Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Milk is detrimental to health and the environment.
StructureR1 ArgumentsR2 RebuttalsR3 Defend your R1 argument against opponent's R2 rebuttal Detrimental to health and the environment = harmful. Full resolution: Drinking cow's milk is typically harmful to health and the environment. Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma. Burden of proof will be on me to prove that drinking cow's milk is typically harmful to health and the environment. OutlineI. IntroII. Animal ethicsIII. HealthIV. EnvironmentV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroWe shouldn't consume bovine milk as it leads to the exploitation, mistreatment, and suffering of cows. Moreover, the exploitation of one species for milk paves the way for the mistreatment of other animals. Cow's milk is unhealthy and not environmentally sustainable. II. Animal ethics"Factory farms are large industrial operations that raise large numbers of animals for food, with over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. raised in such conditions, focusing on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare." [0]Animals on so-called "humane" farms don't fare much better. [1][2] "Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals “humanely” is limited to the extent necessary to raise them to market weight (which is a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today’s business standards." [3]Given the inherent conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit, and the brutal realities, there is no moral justification for humans to consume bovine milk.III. HealthMilk consumption is linked to osteoporosis and increased risk of hip fractures. Milk contains IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high fat, high saturated fat, and dead bacteria endotoxins. "These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer." [4]"Studies show that IGFs stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death, making them potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells, including prostate cancer." [5]"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population." [6]As you can see from the above, milk increases cancer risk due to the presence of

"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." I have never heard of any research to suggest that any of those disorders are in any way connected to vegetarianism. Since there are plenty of vegetarians out there and I have never heard of any of them suffering from those conditions I would conclude that they are in not connected. I am sure some vegetarians suffer from those conditions but I have never heard of any connection in the two. A Duke University study has shown depression is best treated by regular exercise. I do however see a connection in meat consumption and heart disease, obesity and multiple other conditions. I do eat all of those meats you mentioned. However I think I would be healthier if I did not eat them at all and ate a healthy well balanced vegetarian diet.

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.

Response to your round 1:You are committing an Argumentum ad Naturam fallacy because you are arguing that a vegetarian diet is bad as it is "not even natural".You are committing a Strawman Fallacy because you are vastly distorting, exaggerating and misrepresenting my view. I clearly stated that this debate will be about a whether "a well-balanced vegetarian diet is generally to be preferred over a well-balanced omnivorous diet." therefore your claims that "Meat contains certain ingredients which simply cannot be found in a stick of celery." and "One cannot subsist on legumes alone." are irrelevant and misrepresenting my view as I've never claimed that a celery-only or legume-only diet are to be preferred over an omnivorous diet.Furthermore, it is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful and nutritionally adequate [14].My first round:In this debate, I will be arguing that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is healthier, has a less significant negative impact on the environment and reduces the suffering and death of sentient lifeforms.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet:In a 1988 report, it was found that there is a significant positive association between meat consumption and mortality because of all causes of death combined, coronary heart disease, and diabetes. [1]In another 2007 study, it was found that there is a significant positive association between red and processed meat intake and risk of cancer of the colon and rectum, esophagus, liver, lung, and pancreas [2].In a 2003 meta-analysis, it was concluded that long-term (≥ 2 decades) adherence to a vegetarian diet can lead to a significant 3.6-year increase in life expectancy [3].As it can reasonably be assumed that everyone would generally prefer not to have cancer in one’s rectum (or anywhere else), cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is generally healthier, leads to a higher life expectancy and reduces one’s chances of getting cancer in one’s rectum.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet has a less significant negative impact on the environment:According to a 2017 study, livestock farming is responsible for at least 14.5% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is estimated to be responsible for at least 51% of global GHG emissions “based on the most complete and comprehensive analysis of all factors associated with livestock products (including emissions from the animals themselves and lost carbon sequestration from land clearing for feed production) estimates the sector's contribution to be at least 51 per cent of total global GHG emissions” [4],[5]. It is important to note, however, that even 14.5% is more than emissions from all transport combined [6].The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has described eating less meat as "the most attractive opportunity" for making immediate positive changes to climate change [7].As it can reasonably be assumed that people generally have no intention of harming the environment and would prefer having a less significant influence on climate change, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet reduces the suffering and deaths of sentient lifeforms:In the same way that it is immoral to torture a cat (or any other animal) for the sake of viewing pleasure, it is immoral to eat a cat (or any other animal) for the sake of tasting its flesh. [16]Mylan Engel’s argument against eating meat [15]:(p1) Other things being equal, a world with less pain and suffering is better than a world with more pain and suffering.(p2) A world with less unnecessary suffering (suffering which serves no greater, outweighing justifying good) is better than a world with more unnecessary suffering.(p3) Even a minimally decent person (a person who does the very minimum required by morality and no more) would take steps to help reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the world, if they could do so with very little effort.(p4) Many nonhuman animals (certainly all vertebrates) are capable of feeling pain [9].(p5) Animals in the meat industry are suffering [10],[11],[12],[13].(p6) Refraining from eating meat and eating something else instead requires very little effort [14].(c) We ought to stop purchasing and consuming meat.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Overall, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is generally healthier, better for the environment and because the extended suffering animals endure outweigh the short pleasure of eating meat.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources:[1]: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 48, Issue 3, 1 September 1988, Pages 739–748,https://doi.org...[2]: Genkinger JM, Koushik A (2007) Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk. PLoS Med 4(12): e345. https://doi.org... [3]: Singh PN, Sabate J, Fraser GE. Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans? Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):526S-32S.[4]: Bogueva, Diana & Marinova, Dora & Raphaely, Talia. (2017). Reducing meat consumption: the case for social marketing. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 29. 10.1108/APJML-08-2016-0139.[5]: Goodland, R & Anhang, J. (2009). Livestock and climate change. World Watch. 22. 10-19.[6]: Ipcc.ch. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch... [Accessed 8 Jul. 2018].[7]: Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lecture: ‘Global Warning - The impact of meat production and consumption on climate change’. September 2008[8]: Doug Gurian-Sherman, "CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations" (5.6 MB) , www.ucsusa.org, Apr. 2008[9]: National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. 1, Pain in Research Animals: General Principles and Considerations. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[10]: Joby Warrick, "They Die Piece by Piece: In Overtaxed Plants, Humane Treatment of Cattle Is Often a Battle Lost," Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2001[11]: Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America" (7.2 MB) , www.ncifap.org, Apr. 28, 2008[12]: Humane Society of the United States, "Undercover at Smithfield Foods" (467 KB) , www.humanesociety.org (accessed Jan. 17, 2011) [13]: Farm Sanctuary, "The Welfare of Cattle in Beef Production" (700 KB) , www.farmsanctuary.org (accessed Jan. 17, 2011)[14]: Craig WJ, Mangels AR; American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82.PubMed PMID: 19562864.[15]: Engel Jr, Mylan (2000). The Immorality of Eating Meat. _Chapter in The Moral Life_:856-889. https://philpapers.org... [16]: 2. Rationalwiki.org. (2018). Essay:Why You Shouldn't Eat Meat - RationalWiki. [online] Available at: https://rationalwik

Contention 1: Animal Rights According to National Geographic Magazine April 2013 cloning requires the need to inject DNA into egg cells of the surrogate mother, causing the surrogate to develop the baby. This is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. Cloned animals tend to have more problems during gestation and birth, resulting in higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among host mothers. According to http://www.gracelinks.org... a 2007 study showed cloning success rates to be low as 10%. Cloned animals tend to have severe physical deformities in cloned animals, including oversized navels, oddly-shaped heads (cows that have heads shaped like those of bulldogs), immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and malformed arteries. Not really a humane thing to do, is it? Contention 2: Not commercially beneficial According to http://www.gracelinks.org... it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred. A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it. Contention 3: No guarantee of safety There is no such thing as a complete risk assessment. Since cloning is still in experimental phase, people cannot absolutely conclude that something is safe. Just three years before the Chernobyl nuclear accident, B. A. Semenov, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safety division, had written about the RBMK reactor design used at Chernobyl: “The design feature of having more than 1,000 individual primary circuits increases the safety of the reactor system—a serious loss-of-coolant accident is practically impossible” This example can also be used on the issue of cloned foods. Conclusion: Cloning subject animals to unneeded suffering to both clones and surrogates, due to high risk clones having bad health. This is combined with the high cost and low demand of clones to consumers, also with unguaranteed health of the food products. So basically cloning is bad for consumers, cloning industries, and also the animals. To wrap it up, it’s not beneficial.

As you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming "picky-eaters". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the "meat" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic "epidemics", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.

Pro tries to maximize the happiness of everyone under the philosophy of utilitarianism. Everyone includes all humans and all sentient animals. Pro contends that banning meat, eggs, and dairy foods would make both humans and animals happier. http://psychology.wikia.com...

I apologize for the mishap in citation, upon inspection you'll notice 3 black periods after each source "..." this cut off the actual link, leading to the general website. This is undoubtedly a mistake caused by having to copy and paste my arguments after your FF. Actual citation is as follows; please feel free to verify: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.peta.org... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://modernfarmer.com... For the purpose of my rebuttal I will refer to my previous 6 sources as numerically cited and future sources will be cited as 7 & up. In citing your sources they will be referenced as [Con #] Given that my arguments have been legitimated, your comment "Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways." can be disregarded. I understand that this is a bit unfair to you given that you decided to arrogantly brush off my arguments and supply your own. You will now have the chance to refute my Round 2 argument. I recommend you actually read it this time, because there is clear evidence in your rebuttal you did not. Problematic Citation and Source Material: I apologize for the mishap in my Round 2 source material; however you'll find that everything is properly cited and credible. However in your entire argument you fail to properly cite anything you said. I have no idea which comment corresponds to which source; if this were an academic setting you would be charged with plagiarism. Your source material is also very questionable and contradictory, and some are irrelevant to the debate entirely. Because you did not openly disclose which arguments come from which sources I have to spend the majority of my rebuttal debunking your sources. I ask that you re-read my Round 1 post. Source [Con 1] enforces my position quote "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers." [Con 1] is describing SAD, in my position statement I clearly acknowledge that SAD is not relevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equal inherent unhealthiness. If over-consumption was a true indicator of inherent negative health affects the 8% of obese vegetarians you mention would show that over consuming vegetables causes the negative health effects associated with obesity. [Con 2] is problematic; the author is simply unqualified, her brief bio gives no indication of having a degree in anything, she is extremely biased and only provides one citation for her entire 15 point article. More importantly all of her points are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which as I've stated in Round 2 does not divert from meat being inherently unhealthy or immoral because there are healthy and moral ways of raising cattle [2][5][6][Con 8]. The findings of [Con 3] can also be refuted, Point 4 Source [1] quote "It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women. " This implies it is the process, not the meat that causes cancer. [Con 4] is 42 pages long, I only read the first page and found that it, like [Con 1], was critical of SAD for its health effects. This does not prove meat is inherently bad, fish for example is low in fat and has positive health effects [3]. Also [Con 4] says Chimps eat monkeys, if sentience is such an issue then why don't chimps respect the sentience of monkeys? (I'll address this in more detail later). [Con 5] is from PETA an organization well known for its bias against eating meat. Like [Con 2] the arguments are almost entirely based on factory farming, which again is irrelevant in the face of free range farming [5][6][Con 8]. [Con 6] is PETA India, it has the same bias and credibility as [Con 2]. Point 4 for example says that meat is bad because if you under cook it then you could get bird flu. Ok, by this logic vegetables are bad because if you don't clean them you could get E. Coli. As I said in the beginning of Round 2 "Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced." [Con 7] is my personal favorite. By citing this source you show how truly desperate you are to grasp at straws. This source made me understand why you did not disclose them in your debate, as it has no scientific value whatsoever, it simply bullet points propaganda without any evidence. Let's read some of the findings of SupremeMasterTV.com. Eating meat causes "Blue tongue disease", what is this? Oh right it's a disease that only affects livestock and not humans [7]. The other diseases are food borne illnesses from improper cooking. In your rebuttal you state "Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all." Meaning that those who drink milk and eat eggs along with vegetables have the best diet of all (this is not a vegan diet, in Round 1 you said you'd argue as a vegan). But Lo! [Con 7] says drinking milk is bad! It causes "Breast, prostate and testicular cancer from hormones present in milk; Listeria and Crohn's disease; Hormones and saturated fat lead to osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes and heart disease; Linked to higher incidences of multiple sclerosis." Still think drinking milk is cool? [Con 8] is written by the same author as [Con 4] and as such contains the exact same arguments. Also I don't think you actually read this article because the author lays out a plan for rational meat eating in the section "Toward Rational Meat Eating" so yea ... you're helping me with this one. [Con 9] I admit this article does seem legitimate and has sources. However this argument doesn't help you in the way you might think, it focuses on factory farming and it acknowledges meat can be environmentally friendly "Chicken is probably the best land animal to eat, certainly in terms of climate change impact. Fish have a low greenhouse gas impact but are being eaten in such large quantities that many are at risk of extinction." "Even limiting one's meat consumption to chicken yields major environmental benefits--not to mention health and financial benefits." So eating chicken yields health benefits ... Interesting. [Con 10] was about jacana birds being influenced by human scientists to commit infanticide. I don't see how this proves anything more than humans encouraged behavior that only humans would consider immoral. If anything this goes to show killing animals is not an issue of morality. For the sake of science (as suppose to survival) humans encouraged these birds kill each others babies. Are these scientists immoral for encouraging nature? Eating Meat Can be Healthy: For the bulk of this section please read Round 2. This section is for counter arguments. Given that none of your statistics are properly cited they can be seen as fiction. You clearly dramatize the negative health effects of meat, if meat was so bad then why would doctors recommend it as part of a balanced diet [2][3][8]? Quoting Con "Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues." Ah yes, Harvard disagrees quote "Environmental Protection Agency " calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer"but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. Second, levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are very low, similar to levels in meats, dairy products, and eggs. Third, more than 90 percent of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from such non-seafood sources, including meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables." [3] Morality of Meat: Appeal to Nature In Round 2 I specifically acknowledge the possible flaw in this argument "However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals." It"s important to note humans are animals, and as such comparison to other animals is legitimate (it's kind of how biology and anthropology work). You yourself make this a moral underpinning in Round 1 "" it is wrong to kill [animals], as it is wrong to kill humans." But why? What makes them like us? You argue mammals are sentient like us, they feel emotion like we do, so they should be spared. You think that just because chimps can love each as humans can love each other this somehow negates the fact that chimps are equally enthusiastic about killing lesser yet still sentient primates like monkeys [Con 4], humans eat monkeys too ya know. Because we can feel love somehow all mammals are entitled to our good graces. Even if I agreed with your pan-mammalism philosophy fish and chicken aren't mammals what claim to familiarity do they have? When it comes to rape and infanticide there are obvious pro-human arguments against it, if your only argument against eating mammals is 'well you wouldn't eat a human!' then I'm afraid the moral connection falls flat. New Citation: [7] https://www.princeton.edu... [8] http://www.mayoclinic.org...

Sources? I have read most papers that claim toxic effects from consuming this and they as previously mentioned they all have flaws, notably, most concerning 0 validation methods for antibody labeling in radioimmunoassays. I'd love to discuss a paper that suggests it has evidence for one of these claims .

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

In A1, I will attempt to show that alcohol has a beneficial effect on health. In A2, I will attempt to show that the prohibition of alcohol will have in a negative impact on health. Argument 1 Studies have concluded that moderate consumption of alcohol has a protective effect on health, reducing the risk of diseases such as coronary heart disease, total stroke, and ischemic stroke. This is attributed to a higher ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol and altering the effects of enzymes involved in lipoprotein metabolism. [1] [2] [3] Argument 2 As alcohol is legal now, it can be assumed that people drink it, causing them to experience the positive health effects described in A1. Making the alcohol illegal would result in a significant number of people not drinking it, and the health benefits from alcohol would no longer be present. Sources [1] http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://cel.isiknowledge.com...


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Chocolate Milk: The Unhealthy Truth
What does research reveal about sugar and flavored milk? Sugar is a significant contributor to health problems affecting our children. Sugary beverages, often referred to as "liquid candy," are an easy way for kids to consume excessive amounts of added sugar. Studies have shown a link between sugar-sweetened drinks and obesity and chronic disease risk.8 Flavored milk, along with soda, sports drinks, and many juice drinks, falls under the category of sugary beverages, but research on its specific effects on children's health is limited, with some studies sponsored by the dairy industry. How much sugar is excessive? Recommendations for sugar intake vary based on age, gender, and physical activity level. Health experts suggest that added sugar should come from discretionary or spare calories in our daily diet. For instance, girls aged 9 to 13 who engage in less than 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily have only 130 calories to spare.10 The American Heart Association advises that no more than half of discretionary calories should come from added sugar,11 which, in this case, is 65 calories. One serving of flavored milk provides 64 calories of added sugar, equaling a day's allowance. What about using cane sugar or non-caloric sweeteners? Replacing high fructose corn syrup with another sugar, like cane sugar, does not reduce the added sugar content, as cane sugar is similar in composition to high fructose corn syrup (50% fructose) and is detrimental to children's health when consumed excessively. Some processors are considering adding non-caloric sweeteners to milk, but this practice teaches kids that foods must be sweeter or flavored to be enjoyable, instead of promoting the taste of whole, natural foods like plain milk. Moreover, there is insufficient research to ensure the safety of giving children alternative sweeteners regularly. If we eliminate flavored milk, will kids consume less calcium and other essential nutrients? Isn't it worth adding extra sugar to ensure they get these nutrients? A Dairy Council-funded study found that children who drink flavored milk consume more servings of milk daily.12 However, in most age groups, flavored milk drinkers did not have a significantly higher intake of calcium or other nutrients like phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium compared to kids who only drank plain milk. Other dairy products and foods like leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans are good sources of nutrition. Exercise also contributes to good bone health. MORE AND MORE SCHOOLS ARE OPTING

There are lots of inaccurate statements made by the CON in Round 1.1. "Nutrition - PBD do not contain performed Vitamin A, Vitamin B12, and Vitamin D."Wrong. As stated before, a herbivore can get ALL those things from a varied PBD. Vitamin A is in lots of plants...carrots, for example. Vitamin D comes from direct sunlight & fortified food. You also missed my statement that both omnivores and herbivores alike are prone to being Vitamin D-deficient...this is not related to being vegan but being HUMAN. Regardless of diet, we should consider taking a Vitamin D supplement & going out into direct sunlight during the early afternoon hours. Simple. Not related to a specific diet. And B12? You missed my point, that it is easy to get B12 in these modern times regardless of your diet.2. "Micro-nutrient deficiency is often a result of PBD.""An estimated 25,000 different micronutrients exist in the plant kingdom." http://www.fi.edu..."Individuals who eat a typical Western diet generally have reduced intakes of several micronutrients, compared with individuals who primarily eat plant-based diets." http://www.tcolincampbell.org..."Vegans obtained a higher percentage of total energy from carbohydrates than did omnivores and had higher intakes of polyunsaturated fat, monosaccharides, dietary fiber, folate, vitamin C, vitamin E, and magnesium. Furthermore, female vegans had lower intakes of total and monounsaturated fat and a higher intake of iron than did female omnivores. Male vegans had lower intakes of alcohol and sodium than did male omnivores." http://ajcn.nutrition.org...Proper research will teach you about the antioxidants and micro-nutrients found in plants that are necessary for sustaining life.3. "Vegetarian diets are linked to menstrual problems in young women."Wrong. Being FEMALE is linked to iron deficiency. No healthy diet should result in menstrual problems. A vegetarian who is not getting proper iron sources is probably going to have problems. But an ABD that is not well-planned could also result in this."Female vegans had a higher iron intake (excluding supplements) than female omnivores, which does not support a previous finding (28). However, intake was similar when including supplements. Low iron status was as frequent among omnivores as among vegans, despite the vegans' intake of nonheme iron only, which has a lower absorption rate than does heme iron (48), and higher intakes of dietary fiber and possibly phytic acid, which decrease the bioavailability of iron."You mentioned that AFS gives nutrients like iron in forms that the human body can use more readily. No problem. "Iron bioavailability may be increased by combining iron intake with intake of food items high in vitamin C." (http://ajcn.nutrition.org...) Any informed person, whether they subscribe to PBD or ABD, will take advantage of this information - where do you get Vitamin C from? Fruits and veggies (and/or supplements).4. "It takes intelligence and hard work to maintain a healthy PBD."This is speculation. My statement would be more like: it takes an informed person to eat a well-balanced, ethical diet, regardless of whether it is a PBD or ABD. This is a much more accurate statement, in my opinion.5. Unnecessary food rules? There are no food rules here. Opening yourself to the possibilities away from the limitations of an ABD is actually freeing. There's no way to miss every single animal byproduct, mostly because our culture has allowed this, NOT because a PBD is any less healthy.More and more foods are becoming clearly labeled as vegan and animal-free! There is the certified Vegan label, which will let people know there are absolutely no animal-products in them. This is growing, thank God. Although there are still many "hidden" animal ingredients, more producers are starting to get the point that this is NOT ok to keep hidden. The CON side didn't seem to get that I am speaking from an American's perspective. My point is that no one in a developed country needs milk. This still stands. The ones who need dairy are those in developing countries (or in less agricultural areas -- but likely they have access to imported foods) which DOES NOT PROVE that ABD are better, just that they can be helpful for those who don't have access to all the macro & micro-nutrients that the typical American does. I was pointing out that the typical Westerner or anyone with access to markets and groceries DOES NOT NEED DAIRY.B12 -- this is not an argument for an ABD, haha. This is proving that you can get every single other nutrient you need apart from B12 from plants, and with modern times, you can get B12 in an absorbable form either in your foods or supplements. Most uninformed people assume that vegetarians/vegans are highly deficient in nutrients that they can't get from plants. This is not so! Clearly both those on ABD & PBD have to carefully monitor their nutrient levels -- this takes education and information ON BOTH SIDES. But it is easy to get all the nutrients you need, and much more, from a PBD. Economics and sustainability are very much a part of what makes PBD a better OVERALL diet than ABD, in addition to superior nutrition. I take the ethics & responsibility of individuals in account, because well, they are relevant to diet. Read this article, "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler." http://www.nytimes.com...The malnutrition from cultures -- simple. Let's stop eating as much meat and dairy since some myths about needing them have been debunked, and give those resources and nutrition to them. You handed me that one. Please note that I'm not saying every single person should stop eating meat and dairy. For some reason, omnivores get the idea that vegans are telling them they think EVERYONE should stop eating ALL meat. Not so. Obese American dietary problems, which are highly relevant to other cultures because they are following in our footsteps (American meat consumption is decreasing, while other developing countries are INCREASING their meat intake by following our former lead -- http://www.researchscape.com...), have a heavy foundation in animal-based diets. The majority of Americans and any of the other many westernized countries with similar diets are on animal-based diets. So there is an issue here, and clearly, if most of these diets are animal-based, these heavy animal-based diets must be causing problems. Cause and effect. "These are often convenience products targeted to an overworked population, as well as to younger consumers who may lack cooking experience or skills." Bad government contributes to world hunger. This is true, however it is not the full story. We are the consumers. We buy the unethical products & allow world hunger to continue through overconsumption of meats & dairy -- which is not done out of respect for nutrition, but for taste/wealth/status (you yourself said that bacon is tasty...so? Who cares? LOTS of things are tasty! Get over it!)."A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today. As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management." http://www.guardian.co.uk...PBD are not bad at all. They are just as good if not better than ABD -- nutrition-wise AND ethically speaking. Only when stepping out of a heavy animal product based diet does one see that a PBD can actually be much more varied than the typical ABD.

No on said we had to debate the value of vanilla ice cream verse chocolate ice cream being healthier then one another. Chocolate is irresistible . That is in any form, and if you worried about hyperactivity you shouldn't allow so much chocolate to be eaten and there will be no issues. If you go to any restaurant the options of desserts are more complemented by and offered alone in the form of chocolate. It is more poplar; it is better

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

Actually, Soda pop does have some health benefits if you didn't know. Scientists and doctors have found that one of the best treatments for gastric phytobezoar, A condition where a person has difficulty with food moving through their digestive tract and suffers stomach blockages, Is a glass of Coca-Cola. The high acidity in the fizzy drink acts like gastric acid and can ease severe abdominal pain, Break down the blockages and get things moving again.

I see what you are saying, but 1) Rebuttals Okay but gaining weight ( which is what you said) is not want the people who drink it want, which is what I said. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not but other than that their is nothing else to rebut.

Seriously, I started reading at age four and have read all my life, which lead to writing, which led to looking at words so often. Now I have to get glasses and the straining of eyes, at an early age, might be a factor of why. I think reading is fun, in SOME cases, but it strains your eyes and that is not good for you. .. but then again where else do you get great, creative juices? Con gets to argue that reading is good for you and why.

I'm not a vegetarian, I don't think animals should have rights, and I love meat. That being said, you are still wrong. "Vegetarianism is harmful to the human body, and is wrong." As the Pro of the resolution, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that vegetarianism is harmful to the human body. Let's go down the line by line: "To start off, any dietitian will tell you that meat is an essential part of anyone's diet." The problem with this statement is that it's just…wrong. The American Dietic Association as well as the Dietitians of Canada issued a statement that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." (1) For those of you who don't know, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) is the United States' largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, with nearly 67,000 members. Approximately 75 % of ADA's members are registered dietitians and about 4 % are dietetic technicians, registered. The remainder of ADA's members include researchers, educators, students, clinical and community dietetics professionals, consultants and food service managers. "People are omnivores we eat BOTH meat, and vegetation." While it is true that we CAN ear both meat and vegetation, it does not mean we HAVE to eat both. "Our bodies weren't made to live without meat." It's not the meat that the human body can't live without; it's the nutrients in the meat. If you can the get the nutrients meat contains from another source, you can live just fine. "It contains a substantial amount of protein which we need to grow (especially us teenagers)." This argument assumes meat is the only source of protein. The American Dietetic Association states that "plant sources of protein alone can provide adequate amounts of essential amino acids if a variety of plant foods are consumed and energy needs are met."(2) Some good examples of Protein that is not found in meet are: 1)BEANS: are protein-rich, and contain a good amount of iron 2)CHICKPEAS: are a helpful source of zinc, folate and protein. They are also very high in dietary fiber and hence a healthy source of carbohydrates for persons with insulin sensitivity or diabetes. Chickpeas are low in fat and most of this is polyunsaturated. (3) (4) 3)LENTILS: Aside from a high level of proteins, lentils also contain dietary fiber, vitamin B1, and minerals. Red (or pink) lentils contain a lower concentration of fiber than green lentils (11% rather than 31%). Health magazine has selected lentils as one of the five healthiest foods. (5) 4)TOFU: is relatively high in protein, about 10.7% for firm tofu and 5.3% for soft "silken" tofu with about 2% and 1% fat respectively as a percentage of weight. Tofu is also low in calories, contains beneficial amounts of iron (especially important for women of child bearing age) and has no cholesterol 5)ALMONDS: One ounce of almonds contains 12 percent of your daily allowance of protein, with no cholesterol; you'll also get 35 percent of your daily allowance of vitamin E, that valuable antioxidant with so many cancer-fighting qualities. And most of the fat in almonds monounsaturated fat, one of the two "good" fats responsible for lowering LDL cholesterol. Of course there's MUCH, MUCH more. I could go on all day about all the different non-meat foods that contain a sufficient amount of protein, but unfortunately, there is an 8k character limit. You have no evidence whatsoever to show how a PROPERLY PLANNED ( as opposed to poorly planned) Vegan diet is harmful to the human body. In fact, I can show you evidence that a Vegan diet is actually healthier for the human body than a diet that includes meat: The US department of agriculture conducted an interesting study which concluded that vegan women may have a higher rate of bone formation than women who eat meat. The science behind it is very interesting. Unlike proteins in plant foods, meat contains proteins that may be rich in sulfur. As we digest animal proteins, the sulfur in them forms acid. A slight, temporary acid overload: called acidosis may result. The body needs a buffer to regain the natural balance of acidity to alkalinity. One buffer is Calcium Phosphate, which the body can borrow from its bones. The body's taking of Calcium phosphate from the bones increases the risk of osteoporosis, it also unhealthily increases the porosity of the bones. Here is the study: http://www.ars.usda.gov... And everything you have said about Animal rights have NOTHING to do with the debate resolution, this is straight up nutrition. Not only is vegetaranism not harmful to the human body, it's arguably healthier than a meat diet. Sources: (1)http://www.adajournal.org... (2)Messina VK, Burke KI (1997). "Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets". Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97 (11): 1317-21. (3)www.vegsoc.org, Zinc, retrieved 31 January 2008 (4) www.vegsoc.org, Protein, retrieved 31 January 2008 (5)Raymond, Joan (March 2006). World's Healthiest Foods: Lentils (India). Health Magazine. Your turn.

Topic:A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet. I'll take on the Pro position of the debate, meaning I'll argue for vegetarianism.Definitions:A vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat or fish, but does not necessarily abstain from eating animal derivatives like eggs and milk.By "ethical" I mean morally right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. This includes examining the issue from both ecological and animal rights standpoints, as well as the implications to us as humans.By a "meat-eating" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person). Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Don't just say "you can't survive without meat" unless you back it up with a reliable link. Also, it is best if you tell us why this source is credible.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)

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

I'm very happy to hear you think my arguments are good. Thank you. To address your arguments, you quote from the article, 'Limit the animal-fare and you'll be reducing your likelihood for heart disease.' The key word here is 'limit.' The meat itself doesn't cause these diseases - rather a large quantity of meat is the source of the problem. "Studies... Have shown that eating high quantities of these meats (e.g. a small steak every day) also increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease." Once again, it's the high quantities of meat that cause the problem. "I wanted to say that people can reduce risk." Yes, people can reduce the risk by becoming vegetarians, but then they also open themselves up to a host of problems. In order to be a vegetarian, people must be very conscious about what they're eating in order to make sure they are getting a wide range of nutrients and often still needing to take additional supplements. For example, vitamin B12, which can only be found naturally in animal products, can lead to anemia and depression even with just a slight deficiency. People can also reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (and others) simply by eating in moderation. It is not necessary to fully remove meat from your diet. Meat is high in iron, protein and vitamin D, all nutrients that are more difficult to come by in a vegetarian diet. You also address environmental issues, which I would like to thank you for because it was not something I had previously thought about. After some time researching farming effects on the environment, here's what I found. First of all, the 'cutting down trees', is done not just for animal pastures but also for farming. So the same land that has its trees cut down to produce beef, might also be there to produce carrots. But in a study by the World Agroforestry Centre (WAC), scientists have recently found that many farms are planting and protecting trees spontaneously. To quote from the article, "Based on data from satellite images, the report is the first global study of tree cover on farms. It found tree canopies made-up more than ten percent of farmland spread across ten million square kilometres. The researchers' calculations indicate this quantity represents 46 per cent of all agricultural land - an area the size of China." Dennis Garrity, the director of WAC, says that it is a realistic fallback. I don't speak Russian, so I'll take your word for it, but it's important to note that *farming* uses 70% of water, not specifically farming animals. So to do away with eating meat would not help the problem very much - we do need food. In such a case, we need to use better irrigation systems to make sure that all the water consumed is not being wasted and that the water can be reused. Also, thank you for this debate. I'm learning a lot. Resources: http://content.time.com... http://www.healthaliciousness.com... http://www.coolearth.org...


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Is Chocolate Milk a Healthier Option than Regular Milk?

Claiming that chocolate milk is superior in taste is entirely subjective. While it's true that people often prefer chocolate milk over plain milk, this doesn't automatically make it beneficial for human health. To thoroughly address this topic, I'll delve into various aspects of chocolate milk, including its composition, current usage, and its impact on the human body. After examining the overall profile of chocolate milk, I'll compare it to plain milk. Let's proceed.

The typical method of making chocolate milk involves blending whole milk (or plain milk, as you might call it) with cocoa powder and sweeteners, usually in the form of sugars. Both plain milk and chocolate milk originate from the same cows, contrary to some misconceptions. The main difference lies in the sugar and carbohydrate content of chocolate milk, which is higher than in plain milk. While carbohydrates serve as a primary energy source, not all carbohydrates are equal, with sugars being the least healthy.

Moderate consumption of sugars won't cause substantial harm, but excessive intake can lead to obesity, diabetes, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Reference: http://www.self.com...)

While proponents of chocolate milk might argue it's more delicious, it's not necessarily healthier, akin to many other foods we enjoy. Drinking chocolate milk can potentially harm us over time. It's safer to opt for plain milk, sacrificing a bit of flavor but avoiding the excess sugars that can adversely affect our health in the long run, compared to consuming chocolate milk, which has been linked to detrimental health effects.

https://docs.google.com... You can view our full argument on the link above.

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.

It's funny that such arguments would come from a person who only feeds their dog vegetables. You use the term "animals" as though all animals are omnivores. Of course, it is a well known fact that most animals are vegans. Take the mighty lion for example. It only eats fresh raw fruits and vegetables such as zebra and buffalo. Vegetables have all the vitamins and minerals that you've mentioned. Maybe B12 is lacking, but google "durianride" to find oout about vegan B12 supplements. Most human beings, meat-eaters or not, have a B12 deficiency. Vegetables and fruits are also rich in nutrients that you can never find in meat... such as chicken and beef. You can only find chicken and beef in vegetables and fruits. Cheese is another example of an essential nutrient nowhere to be found in meat and dairy. How can you live a healthy life without cheese?

Topic:A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet. I'll take on the Pro position of the debate, meaning I'll argue for vegetarianism.Definitions:A vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat or fish, but does not necessarily abstain from eating animal derivatives like eggs and milk.By "ethical" I mean morally right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. This includes examining the issue from both ecological and animal rights standpoints, as well as the implications to us as humans.By a "meat-eating" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person). Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Don't just say "you can't survive without meat" unless you back it up with a reliable link. Also, it is best if you tell us why this source is credible.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)

I'll skip the formalities and get straight to the "meat" of it. Here are the arguments to support my claim: 1. Meat and dairy cause diseases that fruits and vegetables do not. 2. Cooked fruits and vegetables lose vital nutrients when they are broken down during the cooking process. 3. Vegans live longer than vegetarians and omnivorous human beings. 4. Personal testimony: I have lived a 100% raw vegan lifestyle all my life. I am the healthiest person I know. I can do up to 50 push-ups without stopping on a good day. I am very happy and always feel satiated. I never feel hungry. I occasionally eat chicken and beef every day of the week. Also eggs and cookies are an essential part of my diet. However, I do not eat meat, fish or dairy. I do eat ice cream and I enjoy trout and halibut 5 or 6 times a month, but I have never had anything other than these and other fruits and vegetables in my entire life. My favourite raw vegetable is deep dish pizza. I like it baked, but never cooked. I like grilled cheese sandwiches as long as they're not cooked. I have six pack abs and it's a wonderful automatic breaking system. I'm very hot.

Thanks Pro. Time to stop procrastinating and get this argument written". sh*t 37 minutes!!! Ack! I. Preface I will present my own arguments this round and save my rebuttals for the next two. The resolution is a rather vague one since is alludes to the "benefits" of moral treatment of livestock rather than whether or not the treatment must be moral on the face of it. With that in hand I will argue that from the perspective of the human species, then immoral treatment is highly beneficial for our own species II. Provides the necessary food quantity It is a brute fact that the "immoral" treatment provides greater volume and profits for the industrial bodies that deal in livestock. By providing better living conditions, which consist of additional roaming space, quality of food and reduced selective breeding for the purpose of maximizing adult lifestock size, weaning time, meat yields etc. we effectively reduce the production costs "per kilo" of meat and hence puts more meat on the plates for more people than would otherwise.[1-3] In chicken farming, for example, the turnover rate for egg laying has increased from just ~83 eggs/year up to ~300 eggs/year.[6] In cattle, breeding for larger cows has lead to 55% size increases in Jersey sired cross-bred female cattle,[7] with numbers across all breeds at ~18% over the past 20 years.[8] III. More animals would otherwise be killed If we assume that the same quantity of meat is going to be eaten regardless, then it clearly follows that more "moral" methods of farming would yield smaller livestock, since we would no longer be breeding them as aggressively for maximal size/maturity time. If we have smaller livestock then we will require more animals to be slaughtered to yield the same quantity of meat, and hence many more animals will have to die to meet our dietary requirements. [3] IV. Just what is "immoral"? I would like to know how Pro can possibly regard any action against mammals as immoral, by what justification? It seems from Pro"s opening round and I expect by the voter"s views that what is regarded as immoral is what we would perceive as immoral if applied to us. But this is problematic, since it doesn"t necessarily apply that human emotions, values, perceptions etc. are directly transferrable to other animals. We, after all are unique in that we are substantially more intelligent and much more capable of perceiving second-order suffering than animals are.[4] It doesn"t automatically follow that an animal will feel what a human feels, especially when we discuss animals further from us on the evolutionary tree, such as poultry (which are distantly related via. reptilian ancestors). We have absolutely no reason to believe that their brains are wired up anything like how our own brains are.[5] V. If we value life, then factory farming is good! This is a rather blunt argument, if we consider a life that is lived is more valuable/worthwhile than a life never lived, then it clearly follows that even a short and rather painful existence is preferable to complete annihilation. If we reject this argument then the flipside can be presented, in that if life is not intrinsically valuable/worthwhile, then it simply doesn"t matter morally whether they are killed in inhumane conditions or not. They are bred and they die, they no longer suffer when they die, and in fact their past suffering is annihilated at death. As such there is nothing ultimately "immoral" about killing animals in inhumane conditions since it is ultimately meaningless anyway, or a-moral. VI. Conclusion: I deeply apologise to Pro for this short round, and look forward to her arguments/rebuttals! Back to Pro! References: 1.http://benefitof.net... 2.http://www.brighthub.com... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org... 4.http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org... 5.http://www.sciencedirect.com... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://www.ukjerseys.com... 8. http://beefmagazine.com...

:). It can be bad for your omnivore cadaver. Badly cooked steak can kill you because of bacteria. Well cooked steak can kill you - it increases your risk for heart disease according to CDC. That being said, I love a good steak and will enjoy it while I can.

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

There are lots of inaccurate statements made by the CON in Round 1.1. "Nutrition - PBD do not contain performed Vitamin A, Vitamin B12, and Vitamin D."Wrong. As stated before, a herbivore can get ALL those things from a varied PBD. Vitamin A is in lots of plants...carrots, for example. Vitamin D comes from direct sunlight & fortified food. You also missed my statement that both omnivores and herbivores alike are prone to being Vitamin D-deficient...this is not related to being vegan but being HUMAN. Regardless of diet, we should consider taking a Vitamin D supplement & going out into direct sunlight during the early afternoon hours. Simple. Not related to a specific diet. And B12? You missed my point, that it is easy to get B12 in these modern times regardless of your diet.2. "Micro-nutrient deficiency is often a result of PBD.""An estimated 25,000 different micronutrients exist in the plant kingdom." http://www.fi.edu..."Individuals who eat a typical Western diet generally have reduced intakes of several micronutrients, compared with individuals who primarily eat plant-based diets." http://www.tcolincampbell.org..."Vegans obtained a higher percentage of total energy from carbohydrates than did omnivores and had higher intakes of polyunsaturated fat, monosaccharides, dietary fiber, folate, vitamin C, vitamin E, and magnesium. Furthermore, female vegans had lower intakes of total and monounsaturated fat and a higher intake of iron than did female omnivores. Male vegans had lower intakes of alcohol and sodium than did male omnivores." http://ajcn.nutrition.org...Proper research will teach you about the antioxidants and micro-nutrients found in plants that are necessary for sustaining life.3. "Vegetarian diets are linked to menstrual problems in young women."Wrong. Being FEMALE is linked to iron deficiency. No healthy diet should result in menstrual problems. A vegetarian who is not getting proper iron sources is probably going to have problems. But an ABD that is not well-planned could also result in this."Female vegans had a higher iron intake (excluding supplements) than female omnivores, which does not support a previous finding (28). However, intake was similar when including supplements. Low iron status was as frequent among omnivores as among vegans, despite the vegans' intake of nonheme iron only, which has a lower absorption rate than does heme iron (48), and higher intakes of dietary fiber and possibly phytic acid, which decrease the bioavailability of iron."You mentioned that AFS gives nutrients like iron in forms that the human body can use more readily. No problem. "Iron bioavailability may be increased by combining iron intake with intake of food items high in vitamin C." (http://ajcn.nutrition.org...) Any informed person, whether they subscribe to PBD or ABD, will take advantage of this information - where do you get Vitamin C from? Fruits and veggies (and/or supplements).4. "It takes intelligence and hard work to maintain a healthy PBD."This is speculation. My statement would be more like: it takes an informed person to eat a well-balanced, ethical diet, regardless of whether it is a PBD or ABD. This is a much more accurate statement, in my opinion.5. Unnecessary food rules? There are no food rules here. Opening yourself to the possibilities away from the limitations of an ABD is actually freeing. There's no way to miss every single animal byproduct, mostly because our culture has allowed this, NOT because a PBD is any less healthy.More and more foods are becoming clearly labeled as vegan and animal-free! There is the certified Vegan label, which will let people know there are absolutely no animal-products in them. This is growing, thank God. Although there are still many "hidden" animal ingredients, more producers are starting to get the point that this is NOT ok to keep hidden. The CON side didn't seem to get that I am speaking from an American's perspective. My point is that no one in a developed country needs milk. This still stands. The ones who need dairy are those in developing countries (or in less agricultural areas -- but likely they have access to imported foods) which DOES NOT PROVE that ABD are better, just that they can be helpful for those who don't have access to all the macro & micro-nutrients that the typical American does. I was pointing out that the typical Westerner or anyone with access to markets and groceries DOES NOT NEED DAIRY.B12 -- this is not an argument for an ABD, haha. This is proving that you can get every single other nutrient you need apart from B12 from plants, and with modern times, you can get B12 in an absorbable form either in your foods or supplements. Most uninformed people assume that vegetarians/vegans are highly deficient in nutrients that they can't get from plants. This is not so! Clearly both those on ABD & PBD have to carefully monitor their nutrient levels -- this takes education and information ON BOTH SIDES. But it is easy to get all the nutrients you need, and much more, from a PBD. Economics and sustainability are very much a part of what makes PBD a better OVERALL diet than ABD, in addition to superior nutrition. I take the ethics & responsibility of individuals in account, because well, they are relevant to diet. Read this article, "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler." http://www.nytimes.com...The malnutrition from cultures -- simple. Let's stop eating as much meat and dairy since some myths about needing them have been debunked, and give those resources and nutrition to them. You handed me that one. Please note that I'm not saying every single person should stop eating meat and dairy. For some reason, omnivores get the idea that vegans are telling them they think EVERYONE should stop eating ALL meat. Not so. Obese American dietary problems, which are highly relevant to other cultures because they are following in our footsteps (American meat consumption is decreasing, while other developing countries are INCREASING their meat intake by following our former lead -- http://www.researchscape.com...), have a heavy foundation in animal-based diets. The majority of Americans and any of the other many westernized countries with similar diets are on animal-based diets. So there is an issue here, and clearly, if most of these diets are animal-based, these heavy animal-based diets must be causing problems. Cause and effect. "These are often convenience products targeted to an overworked population, as well as to younger consumers who may lack cooking experience or skills." Bad government contributes to world hunger. This is true, however it is not the full story. We are the consumers. We buy the unethical products & allow world hunger to continue through overconsumption of meats & dairy -- which is not done out of respect for nutrition, but for taste/wealth/status (you yourself said that bacon is tasty...so? Who cares? LOTS of things are tasty! Get over it!)."A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today. As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management." http://www.guardian.co.uk...PBD are not bad at all. They are just as good if not better than ABD -- nutrition-wise AND ethically speaking. Only when stepping out of a heavy animal product based diet does one see that a PBD can actually be much more varied than the typical ABD.

If you would've read correctly, my topic states humans are not supposed to eat Pork or Beef. I never stated humans aren't supposed to eat meat, it's obvious that way back to Homo- erectus we have been eaters of meat. Eating Pork and beef are not on the natural dietary spectrum for mammals. my source https://www.sciencedaily.com... clearly states that mammals have eaten meat since the dawn of our genus. But it also states that it hasn't always been this way, as mammals, and also omnivores, pigs and cow were never on our direct source of nutrition. Early Homo Sapiens in East and South Africa eat fish, chicken, fruit, certain plants and also bison, but pork and beef were not everyday consumables. This is a modern day phenomenon, and it's obvious at the fact that it takes 3 days or 72 hours to digest pork and beef but only 2 hours for chicken and fish.