save our environment and feed a growing population we need to switch our diets to become vegetarian. We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop. Nearly 30% of ice-free available land is taken up by livestock . One billion people go hungry every day but most of our crops are consumed by livestock. This madness needs to stop. In order to feed the world we need to switch from meat to vegetables.

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

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

Thank you for you thoughts.Since you are PRO and have the BOP I will simply respond to your round 3 statements.1. The tone of this debate seems to have become hostile. I ask for a respectful tone.2. You state - “I’m lectured about credible sources” - (round 3 line 1) My request for sources was a response to your statement in round 1 “I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched.” - lets compare the sources used in round 1 and round 2 Round PRO CON 1. 0 9 2. 5 113. You suggest that Wikipedia is not a valid source - Wikipedia was used for definitions of PBD and AFS in my round 1 This is because you failed to define terms for the debate. Looking for a dictionary to define terms used in the title to your debate was unsatisfactory. - You dismissed my information on pineapple growing because it came from wikipedia. Do you have conflicting data? “Three-quarters of pineapples sold in Europe are grown in Costa Rica, where pineapple production is highly industrialized. Growers typically use 20 kg of pesticides per hectare in each growing cycle” Which part of this statement do you refute?http://www.guardian.co.uk...4. You reference “the journal of nutrition”I think you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the content. a) it states that animal or plant protein increase urinary calcium equally - “Therefore increasing intake of purified proteins from either animal or plant sources similarly increases urinary calcium. ” b) it suggests that the calcium in milk compensates for protein related calcium loss. - “the high amount of calcium in milk compensates for urinary calcium losses generated by milk protein.” c) it suggests that high potassium levels “will decrease urinary calcium.” d) it says that meat protein is high in phosphate which helps offset the calcium loss that is normal for too much protein - “The hypocalciuric effect of the high phosphate associated with the amino acids of meat at least partially offsets the hypercalciuric effect of the protein.”Their conclusion is ““Excess” dietary protein from either animal or plant proteins may be detrimental to bone health, but its effect will be modified by other nutrients in the food and total diet.”This is about excess dietary protein - from either plant or animal sources. Dietary Animal and Plant Protein and Human Bone Health: A Whole Foods Approach by Linda K. Massey - ©2003 The American Society for Nutritional Scienceshttp://jn.nutrition.org...As I researched further I found 87 scholarly articles that referenced your “source” on google scholar. Some spoke of the conflicting opinions. Worse, the paper you cite is a minority, or even fringe opinion.Not only did you misunderstand (or misrepresent) the content of Massey’s research, but it came under fire in the peer review process.“In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health” . . . “The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological “cascade” that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures.”http://www.tandfonline.com...The consensus of much research seems to be “It does appear that protein from animal sources is an important source of protein for humans from infancy until mature adulthood.”International Society of Sports Nutrition Symposium, June 18-19, 2005, Las Vegas NV, USA - Symposium - Macronutrient Utilization During Exercise: Implications For Performance And Supplementation PROTEIN – WHICH IS BEST? http://www.jssm.org...5. You frequently speak of excess or rich diets. Excess anything is unhealthy. We are talking about moderate / balanced diets of two kinds a) A plant-based diet (PBD) is based on vegetables, grains, legumes and fruit, b Animal Food Sources (AFS) include many food items that comes from an animal source such as meat, milk, fish, eggs, cheese and yogurt. We are not talking about starvation diets or super obese diets. We are debating healthy diets with and without AFS6. You speak of processed cheese as if it was a healthy part of anything. That is like promoting candy apples or sugar cubes as representative of vegetarian food.7. You seem concerned with Osteoporosis - Here are ways to reduce bone density loss Get regular exercise, especially weight-bearing and muscle strengthening exercise. Get vitamin D, whether through diet, exposure to sunshine, or supplements. Consuming enough calcium to reduce the amount the body has to borrow from bone. Consuming adequate vitamin K, found in green, leafy vegetables. Not getting too much preformed vitamin A. Note - there are dangers in excess protein, and cola is very bad. - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...This, however had nothing to do with AFS diets. You need to prove that a diet without AFS is as good or better than a diet with AFS.7. You mention “U.S. News wrote in their “Best Plant Based Diets” article: Top marks went to the Mediterranean Diet (Nutritionally sound, Diverse foods and flavors, Lots of grunt work, Moderately pricey) - It is more expensive than our families current shopping plan. I like that it includes “eating fish and seafood at least a couple of times a week”Second place went to The Flexitarian Diet (Flexible, Lots of (tasty) recipes , Emphasis on home-cooking) - The claim here is weight loss, and it allows for AFS.The vegetarian diet was tied for 4th place.This is good evidence FOR AFS diets.8. The American Institute for Cancer Research says: “Plant-based foods like vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and beans should cover two thirds or more of the plate. - this leaves 1/3 of the plate for AFS9. “Please stop repeating myths about vegetarian/veganism you’ve heard over and over ” No myths - my daughter was a vegan for 5-6 years. Her health suffered. Menstrual problems, headaches, depression. She simply could not get enough iron which may have been a problem with her microbiome. On a diet that includes AFS she is much healthier.10. Great Huff Post link“As I coach people on becoming vegan, one common refrain I hear is that it's too expensive. When funds are low, the cheap burger or basket of chicken can appear to be the best value -- the most calories for the lowest price. We've been aggressively peddled the idea that a healthy diet is an expensive diet, something only for rich folks. And our experience seems to bear that out.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Let me conclude with this.I am not saying a PBD is always bad.I am saying that a balanced diet works well with a wide range of AFS and PBD foods.You frequently cite American bad diet habits.I agree that many Americans are incredibly obese and unhealthy.That does not change the fact that a PBD is often more work, more expensive, less local and in some cases less ethical. In my setting (East Coast Canada) eating local is a healthy mix of fish, milk, eggs, fruit, grains, greens and meat. Much of what I eat is grown by people I know. I get a little too much starch (a good friend has a potato farm). Lobsters are too rich ($ and cholesterol) for me so I don’t make use of that harvest. Fresh fish in season is wonderful, and I hope to catch some this week. Clams & muscles can be harvested year round, but summer/fall is best. I have not often eaten moose, deer, goat or lamb except with my native or Muslim friends.A balanced diet is better than an artificially restricted dietVote CON


Question: Should Individuals Embrace a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Everyone should consider adopting a vegetarian lifestyle.
I don't believe that everyone should be forced to become a vegetarian; individuals should have the autonomy to decide what they consume. Here are 5 reasons why people might not want to become vegetarian: 1. Humans have been consuming meat for millions of years, and it has played a crucial role in our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can indirectly lead to animal deaths, as creatures like birds, mice, and rabbits that reside in agricultural fields are often killed during the harvest process. 3. Meat is often the most convenient source of protein. 4. Studies have suggested that certain plants may exhibit responses that could be interpreted as fear. 5. A diet rich in meat can aid in weight loss, as it takes fewer calories to obtain protein from lean meats compared to vegetarian alternatives.

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...

Space is already such a big issue in food production, that meat production accounts for 70% of all Amazon deforestation." Yes meat production takes up a lot of space, but so would plant crop. To form a complete diet you would need to eat ( besides nutritional supplements ) a large amount of vegetables, fruits, and other plant crops. The shear space needed would be equivalent if not higher than animal crop. "I find it very hard to believe that there would be any difference in the amount of staff needed for growing crops compared with cattle. The meat production industry could be re-modeled to produce plant based foods over hundreds of years, meaning no jobs would be lost." From experience on farms, plant crop requires less man power than animal crop to harvest and maintain. During the time it took to treat the soil, and change production we would lose the harvest time and some ranch hand jobs. Also during this time we would also lose the food the farms provided us. "Iron and protein are actually very easy to find in a vegetarian diet, and its hardly likely that an all-controlling supplements industry would spring up since their products wouldn't really be needed any more than they already are." How can you say they wouldn't be needed more? You said, "As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements." If you need supplements for "hard to find vitamins and minerals" then the sales would go up. These companies would have the power of controlling a product people required for a healthy life. "it doesn't seem like a better world, it just doesn't seem very likely." It seems more likely than a perfect world where we didn't eat meat, we didn't need added supplements, and corporations didn't abuse a products demand to make money.

First I will start with quoting what my opponent said in the start of the last round, "Let me clarify my position a little. Personally, I don't think eating animal flesh is wrong in itself. I think if a person doesn't cause an animal pain before slaughter, kills it swiftly, and this action doesn't hurt any other person, there is nothing unethical about the consumption of the meat. You can get meat this way today it costs more money but you can. Since you said there is nothing wrong ethically with eating meat, there really is no argument. Something can't be more ethical then something else if it is completely ethical. Here is some proof of humane meat out there this is one of many, "Wouldn't it be great if farm animals were raised compassionately? Well, some people are way ahead of you on that. Whole Foods Markets has decided to come up with standards to create a line of meats bearing an "animal compassionate" label, meaning farmers raised the animals humanely. It's not the first animal-welfare label out there. There's also the "certified humane" label administered by Humane Farm Animal Care, and the "free farmed" label overseen by the American Humane Association. And the Animal Welfare Institute issues the label "Animal Welfare Approved." All aim for humane lives for farm animals, though each program is different. Examples: The New York Times pointed out that the Animal Welfare Institute and the "free farmed" label let pigs have nose rings to prevent them from tearing up the ground when they root around, but the other programs forbid rings. At AnimalWelfareApproved.org, the Animal Welfare Institute posts a comparison chart showing how it"s the most favorable program. The nonprofit watchdog group Consumers Union so far has examined only the "certified humane" label, which it deemed a "highly meaningful label that indicates that meat, dairy and egg products came from animals that were treated humanely," according to its eco-oriented web site, Eco-labels.org. The "certified humane" label has several requirements. Among examples: Livestock must have access to clean and sufficient food and water; they must have sufficient room to move naturally; and their environment must not endanger their health. In the end, the vast majority of livestock don't fall under any of these humane-labeling programs, and you may achieve your goal of buying humanely raised meats via other routes -- by buying from farmers markets or small local farms. Another way: Quiz local co-ops about what they know about how their meats were produced. For more info: To find out where to buy "Certified Humane" foods, go to CertifiedHumane.com. To find Animal Welfare-approved foods, go to www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org. To find "Free Farmed" producers, go to AmericanHumane.org."(1) So I really have nothing else to say as long as you get humanly raised meat like up above me and my opponent both agree eating meat is completely ethical and since eating a vegetarian diet is completely ethical, they are both equally ethical and that's the debate. So basically whenever you eat meat make sure you get humanly raised and slaughtered meat and then you will be eating just as ethically as a vegetarian in both mine and my opponents eyes. Good luck with your closing statement in the last round remember no rebuttals or new arguments, like we agreed. Lets end this.

Round 1 will be used for opening statements. Round 2 will be used for refuting and responding to opposing opening statements. Round 3 will be used for final/closing statements. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ I hold the position that it is unethical to murder animals unnecessarily when alternatives are easily accessible. [1] It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. This fact proves we do not need the nutrition that comes with animals and their byproducts, therefore we can eat an animal free diet and thrive on it. We do not need to consume animals for health. Slaughtering animals solely because people enjoy the taste of meat is argued by some to be wrong and morally unjustifiable. 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? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

From where do rights flow? How are we to determine who has rights? Clearly a claim to rights should have something to do with whether or not an entity can hold preferences and suffer. It would simply be absurd to say that kicking a rock is a violation of its rights because the rock cannot desire anything. A rock is not capable of holding any desires about the world nor can a rock suffer, one would presume. Chickens, cows, and pigs on the other hand can all feel a great deal of pain and also hold rudimentary preferences; i.e. they would really prefer not to be eaten. Of course animal suffering exists on a continuum. Clams, if they can suffer at all, suffer a lot less than pigs or other farm animals. At the dawn of the agricultural revolution, for probably the first time in history, man was able to regularly grow his own food without having to hunt it down. This lead to many different things, among which, was a decreased need for the reliance on meat as a form of sustenance. Ten thousand years later the age has long past when we can make a strong utility claim for the necessity of meat in our diet. In our modernized world gathering food need not be more difficult than a telephone call or a short trip to the supermarket. We are perfectly capable of sustaining ourselves without eating meat. I accomplish this feat on a daily basis even though I may occasionally falter. The claim that humans need meat to survive is demonstrably false and any thinking person should not take it seriously. Our own desire to eat meat contributes daily to the death and misery of millions upon millions of animals. These animals have mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters very much like your own family. Many of these animals are forced to live out the entirety of their lives in the artificial conditions of huge factory farms with no access to air, sunshine, or freedom of movement. And our insatiable appetite for flesh leads us to be culpably acquiescent in these atrocities. This could simply be remedied by our refusal to eat meat. Our needless encroachment on the happiness of animals is not only unnecessary; it is deeply unethical because it leads to the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of conscious creatures. I am not arguing that there is anything prima facie wrong with the consumption of meat. For example, I would not be opposed to people eating road kill, insofar as this behavior didn't encourage other people to run over extra animals. Nor would I be opposed to eating meat grown in a laboratory, which did not require the death of a conscious creature. I would also not be opposed to consuming meat if a person was starving. Now when I say starving I really do mean starving- literally on the verge of starvation. Someone that misses lunch or breakfast and finds himself to be quite hungry would not be a viable candidate for starvation under this view. The ad hoc argument that man was created in the image of God and was given dominion over the animals is simply a cop out and irrelevant to this debate. Man was not created in the image of God; the Gods were created in the image of men. And even if I was wrong and a "God" did exist there is no reason to think that this God approved of Christianity or our wanton cruelty to animals. As humans we were not given special rights by a deity to reign over animals; we merely evolved alongside them over millions of years. A related argument contends that God has endowed humans with an immortal soul that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Other problems arise if one wishes to take this route. Firstly, and most obviously, it is an unprovable and untestable hypothesis. Secondly, it does seem to raise rather difficult issues given that we share 98% of our DNA with our closely related, presumably soulless, primate brethren. At what point in human evolution did we acquire this immaterial soul? Was it when we acquired the ability to walk bipedally? Was it in between the transition from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus? No doubt theologians have been ruminating over these conundrums for decades. Some will try to argue, from a cynical standpoint, that their consumption of meat leads to no perceivable increase in the suffering of animals. The major flaw in this defense is that it disregards the connection between the meat we eat today and the future killing of animals. Granted, the chicken and pork in the supermarket freezer would still be there even if I were to never have existed. However this contention completely glosses over the way markets operate in a free society. The fact that someone chooses to buy chicken instead of tofu will determine how many pounds of chicken and tofu that store orders the following week and thus contributes, in a small way, to the future suffering of animals. This is what the laws of supply and demand are all about. We can't merely ignore the divisibility of responsibility of our own actions individually or as a society. If I were to cheat on my taxes it would make such an imperceptible difference to the total revenue of the IRS that we might be tempted to dismiss such an action as inconsequential. However, if everyone cheated on their income tax this could have disastrous effects on the economy and everything that flowed from that system. We must recognize the consequences of our actions and take responsibility for them. Others will contend that humans deserve special rights over animals merely because we are members of the species homo sapiens. This argument, at least to me, seems sorely lacking in substance. Membership in a species is no more relevant to questions about ethics than skin color or gender. Undoubtedly this claim will raise one or two eyebrows so allow me to unpack it for you. Imagine we were visited by extraterrestrials that possessed more or less the same characteristics as human beings. Would we be justified in treating them as second-class citizens purely because they weren't members of our own species? I think not. Unless we wish to raise the specter of speciesism then membership in a species is not relevant to whether or not animals should have rights. Having said that I don't want people to think that I believe animals and humans should be given equal rights. We can weigh our ethical responsibilities to animals by appealing to their qualities e.g. (their capacity to suffer), which at the end of the day would put human persons at the top of our ethical purview. We would do well to reflect on what Jesus of Nazareth said regarding how we should treat our neighbors. "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12 RSV) There is grandeur in this view of life. Put yourself momentarily behind a veil of ignorance and imagine that you are a cow or pig. How would you wish to be treated? Would you wish to be eaten? Would you wish to be conscripted to a life of manual labor only to be consumed at a later date? Would you wish to be ruled over? Wouldn't you wish to be free? All the best, Freeman Sources http://www.utilitarian.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.scientificamerican.com... Writings on an Ethical Life- Peter Singer (My source of inspiration for the debate) Definitions Speciesism- Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals. Pleasurable - enjoyable: affording satisfaction or pleasure; "the company was enjoyable"; "found her praise gratifying"

I am a vegetarian, and I will like to let whom ever takes me on this debate to go first. I will prove my case in the next round! Than you

QUIT FORFIETING! I want to hear your remarks! FINE! snce I am loosing another debate because peopel don't seem to consider anything I actually say. Vote I loose. I lose. U can eat trees. we should eat trees. we are the ecosystems friend. we should be at least. If there are Muslims that don't even want to acknowledge what I am saying in a debate against them. I am perfectly fine with losing this debate too. We can, should, and are better off eating the twicgs and leaves off trees on a regular basis. But always considering, to be a true friend of the ecosystem, we also have to eat the grass, and other things too. Like vegetables and fruit. Peace and vote I loose. ... I loose so long as the Muslims don't even bother reading my shitt and post heckles without regarding what I say. I believe int eh Quran and they just have NOOOO sense whats so ever.

India has great potential because of its love and respect for animals. Also, India is non-violent due to the principle of Ahisma. [0] Also due to the fact that Hindus see all life as sacred. "3. All Life is Sacred As all of life is created by God, all life is sacred. You should not harm any creature " and particularly "Holy" animals, such as cows, which represent the selfless love of God to its people. Indeed, one should not even think or speak badly towards others, due to karma." [1] As I see it India is being beaten up by stronger more violent factions. Although in the short and medium term India's future may not be that bright, I have high hopes for the long term. People are getting fed up with animal abuse. Factory farming is losing popularity. Vegetarian is gaining ground slowly but surely as more scientific articles point towards the health benefits of vegetarian. Sources 0. http://www.bbc.co.uk... 1. http://www.hinduismbeliefs.org...

A nervous system is required to experience physical pain. The fact that plants emit gas when harm is imminent in no way proves that plants feel pain- I can't prove plants feel pain so I will go for another argument. Vegan diet is good but it has problems. One problem is an essential vitamin B-12. It is a nutrient that keeps blood cells and nerves in the body. It also help to create DNA in cells. Evidence have not shown to give this essential in a vegan diet. Yes you can use supplements but they do not work all the time and it will take time adjusting. Supplements do not have research stating that they do work. It has been tested but the results were not used to broad picture because of the different supplements you can get. Scientists cannot advice patients on the supplement they have when it might different from the store bought one. Even though many can state a vegan diet is healthier it still has not been proven in a controlled area. Another argument why we should not abandon meat even as a gradual change is the condition some people might in. The vegan diet can be excessive to the body even with a gradual change if you have pre existing conditions. 2 examples of these would be diabetes and osteoporosis. There"s no nutrients found in meat that can"t be found in thousands of other foods. - Vitamin B-12 if I have not made it clear above and supplements are not always the best. it"s moral- I assumed wrong. Where in my original sentence would "unnecessary" be added? - In most cases the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. One case for the favour of animal interests is unnecessary harm done to said animal. They are the same IN THAT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUFFER- I think the suffer aspect can be negated. Mine way of not making the animal suffer is tranquilising said animal and then snap its neck if it has one. The neck snap should be an instantaneous death. Why is it not morally wrong to be cruel to a pig for our own gain? - It is morally wrong if you put someone on the spot about it. Why else are animals being unnecessarily harmed if not for industry? - Profit, Taste and filling a gap in the market. Not a moral argument because the market is not meant to be moral. Just there to allow people to make money. Source:https://www. Aarp. Org/food/diet-nutrition/info-02-2011/9-pros-and-cons-to-going-vegan. Htmlhttp://www. Diabetesforecast. Org/2012/feb/the-pros-and-cons-of-dietary-supplements. Html

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


Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

A vegetarian lifestyle can be beneficial for health. While it's true that being vegetarian doesn't guarantee perfect health, it can reduce the risk of many medical conditions. It's often mentioned that Omega 3 fatty acids are not essential for vegetarians, but they contribute to fighting off problems caused by poor diet. Conditions like depression and Alzheimer's can affect anyone, but a vegetarian diet can help manage symptoms. Omega 3 is beneficial for baby development and can help prevent issues like asthma and high blood fat. It's often easier and more practical to consume fish than to meticulously plan a diet to ensure perfect nutrition. Moreover, eating fish isn't inherently bad. Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, distinguishing them from vegans. However, dairy consumption doesn't prevent an overall higher carbohydrate intake compared to a non-vegetarian diet. On average, vegetarians get 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas a healthier distribution would be 50% carbs, 20% protein, and 30% fat. This can lead to an imbalance in protein and fat intake. While it's true that meat, when consumed in moderation and properly cooked, poses few health risks, a vegetarian diet can still provide necessary nutrients and vitamins. The key is to find a balanced approach that meets nutritional needs without excluding any food group unnecessarily.

i would like to debate this with a pro meat person who knows the facts about human biology. this debate is about human biology, it is not can we eat meat nor should we eat meat is is are we meant to eat meat. you cannot argue other animals eat meat unless you compare said animal to human biology. anyone is welcome to join this debate but i strongly encourage meat eaters to give it a go.

I will not be debating in the policy debate format, for it is outside of my expertise. First off there you need to establish, well people are not being fed as it is around the world. In select parts of the world outside of the U. S many a country have no money for dairy or meat. Often these are confused as western luxuries. If not eating meat or dairy were to be pressured into looked down as a socially unacceptable morale this could lead to the change itself. Next the food that is used to feed these livestock could feed 1.4 billion humans. Now there still is the argument that there will not be enough food to feed humanity. Well there is roughly 6 billion people on the world today. The simple truth behind this is that neither side gives a solution to ending world hunger. But going green would substantially slow down this process as I end with a quote from Russel Simmons, entrepreneur and philanthropist- " It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. If we just ate grain and left the animals alone we could feed the world and stop starvation" in addition to this it also takes 5,000 gallons of water. Outside of this a large amount of soil, trees, rain forest land is used to create land for pastures. Ending this usage of meat and dairy products could substantially promote the go green idea. This evidence is shown in my selfempowermentacademy. com source below providing a substantially self explained argument on how it will save energy, lower excretion pollution, and how these animals are often given better treatment than many humans themselves. Would be nice to trade a cow life for a humans, would it not? (. http://www.meatstinks.com...) (. http://www.selfempowermentacademy.com.au...)

I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.

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

Eating Meat is Unethical!I will stick to only one argument in this debate and focus on one angle. I will present many more arguments in the future to describe why humans don't need to eat animal flesh to survive. I am a perfect example of it. Meat eaters argue: We have canine teeth, thus we were desgined to eat meat. This argument makes no sense. We need canine teeth to eat apples, bread, peaches, or just about any other hard-to-eat-and-chew food. OK may not be for rice, but certainly for many other food types, we need such teeth. Also, physiology and natural capabilities does not mean we should use them for meat eating. The whole argument that "We have such capabilities, therefore we were designed to eat meat" is laughable on its face. Adults have capabilities to molest children and to make IEDs and nuclear bombs. Would you argue therefore that we should molest kids and also build bombs and kill other humans? Most rational human beings would not. So why do meat eaters use the argument that "capabilities imply justification"? Reminder: Please do not sidetrack this argument by bringing in the issue of proteins and B12 and hunger and taste and other irrelevant arguments. My argument is strictly focused on the issue of misguided justification of eating meat because we have capabilities to do so. Please focus on human physiology and capabilities to justify why you feel we were "designed" to eat meat. Also, designed by who? God? Did God say it would be nice to create animals that could suffer unbearable pain to satisfy human needs? Is that it? You may focus on this issue also since it deals with human physiology and capabilities to justify meat eating.

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

What constitutes Murder The oxford dictionary defines murder as “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” [1], or in the sense used in the resolution “the premeditated killing of one organism by a similar organism”. In order to prove murder one must prove; 1.) The murderer directly caused the victims death 2.) Similarity between the murderer and the victim 3.) premeditation Vegetarianism is not murder, because it does not involve the premeditated killing of a similar organism. Slaughtering flesh and blood animals for food (especially mammals) is not only an act of murder, but also a form of cannibalism. I am not a vegitarian because it is murder, but rather because I see it as canibalism. When animals are raised for the sole purpose of slaughter, than the killing is premeditated. Because the animals are made of blood, flesh and bone, eating their flesh is an act of canibalism. Especially if the animal is a mammal, or even worse, a primate. Pro’s Case Pro’s case revolves around the belief that animals must die for plants to live, thus eating plants is murder. In actuality it is the opposite; plants must die for animals to live. You grow a potted plant without slaughtering an animal to grow the plant. Furthermore, another plant does not need to die for the original plant to grow. Pro misunderstands the law of conservation of energy. It is true that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but an organism does not have to die for another to gain energy. Plants gain energy from the sun, in a process known as “photosynthesis”. Also, plants can gain nutrition from decomposed leaves and fruit, as well as animal feces; none of which requires the killing of plants and animals. In addition to these more obvious fallacies, pro also assumes that all death is murder. Not all death requires the organism to be killed, and killing is only murder if it meets the above circumstances.

better-ADJECTIVE-comparative of good and well. oxforddictionaries.comgood-to be desired or approved oflook, your whole argument is relative of what people desire or aprove of. Also, your argument is plagarized via http://vegetarian.procon.org...;I like meat, Bacon tastes good and i like it, therefore bacon is good. Since Bacon is better than salads or other vegetarian food according to me and other bacon and meat lovers, meat eaters lifestyles are better than vegetarians. Vegetarians tend to be more concious about their weight and exercise, otherwise why would they be vegetarians. accounting for this, it can be safely assumed that a meat eater with similar lifestyles to vegetarians would have similar health. Our ancient ancestors were carnivorous since they have cave painting drawings of hunting animals and were they unhealthy after running around hunting all day? probably not. Sure Greenhouse gas emissions may be higher for producing meat. look there is more than enough food to feed the world, it's just that food distribution and economics make it so this food doesn't reach those who need it most. Eating animals is key to their survival as a species. Animals like the Dodo bird could have been saved if they were mass farmed and maybe we'd still see these beautiful creatures. Existence of these animals is very important and its more ethical to ensure their species survive and that we benefit from it as well. Honestly, a good hamburger in my opinion is worth all the drawbacks of animal cruelty, health, and the environment. A good bacon cheeseburger makes me happy and i think my happiness is more important than raising pigs for my benefit. Sure, animal cruelty is bad and all, but in the end, is it really the meat eaters fault? It's the corporation that you should be fighting, not the consumer. Yes, the consumer is paying revenue to the corporation, but they need to get their bacon cheeseburger for their happiness. Some people can't even afford to go all out vegetarian since meat is cheap and affordable per calorie.OK, your main points are complete plaigerism of a website you didn't even site. That is really unethical and bad for debate. We are here to debate a topic and formulate our own arguments, not to copy and paste the arguments of others. I think the voters should vote based on that single most incriminating fact. Plaigerism is bad for debate, if we were allowed to plaigerize, would i really be debating or commenting on an article that my opponent has posted? Judges, go to this link and look at the pro aspects and you will see stark similarities.http://vegetarian.procon.org...

I said your resoures such as www.selfempowermentacademy.com, and www.meatstinks.com are obviously backed by an agenda, and not factual evidence based on research, statisics, etc. I really did not even NEED to go on www.meatstinks.com to come to the suspiscion that the sites creator(s) and/or contributors believed meat stunk. The equivilent of myself going saying vegetables are gross because the people at Ireallyhatevegetables.com said that it is gross. However, they could not provide substantial evidence to why, how, or even the flavor of the vegetable, perhaps because they had not tasted them for themselves, or perhaps, concluded they were gross, only after preparing them incorrectly, and blaming the vegetable on the unwelcoming taste. Perhaps someone farted on vegetable when they were not looking. I would like to explain my belief on why domesticated animals would destroy the world if we did not manage them, or consume them. Say the avergage life span of a cow is 10 years. a cow will calve once every 365 days. so if one cow produces 10 calves in a decade (not including twins) and we turn lose or "free" and no longer control the 1.2 billion hd of cows currently on earth. That would roughly be 24 billion head of cattle by 2018. it takes 2.5 acres of grass to sustain a cow unit(cow/calf/bull) 24 bill X 2.5 acres=60 bill. acres to sustain JUST CATTLE in 10 yrs if we didnt kill. ruining the eco-system, making it necessary.

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.