Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized?

Gay Marriage
Marriage is the moment when you decide to spend the rest of your life with the person you love. Personally, I believe that marriage should be abolished altogether, but that's a utopian idea. The main cause of divorce is often attributed to marriage itself. Getting back to the point, if two individuals are in love, they should have the same rights as others to marry. Gay couples will have disagreements, just as heterosexual couples do. They will express their affection for each other, just as heterosexual couples do. And they will build a life together, just as heterosexual couples do. If you accept that gay couples can have a relationship, then why should they be denied the right to marry?

I will be arguing on the "Pro" side of this issue. I believe that denying homosexuals this basic right is immoral and unacceptable in a country that claims to provide "liberty and justice for all". Homosexuals are human beings and deserve to be recognized as such. I will wait for my opponent to deliver his opening statement before I begin.

I. The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) I forgot to mention this aspect of the Constitution that shows that discrimination against marriage is illegal. In the interracial marriage case Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court unanimously voted against discrimination in marriage based on the Equal Protection Clause. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is fair for you to have to rebut this argument, because it is so important and you have ample time to rebut it, two rounds. II. Topicality My opening statement was simply an introduction to my position and self as a debater. The topic, in debate, is always what is to be debated. That is one of the few rules of debate. I am sorry to confuse you, but legality is an issue as well as naturality. III. Natural Behavior Justification You used the argument that violence is justified for its naturality. However, violence hurts people. Love does not hurt anybody. This is a common sense argument. IV. Leviticus 20:13 A. This scripture was not presented by God. Most knowledgable Bible scholars, even the most conservative, will conceed that these rules are not from God. They are rather presented from Israeli religious leaders. They do not have the right, as well as any other human what is right or wrong. B. Leviticus 20:2 reads "speak to the children of Israel." Christians are NOT the "children of Israel". C. Leviticus also bans round haircuts and even playing with the skin of a pig (football). V. Romans 1:24 - 27 A. These priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves and carrying on drunken sexual orgies. This is the sin the Bible is referring to. God is obviously not condemning the way he created a group of people. B. These people refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. C. The scripture says that God gave them up for vile affections against nature, but how is it referring to homosexuality, which is proven to be from birth? And is natural? It is not referring to homosexuality. That is an incorrect assumption. D. Romans 2 begins with the scripture "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." That is what Romans 1 is about: judging others, not homosexuality. How dare you twist a message from God for your own personal benefit to spread hate! VI. You Being A Jerk DO NOT try to convert me to your religion or your sexual preference! I know what I am and who I am. I am not sinning, as I have proven. However, you are for being judgmental. There are only 6 scriptures that can be twisted to condemn homosexuality. While a main message of your Bible is to not judge others! Practice what you preach, buddy. VII. My sources My related sources all stated that homosexuality is natural and at least partially genetic. VIII. Scientific Consensus You have the nerve to only copy and paste the part of my source that states that there is no scientific consensus on the GENETICS of homosexuality. However, among respectable scientific sources that are not biased the consensus is that homosexuality is in part genetic or set in very early in life. It is unfair and dishonest that you only copy and paste one part of the source just like you did with the Bible. IX. From the Comment Box >>>The Bible says "Anyone who curses their mother or farther is put to death." "This was primarily in the Old Testament, or the Jewish law. A lot of these commandments don't apply to us today since Jesus came and fulfilled the law of the Old Testament. How dare you!!! You can't pick and choose what Jesus likes and dislikes. You can't say God hates the gays in Leviticus and then say that you don't apply because it's the Old Testament. You loose the Leviticus argument, because you don't agree with it yourself. I am truly disgusted by your level of dishonesty in the name of religion. X. Gay Parents I said that gays can take care of kids just as well if not better. I hardly demanded gays are better parents as you stated. There is no scientific source stating that gays are not good parents. It does not hurt the child socially. Gay marriage will bring about less orphans, which is a good thing. [http://www. apa. org /pi/parent. html] [http://www. urban. org/ publications/411437. html] XI. "First I would like to argue that any couple isn't good for society unless they are in an equal loving relationship." Gays have equal loving relationship. XII. "I have seen sites of gay marriage statistics saying it's "too early to tell" about the divorce and affair rates of gay marriage." A. Theres a first time for everything. There is no reason to think it wont work. B. Show these sources, if they're accurate or even existent. XIII. pureloveclub.com Did you just show an anti-gay biased website to try and prove that gays don't want gay marriage!? XIV. Don't change the meaning of the Bible [like Liberals]. A. Conservatives change the meaning of the Bible to include hate. XV. Gay marriages are like dog and plant marriages. Gays are human beings! We should not be second class citizens! Two humans who love each other should be able to get married! XVI. "It is possible to love a person outside of marriage. Marriage is not necessary for love." If you're acknowledging that it is love, then why are you supporting denying marriage rights? How does marriage hurt anybody? Marriage helps families and loving couples. XVII. Gays tend to have high levels of promiscuity. (narth.com) A. This is a dumb stereotype, that is simply untrue! B. NARTH is the single most biased organization in the world! C. Isn't promiscuity a reason to let people get married so they will only have one partner? XVIII. "Often being gay is a cry out for a relationship with the same-sex they never had with their parent. This is not love it is lust." I'll try to be respectful here, but it's really difficult, because you're not being respectful. You're lying here! This has never been substantiated! Psychologists can predict if a child will be gay in preschool. Most kids have a great relationship with their parents in preschool. Homosexuality is atleast in part biological. Period. XIX. "If the patient requests for you to see him/her then you don't have to be a family member or be married to the person to see the person." Lying again! [http://www. clgs. org/ marriage/sermon_small. html] XX. Gays will inherit money from spouses like in straight families A. The fact that it is in any way different is dispicable and dicriminatory. B. Some people simply don't have wills because of untimely deaths. Their money should go to their lover, not the state. Why would you advocate this inconvenience? And discrimiation? XXI. Adopting kids does not make kids' lives better (narth) A. That makes no sense! Kids are better off in a safe, loving home than a crowded, uncaring orphanage. B. Stop using NARTH! XXII. There is no proof or truth that gays are not good parents. Don't use surveys about kids with only one parent. That's not the same model. XXIII. Where does gay marriage end? Marriage ends with two loving human beings. XXIV. I don't know any gays that don't support gay marriage. Maybe they support civil unions. XXV. The Greeks were a bisexual society. XXVI. There are not ex-gays. Therapy has a 0% success rate. Show me a scientific source that disagrees! You can't XXVII. I NEVER SAID A GAY GENE! I said it has proven to be natural. XXVIII. Transgenders and bisexuals are biological. Support love! Not lies + hate!

--------------- BURDEN: I must prove that Homosexuals have the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals. -------------- CASE: A heterosexual man has the following rights to marriage: He can marry 1 woman (and in 4 states, 1 man). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... A heterosexual woman has the following rights to marriage: She can marry 1 man (and in 4 states, 1 woman). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... The 14th ammendment grants all people "equal protection" under the law. . http://www.usconstitution.net... Because of the 14th ammendment, these same rights are bestowed on homosexuals: A homosexual man has the following rights to marriage: He can marry 1 woman (and in 4 states, 1 man). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... A homosexual woman has the following rights to marriage: She can marry 1 man (and in 4 states, 1 woman). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... --------------- CONCLUSION: Both homosexual men and heterosexual men have the same rights to marriage. Both homosexual women and heterosexual women have the same rights to marriage. So, on can conclude that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights.

I appreciate it. 1) You start by stating that "marriage is the sacred bond of a man and a woman, not a man and man or woman and woman. " Tell me why two human beings who love each other can't have the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities because of their gender. This blatant discrimination is unacceptable. Also when you say that marriage is a sacred institution, divorce rates are at an all time high, infidelity in marriage is an epidemic, and when someone can compete on a television reality show to "Marry a Millionaire", the argument about saving a sacred institution seems kind of pointless. 2) You stated that "If gay marriage is legalized, there will be many riots. " I do not understand and if you could elaborate, please do. This is a foolish assumption and there isn't any evidence that such events will manifest. 3) You also state that "it wasn't thought in the time that the Consitution and Declaration of Independence were written, because back then, there were barely, if not any homosexuals. Our Founding Fathers never thought of this as an issue when these great documents were written. " 1st of all, these are very important documents, but there is no denying that they were written over 200 years ago. Many things aren't defined in the Constitution. 2nd of all, you coveniently forgot to mention when speaking of the Constitution that there is a clause in the Constitution named the "Elastic Clause" that grants Congress the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " Many issues aren't clearly defined, and because of the vagueness of the Constitution, this clause was included. I look forward to your reply.

Response to:1) Why not? I'll tell you why not! Because marriage in general whether you are straight or gay is almost always a bad idea. Marriage causes all these annoying legal obligations and finances on property that you can avoid by simply living together. Weddings also cause the whole "keeping up with the Joneses" philosophy because if you're a husband and your wife has like those annoying gossiping friends who brag about how much money they get their man to blow on them, then of course your wallet is going to start hurting really really badly. .. .Exp:Fiance: "Hey Mary I heard you got engaged"Mary: "My husband got me an 10,000 dollar wedding ring! Oh how much did yours cost? "Fiance: (All of a sudden feeling embarrassed) "Uh. .. it cost 11,00 dollars! (lying)You see what happens? And all this shallow nonsense could be avoidedThis is typically how those annoying friends of your fiance would look like 2) No, neither sexual orientation should have the option of marriage for it is like having the option to pay to have an awkward family dinner with your girlfriend's/boyfriend's parents 3) No certainly I don't give a f*ck what "the Conservative Douchebag Handybook" says either but instead of looking at gay people not being able to marry as a bad thing look at it as lucky. Straight people are jealous of gay people not having to face that awkward question of their partner wanting to marryGay people exp:Frank: "I wanna marry you! "Joe: (Uh-oh) "We can't! I would love to but it's against the law! "(See how it worked out)Straight people exp:Jenny: "Let's marry! "Tom: (Uh-oh) "Straight people can't marry! It's against the law! "Jenny: "No it's not! "Tom: "Sh1t! "(Poor Tom)4) Yes it would be fun to see homophobes hide in fear but we have to pretend we are more refined and civilized than that5) See point 46) Well you see getting laid doesn't have anything to do with marriage. You can hang around gay guys to get you laid without having them get married. And also, saying that you want to get married to have sex is like getting on an airplane for the free packet of peanuts they give out7) Well what if they can't stand that guy they are married to either8) Well that can apply to straight marriage tooWell for the latter I agree that straight marriage should be banned too. So anything that you say that is sh1tty about straight marriage can also apply to gay marriage. So I can't really argue against these points.

Con argues: "Civil unions are really just the current example of when blacks had the right to school in the US, but a separate school."Rebuttal: Comparing the civil union debate to black America's struggle is a poor, unbalanced argument. Despite the 19th amendment right for black Americans to vote, political oppression, violence and protest where used to intimidate the black community from registering. During the 1960s, only 5% of the black south was registered to vote. "Separate but equal" was a white-made agenda for the oppression and suppression of the black race. [1]Gay Americans and supporters of the Gay movement do not face the same oppression at the voting booths as black Americans. The gay rights movement is saturated with registered voters. The truth is, they simply lack the majority. The fact remains, 38 States voted to adopt DOMA (Federal Defense of Marriage act) and protect the institution of marriage from changing. This was a democratic voting process which resoundingly spoke against the inclusion of a broader definition of marriage. Con argues: Why should my rights be taken away just because of my sexual preference? Rebuttal: I'd like to answer with a question. What percentage of weddings take place in a Church? Roughly 80%. [3] This indicates that marriage is largely considered a rite, not a right. Con argues: You don't lose rights based on your preference of what drink you like better: milk or juice.Rebuttal: You may choose what you eat and drink. The majority of Homosexual claim their orientation is not a choice. You may continue your milk argument if you wish. I don't see how a diet compares to "living life with someone". Con stated: Civil unions are just a way states are using to get homosexuals to leave marriage alone. Religion is where the definition of "between man and woman" came from. The first amendment clearly states "separation of church and state." Rebuttal: Exactly. The state should leave marriage alone, since it came from the church. Jolly good point. Con stated: Marriage is a right. The majority is taking away the rights of the minority which is unconstitutional.Rebuttal: In order to be married, you need to have a wedding. The dictionary defines "wedding" as: wed·ding    /ˈwɛdɪŋ/ Show Spelled[wed-ing] Show IPA - noun 1. the act or ceremony of marrying; marriage; nuptials. 2. the anniversary of a marriage, or its celebration: They invited guests to their silver wedding. 3. the act or an instance of blending or joining, especially opposite or contrasting elements: a perfect wedding of conservatism and liberalism. 4. Business Slang . a merger. As per the definition, a wedding is a ceremony designed to join opposites. That makes it both 'religious' and 'heterosexual'. The state may have no legal part in this. The real breach of civil liberty is that the Government is involved in the issuance of marriage certificates.Next round Argument: Civil Union is gaining popularity. Around the world, heterosexual and homosexual couples are looking to civil union as the better option. The source is quoted as stating: "Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony." [4]http://core-online.org... [1]http://www.stateline.org... [2] http://www.soundvision.com... [3]http://www.nytimes.com... [4]

Thanks for making your argument short. Ill do the same. According to dictionary.com, marriage is a legally, religiously, and socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond. That defonition say nothing about gender or sex. It doesn't matter if they can have sex or not. Marriage, as said in the defonition, is basically just a commitment between two people. Also who cares if they can have sex or not? The defonition of marriage says nothin about sex. Also it is natural for some people to be homosexual. About 25 percent of the population is. Its just a recessive gene, like blue eyes. Having blue eyes means your eyes are slightly underdeveloped but its also natural. 25 percent of the population has blue eyes. My sources Dictionary.com 7th grade health class

In R4 my opponent offered his fullest argument yet, and in this last round I must respond to it, making for a rather lengthy conclusion. In this final round I intend to offer rebuttals and integrated with summaries of the debate at this final stage. The main contention of this debate is what is the nature of marriage. I have contended that in today’s society, there is no definite link between procreation or child rearing and the legal benefits recognized by the governments associated with marriage. Con has argued, though without a logical basis, that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples. In the beginning of his R3, Con argues that marriage is already highly regulated, and therefore it is not a big deal to not recognize gay marriage. There are several problems with his argument. The first is that while marriage is already highly regulated, it is not as regulated as it would need to be if one’s main concern was optimizing procreation. If the focus of marriage is procreation, then infertile couples should not be allowed to wed. Why are these couples allowed to marry? Because our society has decided that these couples are entitled to the same benefits as a couple that can procreate. This should also apply to homosexual couples. Second, Con’s statement “The union of two opposite-sex individuals creates the most pragmatically ideal situation for procreation and child-rearing,” is false. The most ideal situation for procreation is polygamous marriage composed of one male and multiple females. This situation would allow for one man to impregnate multiple women at once, thus leading to more offspring for society. Why don’t we do this? Two reasons. The first reason is that we have decided that marriage is not just about procreation, it is about an equal relationship between two people and a polygamous relationship creates a situation in which people would likely be valued unequally. The second reason is that it is probable that a polygamous marriage would not be the best situation in which a child could be raised. This transitions nicely into the next point: Child raising. While I do not deny that marriage is often associated with the raising of children, that, like procreation, is certainly not the main function of legally recognized marriage. Even if I had conceded that it was, this point would mean nothing. As I previously stated, a homosexual couple raising a child that is not biologically related to both parents is no different from a heterosexual couple with an adopted or step child, marriages that are recognized by law. Therefore, homosexual marriages ought to be as well. Two final points on this topic: Con has not provided any solid justification for his two standards through which marriage should be viewed. He has argued that procreation is a compelling interest for government, however fails to address why this interest is significant to the issue of marriage, specifically. Second, it should be noted that legalizing same sex marriage does not hinder heterosexual couples from procreating in any way, so this interest of society would not be hurt. Con concedes that the history of marriage should not be an issue in this debate, even though in R3 he made it a point to say that marriage “was established for the purpose of procreation and child rearing. ” Certainly then, this justification for his “purpose” must be discounted. Next, Con appeals to ignorance by stating that the only possible reason for marriage to exist could be procreation and child rearing. Untrue. The contemporary reason for marriage’s existence is to recognize two people who have agreed to live together for a long period of time as one “unit. ” When two people live as one “unit,” they gain legal recognition so that they can do things like share financial situations much easier than two people who are not viewed in this manner. As I have previously mentioned, the benefits associated with marriage have nothing to do with Con’s purposes of marriage. Con’s response to this is that the government must have an interest in order for this institution to exist. An interest that relates directly with the way in which the institution of marriage works today is that the government has an interest in making life better for its people. Marriage does this by allowing two people who have committed to each other to live together and share their lives receive certain benefits in order to make having a joint life easier. Additionally, it is not “the government” who receives gain from from procreation and child rearing, but rather society as a whole. I must disagree with almost everything said by my opponent in his next section. As I have already explained familial unit was merely the term I used to express a joint commitment of two people to live as family members though marriage. Con now claims that child rearing has no bearing if procreation is discounted, however earlier in his argument he made a big deal out of the fact that I had “misrepresented” his case by not including child rearing in my representation of his case. But now we find that it really doesn’t matter. But it does. An example of this is an orphan who is adopted by a gay couple and receives loving parents and this child grows up to be successful, vs. this child being in the system until he or she is 18 and this child is more likely to not be as successful. Child rearing most certainly does matter independent of procreation, but not from Con’s standpoint. Next, Con says that while it is not as simple for homosexual couples to have visitation rights, it is still possible. While that is true, there is no good reason why a homosexual couple ought to have to do extra work to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, especially on an issue that is completely independent of procreation or child bearing. It is unequal treatment. Con justifies this by saying that the government has no investment in the union of homosexuals, however, I would present him with an comparison using his own standards: Let’s say there is a homosexual couple that has adopted or had a child through in vitro fertilization and this couple has raised the child to be a solid, productive, member of society. Compare this with a heterosexual couple that is infertile and does not do one of the above things or a couple that decides not to have children. The government has no vested interest in the second marriage, however that couple is able to take advantage of this privilege. The government has a strong vested interest in the first couple because they are creating or raising a citizen for the future, however that couple is denied equality. Does this make sense? No. I have shown that procreation and child rearing are not the main function of marriage in legally recognized marriage, and therefore denying homosexual couples the same benefits is unconstitutional, as my opponent has conceded through his drop of my constitutional argument. Con has not sufficiently demonstrated that legally recognized marriage is based on procreation and child raising. He has also not presented a single negative consequence of the legalization of gay marriage. The resolution at hand is whether the reasons to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States outweigh the reasons not to do so with a shared BOP between the parties. I have fulfilled my BOP by showing the inconsistencies in the idea that marriage is based on procreation and child rearing, as well as demonstrating that marriage is an agreement by society that merits certain benefits. The Constitution mandates these benefits for all. Same-sex marriage should be legalized. I would like to thank my opponent for this lively debate, as well as the astute readers and voters of DDO. I rest my case.

I would like to start this round by apologizing for saying the word "whites" instead of "strait." I have aboslutely no idea where that come from. I will now start my rebuttal. "You have already labeled my word "Garried" derogatory, when I was very clear that it was intended as a place holder; is there something wrong with calling a union between a man and a woman different from a union between two men or two women?" I was merely making the point that this an extremely derogatory term when it comes to dealing with the marriage of two homosexual people. That is all. As far as your second point, I do believe that I clearly put forth a statment of fact refuting that fact in my last argument, namely that it violates the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education, when the Supreme Court ruled that separate is inherently unequal, which is exactly what you are proposing against them. "The very question is necessary to understand the fabric of the person before you, yet requires an extra question about sexuality that I really don't care to ask." The point that I am making is that it should not matter whether they are gay or strait. Whether that particular person is married to a person of the same, or opposite sex should make absolutely no difference whatsoever. It is a learned habit that makes people think the way that they do about gay people that can change, but the laws have to change first. A good example of this is the dying out of racism in the United States. Compared to 50 years ago, there are markedly less racists in the United States today. The same can and will be the case should gay marriage be legalized throughout the nation. "Gays have all of the rights that straights do." This is an absolute and unequivocal lie. It has been well documented that gays do not have the same rights as straits. On the news the other day, they had a special about how a number of Fortune 500 companies have a "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the company. http://www.hrc.org... In addition to this, there are gay couples who have been in Civil Unions for as much as 20 years, but should one of them die, the other, in most cases, is left with no financial support, even after their grievous loss. Here is a story of a gay couple, which I think you'll find quite disturbing. http://www.marriagefairness.org... In closing, I have addressed all of your arguments and look forward to your response!

I strongly support gay marriage for many reasons such as: A. Love is Love. No matter who is in the equation. B. It is not ours or the governments decision on who we can and cannot marry. C. If you wish to get into religion, it can be discussed. During this debate, no religions will be offended in any way. If accepted please, respond with your reasons why you are con/against.


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

Milk and other dairy products are indeed healthful and advantageous for humans. Milk has been an integral part of the human diet for millennia, and it is considered the optimal beverage for rehydration, second only to water. A lack of milk in one's diet can result in osteoporosis, as milk is a rich source of calcium, vitamins B and D. Moreover, milk is beneficial for the skin, which is why it is commonly used as an ingredient in various lotions. Additionally, milk helps protect tooth enamel and prevents decay.

First Con has dropped many subjects like the China study. Giving Pro the advantage in those areas. "Vitamin B12 is critical for the health of the brain and nervous system and is primarily found in animal foods. A deficiency can cause all sorts of adverse effects on brain function. [1]" Con True. Yet, Pro has already proven its possible with some care to get sufficient b12 on a vegan diet. "Creatine is an important nutrient in muscle and brain that helps to supply energy. Studies show that vegetarians have a deficiency in creatine that leads to adverse effects on muscle and brain function. [2]" Con Looking at Con's source, wikipedia there is no mention of vegetarians having creatine deficiencies. Instead that creatine is significantly lower in vegetarians. Also, the sample size was only 18 and 24, which is small. Pro contends that creatine deficiency is of no concern to vegans. "A study involving 18 vegetarians and 24 non-vegetarians on the effect of creatine in vegetarians showed that total creatine was significantly lower than in non-vegetarians." [25]. "A large part of the world is deficient in Vitamin D3, which is only found in animal foods. A deficiency in this critical nutrient is associated with depression and various diseases. [3]" Con Pro cannot find the statement in the provided link by Con stating that a large part of the world is deficient in D3. Instead Con links to WebMD, which doesn't state what Con claims WebMD does. Could Con please link to where Con got the quote? Pro contends its unfair for Con to quote a source and then fail to link to the source. This is because Pro cannot tell the context of the quote in its original source. Pro has searched the internet and found what appears to be the source Con has quoted. [26]. This is either sloppy or dishonest on Con's part to give credit to WebMD when authoritynutrition.com was the source of this quote. From the authoritynutrition site all it states is that vitamin D from animal foods is more effective. Then, the author, Kris Gunnars, lists all the consequences of vitamin D deficiency. Gunnars fails to make the connection between eating vegan and vitamin D deficiency. Pro contends that adequate vitamin D can be easily achieved on a vegan diet. "Carnosine is found strictly in animal tissues. This nutrient can reduce damage caused by elevated blood glucose and may have strong anti-aging effects. [4]" Con Claim: Carnosine is of little consequence. Warrant: "Carnosine deficiencies are extremely rare" [27]. Impact: Carnosine is of little to no impact. Also vegans can always see a doctor to make sure they are getting enough nutrients. Supplements are an option. "The Omega-3 fatty acid DHA is critical for proper function of the brain. It is primarily found in animal foods like fatty fish. Studies show that vegans and vegetarians are often deficient in it. [5]" Con DHA omega-3s can be found in sea weed and micro-algae. ALA omega-3 can be obtained from flaxseeds. "Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid found in cold-water, fatty fish, such as salmon. It is also found in fish oil supplements, along with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). Vegetarian sources of DHA come from seaweed." [28]. "Omega-3 fatty acids for nutrition and medicine: considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA." [29]. Vegans can receive all omega-3s from vegan sources. "My above arguments and sources are in favour of my original argument, which is that it has been proven rather difficult to maintain a balanced diet as a vegan." Con Perhaps the best argument Con has made thus far. Yes, a vegan diet is more difficult. Part of the reason for the difficulty is lack of vegans. If there was more plant eaters, the ethical eaters could band together and lend each other support. "Is it possible? Yes. But it's difficult, and much easier to do as a non-vegan. It would be unfair and not right to limit people to only eating vegan foods, and at the end of the day, there is no good reason to do so." Pro has already given several reasons why there is good reason to eat vegan. To reiterate, animal happiness, environment, health, and to mitigate world hunger. Pro contends it would be unfair to hungry people for wealthy people to continue to eat meat, dairy, and eggs. Animals happiness matters, and it would be unjust to continue to exploit animals by producing meat, eggs, and dairy. Pro looks forward to the next round of debate. Vote Pro, there are plenty of good reasons to ban meat, eggs, and dairy worldwide. Links 25. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 26. http://authoritynutrition.com... 27. http://www.livestrong.com... 28. http://umm.edu... 29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

All following arguments are rebuttals against Pro rebuttals Rebuttal 1: Animal Rights First of all your quote from "123helpme the benefits of cloning animal states... "Now imagine it is the year 2007, andyou are in dire need of a heart. The doctors do several tests to determine your genetic make-up, so they can find the right animal to match your needs. After replacing your heart with a pig heart, you recover and go on with everyday life. No one had to die, and you received your heart. With today's technology, this, and more human benefits, will be made possible with animal cloning.” I don’t understand this argument really, especially the part about using pig heart on humans. It doesn’t make sense. And also about (I quote from you) “Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals” That’s genetic engineering, which a very different concept from cloning. So that’s sort of off topic. Rebuttal 2: Commercially Beneficial My opponent has found an official statement that cloned foods are safe. I disagree with their conclusion, as it has not been mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet. But still as I have proved cloned foods costs about 10 times more than regular foods, and you have shown cloned foods are no different than regular foods, I see no reason for people to want to produce or buy cloned foods. He has even collapsed my evidence on “36% of the public will want it” argument, because now we all know zero percent of the public will have interest in it. So basically, it has no economic value as a food product. Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of Safety As I have stated on the refutation to my opponent’s rebuttal, cloned foods are not mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet. So no one can guarantee it’s safety yet.

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...

C1: There's no need to respond to other methods, because I've already showed the FDA saying that animal testing is sometimes required and Pro still doesn't deny the fact that sometimes inhumane animal testing is necessary. In fact, it is illegal to do animal testing when alternatives exist, yet it is still necessary. (1) The reason is, is that the bodies are too complex to ever be recreated in detail artificially. (1) Perhaps one day, but the fact is animal testing is still sometimes necessary. (1) Of course, testing on animals is not 100% accurate, but neither is in-vitro testing. If it is not tested on animals than the first test it will undergo on a living body will be on humans. This could potentially be lethal and threaten human's right to life. The idea that one animal's life can be sacrificed for many goes against the definitions. The definition specifics justice requires giving "each" their due. Each person would need to be given their right to life under that definition, so therefore one life cannot be sacrificed for the greater good. C2: If only one essential nutrient is inaccessible in a vegan diet, then it is not giving humans their due. First of all, Pro cites that vitamin B-12 can be gained from fortified foods and supplement. However, fortified foods are not available to everyone. (2) That leaves supplements, which many vegans also use for vitamin D, iodine, calcium, and iron. (3) However, in the United States and other countries supplements are not always well regulated, like food would be. For example in the US, supplement companies don't need to prove a supplement to effective, inform of side effects, can get away with inaccurate labeling, and were so badly unregulated they often contained contaminants. (4) I've already proved without rebuttal that omega-3 supplements can be dangerous. Also, I did address the fact that ALA can be converted to EPA and DHA. However, I also showed a study showing it was very inefficient way to attain these, especially for DHA. Another study showed vegans were severely lacking in DHA and it could only be solved by taking DHA supplements (which were found to be as mentioned earlier dangerous) or adding a potentially dangerous amount of ALA. (5) Pro also dropped my argument that hunting is still a necessity for certain people. Pro also dropped my most important argument in this contention regarding deaths caused by a vegan diet. I'll go over the deaths caused by farming again (although Pro also dropped my arguments about fertilizers). (6) With more demand for farmed products to replace animals native vegetation would need to be clear-felled, which results in many animals losing their habitats and dying. (6) Also, processes such as ploughing and harvesting kill small animals, lizards, snakes, and mice. (6) In fact, 100 mice are killed per hectare each year. (6) C3/R1: Obviously it's not an animal's fault for committing immoral acts, but they can't be held to different standards than humans. By creating a double standard for animals, it is using favoritism towards animals, and therefore is unfair. Pro says that in a fair community all moral entitlements and dues must be recognized. I agree. However, animals are not due anything. They don't meet the standards, which have to be consistent to be fair (regardless of whether they can or not). In fact, Pro has already mentioned mentally handicapped people may have equal understanding of rights and morals as animals, yet they are still held to the same standards. If they commit an immoral act, they lose their rights (as agreed upon, since they're human), even if they are acting out of instinct much like an animal would. Humans are biologically animals as well, so therefore without intellect it is expected they will follow instinct as well. Therefore, if all humans (even those with the rationality of an animal) are held to the same standards to receive their rights a just society would require animals follow the same standards. Pro suggests that animals are programmed to help keep ecological balance. However, that's not true. First of all, an ecological balance does not exist and is widely disregarded by the scientific community. The world is actually chaotic and there are natural disturbances that disrupt any possibly at a balance. (7) However, animal instincts are passed down through genes, and exist to help them survive and reproduce. (8) Except, animals are not doing it to meet any responsibilities, except to themselves. I already mentioned this earlier in the debate, but a male lion who wants to join a pride will kill all the existing cubs. This obviously does not help the species survive, but it gives him a chance to reproduce with the women of the pride. Also, Pro asserts that human instincts go against ecological balance. He's correct, they do, but for the same reason animals do. Like mentioned earlier humans are biologically animals, so they have instincts, including the urge to reproduce (like all sexually reproducing animals). (9) Therefore, humans have animal instincts, yet they have to control them to have their rights and in a fair society so will animals. R2: Pro does not address my example of certain farms giving animals healthy lives away from a place they'd otherwise most likely die in, but killing them when they're old for meat. In other words, we give them a relatively long healthy life and take meat for food. However, animals also do this in nature. If a lion kills zebra, the zebra loses its life, yet the lion gains food. Since I already showed that animals need to be held to the same standards to receive rights for it to be just, the lion should not receive rights. R3: Pro does a good job rebutting my rebuttal (which was poorly argued). However, his claim still doesn't hold any weight as I'll explain why here. The first premise is a false one. I can easily change it to: P1- Moral rights should be ascribed to all human beings equally, viz. infants and the mentally handicapped have equal moral and ethical rights as able-thinking adults. P2-Animals are not human beings. C-Therefore, moral rights should not be ascribed to animals ^This uses the exact same logic as Pro's original argument. If not A than B. This is a false dichotomy, as it could have just as easily been laid out the way I did or even said to all people born with eyes, etc. (10) Empathy actually doesn't have much to do with morals. It has to do with mirror neurons in the brain which "fire" based on what you see, it's as if you are experiencing it from the other person's point of view. This is also why you may flinch when you see someone else in pain. (11) So, realistically empathy can apply to almost anything. For example, people were found to have empathy towards robots, which are inanimate. (12) Conclusion: To conclude, justice does not require animal rights. One reason is because not allowing animal testing when necessary does not give humans their due, at a chance at better health, for their right to life. Another reason is that a vegan diet does not provide every nutrient in a healthy matter, which is not giving humans their due at a healthy lifestyle and it is impossible to even have a diet without having some animals die, so therefore humans are not given their due at life, via food. Some humans also rely on hunting to survive and if that was to be taken away, those humans are not being given their due. Also, animals are not due anything if justice is fair and equal (which it is by definition), because humans (even those with the intelligence of animals) cannot commit immoral acts, while having the same instincts of animals, yet animals will always violate these rights and therefore, under a fair system, animals do not deserve rights. This also helps justify the animal testing and eating meat products, as no one with rights are being violated. 1-http://speakingofresearch.com... 2-http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 3-http://www.theveganrd.com... 4-http://www.doctoroz.com... 5-http://www.veganhealth.org... 6-http://theconversation.com... 7-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 8-http://a-z-animals.com... 9-http://www.zo.utexas.edu... 10-http://rationalwiki.org... 11-https://www.youtube.com... 12-http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

The reason is I did not have enough characters left to continue. First of all: what do you mean "better" eaten most? Healthier? It is very subjective and vague. I assumed you were talking about most consumed but obviously I was wrong. I agree chocolate has more calories and is more addictive so it is less healthy. You need to specify exactly what you are talking about in the introduction, or else the debate becomes pointless like it has right now because we are arguing about different things.

Yes chocolate may kill dogs but does that make chocolate bad? I say no. There are many health benefits from eating chocolate. Chocolate has antioxidants, stearic acid which lowers cholesterol, and may reduce the risk of having a MI (heart attack) http://www.webmd.com...

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

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.

For my opponent’s rebuttal, he attempts to show how green tea is unhealthy for you to drink. His rebuttal ran like so. P1: Green tea causes skeletal fluorosis. P2: Water doesn’t cause skeletal fluorosis. C1: Water is better for you to drink than Green tea. My opponent says this, “You must know that tea also can reducing bone quality if you drink too much.” Anything is excessiveness is unhealthy for you, even water. “Experts now warn that drinking eight glasses of water a day is not good for you after all – and could be harmful…Drinking excessive amounts can also lead to loss of sleep as people have to get up in the night to go to the toilet, and other studies show it can even cause kidney damage, instead of preventing it…Worryingly, Dr McCartney also warns that taking on too much water can lead to a rare but potentially fatal condition called hyponatraemia, which sees the body’s salt levels drop and can lead to swelling of the brain.” (1) Both tea and water are unhealthy for you “if you drink too much.” Yet the benefits of green tea outweigh the costs; just because one thing in green tea is bad for you doesn’t mean green tea is bad for you. Conclusion: My opponent has attempted to negate my argument that tea is good for you by pointing out parts of tea that might be bad for you. I have defeated this by demonstrating how the benefits of tea outweigh the costs and therefore tea is actually good for you and by showing that the same goes for water. (1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

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


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

In moderation, beer can be a healthier choice than milk. Throughout this discussion, I've appreciated the opportunity to engage with my opponent and look forward to future debates. Let's conclude by addressing the points raised.

1. The claim that increased protein intake leads to higher calcium excretion is taken out of context. It's true that charged proteins maintain an ionic balance, affecting calcium ions. However, animal proteins are broken down into neutral amino acids, and the total protein in the blood, including albumin and blood cells, makes the argument about calcium loss insignificant. This is a propaganda tactic.
2. I never disputed the presence of certain chemicals in cows, but I've provided evidence that they are present at safe levels. My opponent is misrepresenting my argument. Their source is flawed, as antibiotics are not used for long-term prevention but only when necessary. The antibiotic levels in milk are minimal and not cancerous.
3. Beta lactam antibiotics are the most common in cows, while other families are less used and less stable. They are a minor concern.
4. My opponent questions the credibility of my source but fails to acknowledge that the FDA's statement on safe animal hormone levels in milk is well-documented. The "huge jump" in numbers was low and the study considered milk consumption.
5. The image of a cow with swollen udders doesn't prove that the milk is actually used. Modern farms have measures to prevent such conditions.
6. My opponent's source incorrectly connects dots between studies not related to milk. I've provided evidence that IGF-1 levels in milk are safe and the assumption it causes health issues is based on flawed logic.
7. The biased experiments and trials cited by my opponent lack scientific rigor and statistical significance.
8. Moderate drinking can harm those on prescription medication, which is relevant as prescription drug use is widespread. In developing countries, milk is more beneficial for sustenance than beer.
9. Over-the-counter drugs should not be taken with alcohol, as it can be harmful, as with Zantac.
10. Non-alcoholic beer is irrelevant to this debate. Lactose-free milk is acceptable as it removes lactose, making it suitable for lactose-intolerant individuals.
11. Goat milk, mentioned by my opponent, has fewer issues than cow milk. It's consumed more than cow milk worldwide, is suitable for lactose-intolerant people, free of high-industry chemicals, has healthier fats, and causes fewer allergies.
12. My opponent must prove that

Thank you to Leekatya for what looks to be a promising and respectful debate. Good luck to you. I'd like to start out by stating my position on the subject of vegetarianism. While I certainly don't think it is bad, I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone who wants to (or does) include meat in their diets and believe that that position can be supported from both an ethical and health perspective. I will attempt to prove that an omnivorous diet is just as good, if not better than a vegetarian lifestyle. I will start by addressing some of Leekatya's comments and adding support for my position. "...most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians." Before commenting on this statement, I need you to provide me with reasons as to why you believe it is wrong in order that your concerns can be properly addressed. Are you talking from a health position or an ethical position? "According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease." I did google KEDEM, but did not find any results for vegetarian research. Perhaps you could supply a link for that? The information that did come up, however, seemed to contradict at least one of those points. According to a study done by the JAMA Internal Medicine, "Eating plant foods didn't seem to protect participants against cancer, which struck both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians in roughly equal measure." 1 As for diabetes and heart disease, when they are caused by dietary issues, it often stems from an imbalanced nutrition. Meat eating is not the primary cause of such diseases, but rather (and note the difference) *too much* meat can play a role. As with everything, moderation is the key. Just because someone eats more meat than is healthy for them and they get sick does not mean that the solution is to abstain from it entirely. "Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - "All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy." " An important point to mention here is that a primary concern of those who don't eat meat is health. *Which means that they are already aware and conscious of health issues in general*. It's like saying that someone who exercises is more likely to be healthy than someone who does not. Of course they are! When someone is proactively taking steps towards a specific goal, they will be more likely to achieve it than someone who does not. While people who exercise have a greater chance of being healthy, that does not by definition mean someone who does not exercise is not healthy. So too with vegetarianism. And proof of the fact that vegetarians are more conscious about a healthy lifestyle is the following statistic: "75 percent of vegans abstain from alcohol, as opposed to 8 percent of omnivores; 94 percent abstain from smoking, as opposed to 67 percent of omnivores; and 80 percent of vegetarians exercise in their free time compared to 70 percent of omnivores."2 (it is significant to note in those statistics that only about 5% of Americans identify as vegetarians. 3) All those factors, especially abstinence from smoking also contribute to being healthier in regards to disease. And once again, just to reiterate my point, the above simply means that vegetarians are more conscious about living a healthy lifestyle. It reflects a lifestyle but does not mean that the plant-eating itself is what causes one to be healthy. Though I personally have no problem with people being vegetarians, for the sake of completeness here is an argument concerning health issues in a vegetarian lifestyle: The lack of certain nutrients in plant-based foods requires many a vegetarian to take additional supplements such as omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, and vitamin D, just to name a few. If a vegetarian lifestyle was truly what we were intended to be living by, we would be able to source all the necessary nutrients in plants. In addition, studies have shown that there is a slightly lower bone mineral density in vegetarians as opposed to omnivores. 4 Thank you for taking the time to have this debate with me and I look forward to your response. Here are my sources, in order: 1) http://www.news-medical.net... 2) http://weanuhaske.wordpress.com... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org... 4) http://ajcn.nutrition.org...

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

Despite what that Atkins guy says carbs are not bad for you, they are best in the morning though. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. The risk of vegetarians getting blood fat is very slim to none. As for the fish that depends on the fish, some has high levels of mercury while others have absorbed toxins from pollution. Again thought the problems that are helped by the Omega 3 comes from meat products thus still not an issue for vegetarians. I honestly do no know of any medical conditions from vegetarianism, just from poor eating and no exercise, which is common for omnivores as well. http://www.consumeraffairs.com... "The researchers found that a low-fat vegan diet leads to weight loss of about 1 pound per week, even without additional exercise or limits on portion sizes, calories, or carbohydrates.

"Also being a vegan will cause you to naturally eat more carbohydrates which will cause you to become overweight as well" This is about vegetarianism not veganism. Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans. "Beans and nuts DO have protein but a person can't live with dairy foods, beans and nuts." That is their form of protein but with that and fruits and vegetables they can get a complete diet with everything they need in it. Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with. So why not prevent the problem to not need a solution (omega 3 fatty acids as the solution) to begin with? You seem to argue that vegetarians can not be healthy due to a lack of meat protein and other nutrients found only in meat. However the existence of healthy vegetarians suggests that to be incorrect. Here is a list of famous vegetarians. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a rather long list that includes people from all walks of life. Some are even professional athletes like Herschel Walker, obviously a healthy man. As with an omnivore diet, vegetarians must watch what they eat and have a well balanced diet. They can be healthy and are many times less likely to suffer from the many ailments associated with meat consumption.

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!

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.

Animals cloning is beneficial I would like to wish good luck to my opponent.Full ResolutionAnimals cloning is benefical. BoP is shared. Definitions Animals: "... A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly... Any such living organism other than a human being. Clone: the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by a single progenitor cell or organismBeneficial: Favorable or advantageous; resulting in goodWhat i am biscally saying is that animal cloning is beneficial for the human race. Rules1. The first round is for acceptance and appreciation. (only) 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. All resoultion, definitions, rules, and structures are as stated.Voters, we hope you enjoy the debate. And that your vote is as stand.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.google.com...http://www.google.com...

Rebuttal 1: I feed my dog meat and vegtables and she is stronger than ever. You know, we also eat veggies. It is not like we eat only meat. Rebuttal 2: Throw in a lunk for that and I will accept it as fact. Otherwise, I rule it an invalid statement Rebuttal 3: Read before you make an assumption. By the way, vegans can't eat cheese. It is a product aof the cow and is strictly forbidden. I eat chesse all the time. My favorite is sharp cheddar. :P You find different forms and bigger quanities in meat. Some which you can not find in veggies. Look at the food pyramid. Meat is on there. This proves meat is essential for a good 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.

I believe that milk should be poured before cereal, as people end up pouring too much milk in after cereal, and waste milk. Also milk splashes everywhere when it bounces on cereal, thus milk should be poured first!