Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

The benefits of drinking milk for human health are a subject of debate.

While some believe that milk is an essential part of a healthy diet due to its high calcium and vitamin D content, others argue that it may not be as beneficial as once thought. Milk consumption has been linked to various health issues, including increased risk of certain cancers, such as ovarian and prostate cancer, and a higher likelihood of developing allergies and asthma in children.

On the other hand, milk is a good source of protein, which is essential for building and repairing tissues in the body. It also contains other important nutrients, such as potassium, vitamin A, and vitamin B12, which are necessary for proper bodily function.

However, there are concerns about the environmental impact of dairy farming, including the use of antibiotics and pesticides, as well as the potential for pollution from animal waste. Additionally, some argue that the ethical treatment of animals should be a consideration in determining whether milk consumption is healthy.

Overall, the question of whether drinking milk is healthy for humans is complex and multifaceted, with various factors to consider. While milk can provide important nutrients, it may also pose health risks and environmental concerns. Ultimately, the decision to consume milk should be based on individual health needs, ethical considerations, and environmental impact.

Note: The provided documents do not address the question of whether drinking milk is healthy for humans, but rather discuss various arguments related to vegetarianism. Therefore, the generated similar documents do not directly address the question either. However, the generated documents aim to maintain the same level of complexity and semantic style as the original documents while providing a response to the question.

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

Your argument is, I believe, that eating meat is morally acceptable because you enjoy it. This is the most popular argument for eating meat, but I believe it is a flawed one. There are many things that some people, maybe even most people enjoy doing, that are morally wrong. Someone would not be justified in killing their neighbour because they enjoy killing people. Nor would someone be justified in eating a human infant because he thinks they taste good. Therefore, the argument that eating meat is morally acceptable because it tastes good is a bad argument. Meat is an excellent source of protein, as well as essential fats and other nutrients. However, eating meat is not the only way to acquire these nutrients. Therefore we have to morally justify that it is right to eat meat BEFORE we begin to talk about it's nutritional value. I ask you to prove that killing animals for food is morally justifiable. Cheers!

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.

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.

You are the most pathetic, disturbing and childish 45 year old man on this worthless site. You should be ashamed of yourself. Here, on Debate.org we pride ourselves on smart, well thought out debates, discussing the current issues of the world. And you are just that 1% that has ruin it for everyone. Unicorn poop is good for you? What world are you living in little man? Do you have the mind of a child or are you just mentally deficient? You make the people from bedlam look sane. I bet you're writing this from your dark sanitarium. Do everyone a well earned favour and ask for a couple extra bed sheets tonight and hang yourself mate. Kudos

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

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

I have had little time to do this round ,so I will possibly extend these points further in the later rounds. But here are my main arguments: 1. It costs far more resources to produce meat than other food, so it would therefore mean less strain on the worlds resources over all. 2. To keep up with the demand for meat, the industry must force grow its product. This always results in less than decent standards of welfare for the animals. 3. Animal husbandry accounts for more pollution than ALL transport. So that is every single car, train, bus, plane, ship that transports things every day all over the world. - http://www.un.org... 4. Livestock use 30% of the earths surface. - http://www.un.org... 5. Killing animals isn't nice. I know this sounds rather unsophisticated and infantile, but it is true. It's not fair to raise animals for slaughter, if we killed them like we used too then it would be oaky, but we kill them in far less honerable ways. The fact that we kill these animals shows that the bar of our honerablity is set low, however if children where brought up In a world where the killing of animals was considered a bad thing, then the bar is set higher. Possibly resulting in more compassion towards one another as well. A mentality of compassion to animals, spreads to our human friends, 6. Meat causes many types of cancer, dairy products also cause cancer. Fruit and veg actuslly decrease the growth of cancer. This would result in less strain on medical industry, not to mention the better health of the population. I apologise for this argument I am falling asleep and rushing to get in done in time.

Thermodynamics in regard to complex biological systems. "This argument does not apply to biology. One grows up and becomes more complex, but that does not make sense if the thermodynamics argument is true! -Pro"Under certain special conditions (not available to evolution, as far as all evidence goes), the organization of an open system may be increased for a time by the entrance of external ORDERING energy, or information. Examples would be the growth of a plant from a seed or the construction of a building from various structural components. Any such growth process, however, must have a directing program (such as the genetic code in the DNA of the seed or the blueprint for the building), as well as an energy conversion mechanism of some sort to convert the raw energy of the solar heat into the specific work of building up the structure (such as the amazingly complex mechanism of photosynthesis for the seed, or the machinery, fuels, muscles, and minds of the builders in the case of the building). The imaginary evolutionary growth of complex plants and animals from a primeval cell (and THAT from nonliving chemicals in a hypothetical primordial soup), however, has neither a directing program nor conversion mechanism to accomplish this. It must rely on time and chance, but time and chance break things down - they don't build them up. -Henry M Morris "Science and the Bible" Lactose "Tolerance" - I was absolutely WRONG when I said; "everyone was ORIGINALLY lactose tolerant." In fact, the OPPOSITE is true! "For many years, lactose intolerance was regarded as abnormal, and was used by many as evidence of human evolution. As a measure of evolutionary “advancement”, milk-drinking seemed to fit the stereotype perfectly." "However, “lactose deficiency” in adults is not in fact abnormal, but the norm! Research has shown that the gene for lactase normally switches off as children are weaned. And a genetic mutation that results in lactase production not being switched off accounts for the ability of certain people to drink milk into adulthood." “This is the best example of convergent evolution in humans that I’ve ever seen,” said geneticist Joel Hirschhorn, of the Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts. But note that these genetic changes are not “evolution” in the uphill molecules-to-milkman sense, as the changes are downhill, i.e., information has been LOST (viz., the normal switching-off mechanism of lactase production following weaning).12 Rather, at best this is an example of selection, as Hirschhorn himself went on to acknowledge: “Lactase persistence has always been a textbook example of selection, and now it’ll be a textbook example in a totally different way.”10 "So, those of you who are unable to drink milk as adults today without feeling nauseous (or worse) can take heart from being closer in that respect to the originally “physically-perfect” first man and woman than are those of us who are milk-drinking “mutants”!" http://creation.com... 12 Wieland, C., The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction), Creation 24(2):16–19, 2002, <creation.com/train>. 10 Check, E., How Africa learned to love the cow, Nature 444(7122):994–996, 21/28 December 2006. Transitional Fossils There are NO transitional fossils!!! All you have is bones in the dirt. You put your interpretation on them. You can not prove that those bones had children never mind children different than themselves!!! (which has NEVER been observed EVER). There are NO transitional fossils, even if there was 1 supposed transitional fossil somewhere then my opponent failed to show it. There simple are NONE. Marx, Lenin and Stalin and Hitler were ardent evolutionists. - This shows the harmful effects of evolutionary philosophy. Chernobyl Mushrooms The article states; "IT’S ALSO THE ABODE of some very hardy fungi which researchers believe aren’t just tolerating the severe radiation, but actually harnessing its energy to thrive." what's the key word in this sentence, anyone? - "BELIEVE"!!! it goes on to state; "even without melanin, many fungi are intrinsically radiation-resistant." hmmm This is simply an adaptation not "vertical" evolution. These mushrooms will never ever ever ever ever turn into mushroom MEN. Micro Vs Macro: "Microevolution is evolution below speciation level, and has been observed by Endler (1980). [5] Microevolution adds up to macroevolution.[6] Microevolution is true, then macroevolution also will be true." -Pro We obsever variation within kinds but according to fixed limits. Evolutionsist think they can get around this by assertting that the earth is "billions of years old" which it is NOT and my opponent has not even attmpted to prove it is. I will further address this in my pig argument in the conclusion. CONCLUSION: I have thoroughly and conclusively dealt with every one of my opponents arguments and shown them to be false. My opponent failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that can not be refuted. You would think that if evolution were true then there should be mountains of really good observations and data to support it, however this is just simply not the case. The theory of evolution is accepted on philosophical grounds NOT scientific. It requires belief and is therefore not science but religion. Even some secular scientists involved in this field are steadily moving away from the theory of evolution by natural selection because the evidence simply does not support it. darwin said that if his theory were true than many transitional fossils would be discovered in the future, they never were. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth… And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so…. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good… And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." - Genesis KJV Thus God created all the animals and plants to bring forth after their KIND. We witness variation within the kinds but according to fixed limits. As Dr Kent Hovind once said; "farmers have been breeding pigs for a loooong time but they will never breed a pig the size of Texas." Thank you for carefully considering this debate. Best Regards, Fritz Stammberger

"Honestly, you coul'd be vegan i dont care that your, freedom right. I dont know if your trying to force veganism on people because if so that violationg the first amendment." Con Not trying to force, convince of your own free will. If I was trying to force, the resolution would be veganism should be forced upon 99% of adult humans. Instead the resolution is at least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. I. Health II. Environment III. Animal happiness IV. World Hunger V. Links I. Health It is well known that fruits and vegetables are healthy. Vegan diets exclude many foods yet allow fruits in vegetables. Therefore, its only logical that most vegans will eat more fruits and vegetables thus being healthier. A multivitamin can take care of any nutrient deficiencies met on a vegan diet. II. Environment Claim: Meat is wasteful compared to grain. Warrant:"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [2]. Impact: A vegan diet takes less acreage compared to an omnivorous diet. Helping save the environment. III. Animal happiness Animals are sentient and capable of feeling emotions like happiness and unhappiness. Factory farming is infamous for being cruel. Since the profit motive is at work it will always be cheaper to raise an animal in inhumane conditions like battery cages. "In the wake of an ABC News investigation into alleged unsanitary and inhumane practices at one of the nation's largest egg farms, animal rights activists are calling for an end to the egg industry's widespread use of so-called "battery cages," in which birds live six to a cage in long stacks of wire cages. "[3]. Being confined to battery cages cause unhappiness to animals. IV. World Hunger In part II Environment acreage was mentioned. The grain lots feeding farm animals could be re-purposed to feed hungry humans. [2]. Claim: World hunger exists today Warrant: "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 805 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2012-2014." [3]. Impact: World hunger could be mitigated if more people decided to turn vegan. At least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. Vote Pro. V. Links 2. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 3. http://www.worldhunger.org...


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

The consumption of milk is not inherently harmful to human health.

In defense of milk consumption, it's important to note that milk, when consumed in moderation and as part of a balanced diet, can offer significant health benefits. Milk is a rich source of calcium, which is crucial for maintaining strong bones and teeth. It also provides protein, which is essential for growth and repair in the body. Additionally, milk contains vitamins such as vitamin D and B12, which are vital for overall health.

Critics often argue that milk can lead to health issues such as lactose intolerance, allergies, and increased risk of certain diseases. However, these concerns are often overstated or misinterpreted. Lactose intolerance, for example, can be managed by choosing lactose-free milk or by consuming milk in smaller quantities. Allergies to milk proteins are less common and can be avoided by opting for alternative sources of calcium and protein.

Regarding the increased risk of diseases, studies on the matter are mixed. Some suggest that excessive milk consumption could be linked to higher rates of prostate and ovarian cancer, but these findings are not conclusive. Moreover, the benefits of milk consumption in terms of bone health and muscle repair cannot be ignored.

It's also worth noting that the quality of milk matters. Organic and grass-fed milk, for instance, may contain higher levels of beneficial fats such as omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which have been linked to improved heart health and reduced inflammation.

In conclusion, the blanket statement that milk is unhealthy for humans is not supported by the evidence. Like any food, milk should be consumed in moderation and as part of a balanced diet. For most individuals, the benefits of milk consumption far outweigh the potential risks.

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...

Thanks very much to Pro for his/her consideration! ---Cost/BenefitIn Pro's summary, s/he clarifies that her/his position is to lower 99% of livestock farming, and challenges me to provide reasons for removing the extra 1%. I will gladly do so. However, I first want to point out that in conceding that 99% of livestock slaughter should be stopped, Pro is effectively conceding the entire debate. By removinh 99% of the livestock farming, any "benefits" of livestock farming would be reduced by 99%. The only two benefits that Pro has managed to argue for are health and increase of life. By conceding that 99% of farming should be removed, the health and life "benefits" are cut by 99%. In fact, by proposing that absence of 99% of livestock farming is good, Pro is essentially conceding to the calculous of absence of livestock farming being better than livestock farming. The fact is, the last 1% isn't special. Consider that Pro has conceded that the benefits of 99% is better than 100%, that 98% is better than 99%, and so on. Essentially, the harms of each percentage of livestock slaughter is worse than no livestock slaughtering. Thus, it is the same for each percentage, whether it be the difference between 86% and 85% or 1% and 0%. For example, each 1% of livestock farm contributes to .25% of greenhouse gases. Pro agrees that reducing livestock farming by 1% ninty-nine times. Why not 100 times? The fact is, removing livestock farming is the easiest way to fight global warming there is. Global warming will still be a problem when the livestock farming is removed, however. Why hang on to a slight bit of livestock slaughter when removing it altogether would be more beneficial? If removing livestock farming is the best solution to livestock farming, then it only makes sense to remove it all the way. GameGame animals are free until capture and following death, and not made into livestock, who are slaves. Game are wild animals; they do not live in captivity. Game animals could be used to feed endangered species. PollutionPro makes that plant farming is as bad as livestock farming in terms of pollution. To avoid new points, I'll concede this. ---Pro's alternativesPro does not say how much livestock slaughter will contain insects. However, it seems her/his plan will include some large animals because part of his solution to environmental problems is bush feeding, which would not benefit large animals. Furthermore, Pro does not say any unique benefits in either heath or environmental impact with insects over current livestock, so we have to assume that they are the same or worse in this regard. Furthermore, insects are hardly a profitable business. Pro gave no evidence for their being sellable. Insects are everywhere in America. Spending vast amounts of money to kill insects and not sell them is pointless slaughter and a waste of money. There are no advantages for this in terms of health, life, or money. HealthPro also claims to reduce meat consumption in people's diets by 99%. However, that is not necessarily the case. Reducing slaughtering would only raise the prices of meat. Thus, a different demographic would be able to obtain large amounts of meat in their diet--this meat would not be distributed evenly. Thus, all of the health problems that exist in the status quo would occur. I previously showed how meat consumption is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and making tens of millions sick. Reducing these numbers by 99% would still cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to be sick and thousands to die. Whereas continuing to kill animals kills thousands of Americans, not doing so will allow them to live. Pro gives NO health benefits for eating meat, since vegetarian diets provide more nutrients and less deaths and diseases. Thus, I have already won that it would be a better world. Obviously, the statistics from vegetarians show that our bodies are indeed very able to handle being vegetarian. The diseases would not be eliminated by making the conditions less cramped, even if reduced. Pro gives no mention of where the money for these changes would come from. ---Global Warming/BreedingCurrently livestock farms cause certain species to have greater numbers than are natural, so that more meat may be produced. Notice that this is not mercy--they simply want more slaves to render into meat through their deaths. The quantity and quality of live is unnatural in these environments. Currently, they are bred without their concent through a probe being stuck in the females reproductive organs [21]. It is these unnatural quantity of slaves that is causing global warming. Pro immidiately jumped to the conclusion that I want them all killed to stop global warming. Again, I am shocked at my opponent. I advocate simply allowing these animals to live out their natural lives and allow fewer to breed (through their own choice, not sexual violence). Their numbers would reduce to natural quantities, and they would eventually be able to return to the wild.25% of greenhouse gases would be reduced. This is an amazing offer! More greenhouse gases would be reduced by ending livestock slavery than by stopping all of transportation. Pro says to keep 1%, but gives no reason to stop there. There are many reasons not to, including reducing the greenhouse gases from that 1% and improving health. [21] . http://www-naweb.iaea.org...--- "Grey area"Pro essentially says what I was planning to argue. The fact is the life is not black and white, but grey. For example, it would be silly to suppose that only one type of animal deserves not to be senselessly killed, while all others are mere objects. The fact is other animals besides humans are capable of thinking and feeling and making rational decisions. Pro concedes this point. Pro rebuts that plants may also deserve moral consideration, and are essentially the same as animals. Because humans are a type of animal, Pro is saying that plants are the same as humans, which is a strange argument to make. Of course, if plants were found to be sentiant they certainly ought to be afforded moral consideration and not be slaughtered. However, Pro gave no evidence that the plants that humans eat are sentient. Even if that were the case, not slaughtering plants is not the debate we are having. Still, I think it is strange that Pro sees plants and animals as being the same, despite having different Kingdoms, while humans and nonhuman animals that share the same Kingdom, phylum, class, order, and family are seen as immesurably different. Pro claims that the livestock animals would do the same to humans, but none of the livestock are predators to humans--only herbavores, granavores, and insectavores. Fellow animals are being senselessly slaughtered. They are enslaved and killed young for no reason. There is no justice in that. There is also no logic--the meat that the humans consume is tainted with fats and diseases that are killing the humans. The livestock process is creating greenhouse gases that are killing us all. SummaryVoters are required to look at which possible world is preferable on weighing their impacts. Pro gave no benefits for keeping livestock slaughtering at 1%, while not slaughtering livestock animals saves human and nonhuman lives, and prevents global warming.

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.

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

What is your source that humans are made to digest grass. If we were we would ruminate but we don't. We are simply not herbivores. http://www.livescience.com... http://www.scienceforums.net... How can you be designed to ea some of. Othe. State that your were deigned as a herbivore. It's like saying cows or chickens are designed as carnivores. No, they are not meant to eat it and really can't.

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

Your argument is, I believe, that eating meat is morally acceptable because you enjoy it. This is the most popular argument for eating meat, but I believe it is a flawed one. There are many things that some people, maybe even most people enjoy doing, that are morally wrong. Someone would not be justified in killing their neighbour because they enjoy killing people. Nor would someone be justified in eating a human infant because he thinks they taste good. Therefore, the argument that eating meat is morally acceptable because it tastes good is a bad argument. Meat is an excellent source of protein, as well as essential fats and other nutrients. However, eating meat is not the only way to acquire these nutrients. Therefore we have to morally justify that it is right to eat meat BEFORE we begin to talk about it's nutritional value. I ask you to prove that killing animals for food is morally justifiable. Cheers!

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...

"Honestly, you coul'd be vegan i dont care that your, freedom right. I dont know if your trying to force veganism on people because if so that violationg the first amendment." Con Not trying to force, convince of your own free will. If I was trying to force, the resolution would be veganism should be forced upon 99% of adult humans. Instead the resolution is at least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. I. Health II. Environment III. Animal happiness IV. World Hunger V. Links I. Health It is well known that fruits and vegetables are healthy. Vegan diets exclude many foods yet allow fruits in vegetables. Therefore, its only logical that most vegans will eat more fruits and vegetables thus being healthier. A multivitamin can take care of any nutrient deficiencies met on a vegan diet. II. Environment Claim: Meat is wasteful compared to grain. Warrant:"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [2]. Impact: A vegan diet takes less acreage compared to an omnivorous diet. Helping save the environment. III. Animal happiness Animals are sentient and capable of feeling emotions like happiness and unhappiness. Factory farming is infamous for being cruel. Since the profit motive is at work it will always be cheaper to raise an animal in inhumane conditions like battery cages. "In the wake of an ABC News investigation into alleged unsanitary and inhumane practices at one of the nation's largest egg farms, animal rights activists are calling for an end to the egg industry's widespread use of so-called "battery cages," in which birds live six to a cage in long stacks of wire cages. "[3]. Being confined to battery cages cause unhappiness to animals. IV. World Hunger In part II Environment acreage was mentioned. The grain lots feeding farm animals could be re-purposed to feed hungry humans. [2]. Claim: World hunger exists today Warrant: "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 805 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2012-2014." [3]. Impact: World hunger could be mitigated if more people decided to turn vegan. At least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. Vote Pro. V. Links 2. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 3. http://www.worldhunger.org...

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


Question: Is Consuming Milk Beneficial for Human Health?

The decision by the LA school board to prohibit chocolate and strawberry flavored milk was a wise one. "Serving low-fat chocolate milk instead of low-fat white milk adds 53 empty calories with no nutritional value, as per the Centers for Disease Control." A study by the NYC Department of Education in 2005 revealed that substituting whole milk with low-fat to fat-free chocolate milk saved students an estimated 5,960 calories and 619 grams of fat annually. "Oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, is present in chocolate and can impede calcium absorption. However, the effect is negligible due to the small amounts of oxalate in chocolate." The impact of chocolate consumption on healthy individuals with calcium-rich diets is uncertain. "Critics of the flavored milk ban argue that some children won't drink plain milk. However, studies show that children can be encouraged to choose healthy foods, and repeated exposure to healthy foods can lead to a preference for them over sweetened foods." It's true that not everyone enjoys plain milk, and flavored milk may be the only way to get some students to drink it. Milk is a rich source of nutrients like calcium, protein, and vitamin D, which are often lacking in teenagers and adults. "It's better for them to have flavored milk with a little added sugar than to go without milk," says Ms. Pratt-Heavner, who recently released a study showing that elementary school children drank 35% less milk on average when flavored milk was removed. Conclusion: Although chocolate milk is not as low in calories as plain milk, its benefits still outweigh the drawbacks. Some students won't drink plain milk and prefer flavored milk. What about them? Sources: 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. http://www.ivillage.com... 3. http://www.mayoclinic.com... 4. http://www.facebook.com...

If a society is poor and cant survive without hunting or using animals, then I guess it is not practical to tell them to switch to starvation. But this is not what this debate is centered around. The debate is centered around, the billions of lands land animals that die needlessly every year. Animals cause disease in humans. Humans aren't carnivores like lions and wolves, which eat raw meat and suffer no consequences of the cholesterol that is in the meat. Humans need to process the meat very well for it to be edible. That includes removing the bad parts, removing germs and bacteria (especially from fish) and heating the meat. Milk is another product which is not healthy to humans, it is meant for calves and baby goats. All those products are linked to diabetes, cancer, heard disease and more diseases. Animal farming leads to ecological damage such as increased global warming, imbalance in the food chain or the ecosystem in general (it back fires at fishers in poor african countries) and deforestation. As you can see, it backfires at you in the end, even if you dont care about animal pain. Watch the documentary 'Earthlings' on youtube, before you post your next post.

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 accept, absolutely, Sir. A vegetarian diet is not to be preferred over an Omnivorous diet. Meat contains certain ingredients which simply cannot be found in a stick of celery. In addition, the two dominant protein substitutes- nuts and beans- taste like garbage. In addition, vegetarian human diets are not even natural. cavemen ate meat, and did not flinch at the concept of devouring animal flesh. Why torture yourself? One cannot subsist on legumes alone. Meat is best. http://www.meatpoultrynutrition.org...

Intro Con has dropped many of Pro's statements. Instead mentioning new possible nutritional deficiencies and calls propaganda "Despite all the propaganda, there isn't any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature." Con Con, also fails to refute Pro's evidence of vegan celebrities and millions of vegans living in the world. Clearly, nutritional decencies concerns over a vegan diet are unwarranted. Now to refute Con line by line. "Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients, including Vitamin B12 and Creatine." Con Pro has heard of B12 deficiency, yet Creatine is new. Claim 1: B12 is obtained from bacteria. Warrant 1: "Even though most lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are auxotrophic for several vitamins, it is now known that certain strains have the capability to synthesize water-soluble vitamins such as those included in the B-group (folates, riboflavin and vitamin B(12) amongst others). " [10]. Impact 1: Since bacteria is synthesized from bacteria and not animals, this weakens Cons claim. Claim 2: B12 can be gained from supplements. Warrant 2: "Vitamin B12 supplements" [11]. Impact 2: It is possible to be vegan and meet your b-12 requirement. Just because there are naive vegans who think b-12 isn't important, doesn't mean all vegans are b-12 deficient or ignorant. Onto Creatine. Claim 3: Creatine supplements exist. Warrant: "vegetarians creatine supplements" [12]. Impact: Vegans can use these supplements to avoid deficiency. Claim 4: The human body can synthesize Creatine Warrant: " It is not an essential amino acid, as we can synthesize is from other amino acids found also in plant foods" [12], Impact: This weakens Con claim about vegans and Creatine deficiency. "Studies show that vegans have much lower testosterone levels than their meat-eating counterparts." Con Considering that many vegans are female, this is good. For males, its possible to have excess testosterone, usually seen in athletes who take steroids. Claim 5: Excess testosterone is detrimental to health for men. Warrant: "Examples of drawbacks or disadvantages of men having higher than average testosterone levels include: Men tend to consume more alcoholic beverages. Men are more likely to smoke. Men are more likely to get injured. According to some researchers, the higher the testosterone level, the more likely men are to participate in risk-taking behavior (sexual, injury risk, and even criminal activity). " [13]. Impact: Lowering testosterone in men via vegan diet is good instead of bad. Claim: Excess testosterone is adverse to good health in women. Warrant: "Other possible effects include acne, an enlarged clitoris, increased muscle mass, and deepening of voice. High levels of testosterone can also lead to infertility" [14]. Impact: Lowering testosterone levels in women with a vegan diet is good for health. "Despite all the propaganda, there isn"t any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature." Con Con uses a provocative term propaganda. Anecdotal evidence is evidence nevertheless and can be found all over the net. [15]. As for scienfic evidence there is plenty. "Those who ate a vegetarian diet had a 22% lower risk of colorectal cancer than those who weren"t vegetarians." [16]. "Cytotoxic activity, which is expressed as lytic units, was significantly higher in vegetarians than in their omnivorous controls by a factor of 2. " [17]. Most of the studies are observational in nature? Con stated there was no evidence and then contradicts himself or herself with this statement. Con knows about the observational scienfic evidence yet states there is no evidence. Most diet studies tend to be observational in nature. Since studies on vegan diets are a subset of the set diet studies, it only makes sense that most vegan diet studies are observational in nature. For scienfic evidence, a person only has to look at the fiber, antioxidants, phytonutrients, vitamins, and minerals in plant foods to realize they are healthy. Also it is common knowledge that fruits and vegetables are healthy. Next, meat has no fiber, lacks antioxidants for the most the part, and no phytonutrients. Finally, meat contains too much fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein which Pro has explained in the previous round. "Vegan proponents often use fear mongering and scare tactics in order to convince people not to eat animal foods." Con Con continues to use proactive language, fear mongering and scare tactics. At the same time Con uses the same tactics to convince people that they will have a nutrient deficiency of protein, b-12, and Creatine. That's hypocritical of Con. Pro has proven that through diet and supplements a vegan can meet his or her nutritional needs. "The China Study as evidence, which has been thoroughly debunked." Con What's debunked really mean? Definition of debunked "To cause to be no longer believed or valued:" [18]. By this definition Con is correct. Yet, by this definition it doesn't mean the China study is false. Pro contends that the China Study has been a victim of a smear campaign and thus debunked, yet the China study is true. Most people think of Denise Minger's criticism. Minger's criticism has been thoroughly criticized. Just for starters she is suspiciously young to understand advanced epidemiological studies. Minger confirms this suspicion by making mistakes. Here is several criticisms of Minger's work. [19][20]. If Con has a specific debunk of the China study Con must link to the criticism rather than the bare assertion, the China Study has been debunked, implying the China Study is false, when in reality it is true. "Vegan diets also recommend that people shun added sugar, refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and trans fats. This is probably the reason for any health benefits, not the removal of unprocessed animal foods." Con Paleo also known as low carb diets make the same claims. Not all vegan diets recommend shun the listed foods. All that is left is Con's link. Note Con used no quotes. Pro will now refute the article in Con's link. "Perhaps the most striking commonality is an unerring reverence for animal foods. No traditional culture subsisted on a vegan diet, a fact that Dr. Price found particularly interesting." [21]. The status quo is not self justifying. These cultures most likely evolved around eating some meat, because eating meat is better than starvation. "T. Campbell, the author, notoriously cherry-picked data to arrive at a specific conclusion." [21]. Bare assertion. The author of link [21] never specifies why this data is cherry picked. "Denise Minger, author of Death by Food Pyramid, published a scathing critique of Cambell"s work in her article, The China Study: Fact or Fiction." [21]. Minger's so called debunk has been criticized heavily. See links [20] and [21]. "2. Vegan diets do not provide fat-soluble vitamins A and D" [21]. Vitamin D can be gained from sunlight. [22]. As for vitamin A this is just bizarre. There doesn't seem to be any case of vitamin A deficiency in vegans. "3. Vegan diets often rely heavily on soy" [21]. There are many alternatives to soy. Just because they are vegans who perform reckless actions, doesn't mean all vegans are this way. "5. Ethical omnivorism supports a healthy planet" [21] See slaughtering the amazon to see just how ethical these omnivore diets are. Free-range cattle take lots of acreage. [23]. "Many people choose veganism because they think it cruel to take a life, but something dies no matter what you eat. For example, field mice were demolished in order to grow the corn for a box of vegan cereal." [21]. This is true, but less animals die on a vegan diet. [24]. From the chart a person can see that eating chicken causes the most amount of animal deaths, 251.1 per million calories and grains cause the least 1.65 per million calories. Pro is out of characters to fully refute Con's sole link. Thanks for the debate. Summary Links. 10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 11. http://www.mayoclinic.org... 12. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 13. http://www.medicinenet.com... 14. http://www.webmd.com... 15. http://www.30bananasaday.com... 16. http://www.health.harvard.edu... 17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 18. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 19. http://www.vegsource.com... 20. http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com... 21. http://empoweredsustenance.com... 22. http://health.usnews.com... 23. http://www.greenpeace.org... 24. http://www.animalvisuals.org...

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

Why I win this debate: Contention 1: Not Commercially Beneficial My opponent has proved cloned meat is no different from regular meat. I have proved cloned meat costs about 10 times more than regular meat. This may also violate animal welfare (see contention 3). Impact: There is no reason for people to buy cloned meat anymore, as people will choose the cheapest choice over the expensive one. Contention 2: Not good for maintaining biodiversity I have proved that the history of restoring species back into the wild has been fraught with difficulty. My opponent insists that the researchers did not use reliable technology at that time, making it more difficult to restore the animals. But what I meant was animals went extinct in the wild because they lose their environment. Impact: Now if certain measures to the environment were done, any method to maintain biodiversity would have worked. But without doing anything to the environment, any single method, such as cloning, would never work. So cloning will not able to maintain biodiversity. My opponent also states if some animals die there will be more of them. Biodiversity means to have many species in the wild. I’m afraid my opponent has misunderstood its meaning and thought just having the animals alive would make it “maintaining biodiversity”. Contention 3: Violating Animal Welfare Cloning animals 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. My opponent states that clones can be able to be used as “machines” and produce in massive quantity agricultural and medical products. I stated how that will probably make them not treated like living things anymore, and might even turn into the next factory farming. Opponent supports the idea of factory farming, because that may support the growing human population. I will remind the opponent that the topic of this debate is “Cloning Animals is Beneficial” which does not point to a single group that receives benefit. So even if humans receive benefit, but it endangers animals, you cannot count it as beneficial. Impact: Since violating animal welfare will not be beneficial to animals, Cloning is not exactly beneficial. Contention 4: Commercial Endeavors Cloning dead pets can be expensive. But adopting animals from shelters is a better choice. Impact: Cloning dead pets not beneficial because homeless pets in shelters can use a home, but fewer pets will be adopted. Contention 5: Treatment for human diseases/ Biomedical Research Opponent states we will never know if cloning can cure human diseases unless we try. But he does not show exactly the theory or the how cloning can be cures. So it’s like grasping in the dark. Impact: It’s better to at least have a theory before we act. Opponent does not have a theory, thus unable to show cloning has certain health benefits. Cloning is not Beneficial (At least from what Pro says, it’s hard to conclude it’s safe. )

Thank you very much. I can tell you that my body is filled with coffee right now because I have not drunk it for a while. I feel very good and am able to debate with full energy. I must ask, if my opponent smoked a joint, would she be able to sit on her chair and write a response to my argument right now? I think not. Therefore, coffee is more beneficial for debates, and debates can be healthy for the mind. In this round, I will present my arguments in favor of coffee. I will write about the many health benefits of coffee, which, overall, outweigh those of marijuana. -- Content -- • 1. Clarification of studies on coffee • 2. List and descriptions of health benefits of coffee o Anti-bacterial effects o Improving mind/athletic performance o Reduces risk of dementia and Alzheimer's o Works as antioxidant - and is #1 o Reduces depression o Reduces risk of Parkinson's o Reduces risk of diabetes -- Arguments -- • 1. Clarification of studies on coffee Most people nowadays have a very wrong view of coffee. Old opinions based on weak studies (mostly pre-1990's) said that coffee is harmful, especially because it allegedly increases the risk of a heart attack. Even studies from Harvard University used to say that coffee is harmful. However, the researchers from Harvard countered their own studies of coffee and later claimed that coffee is, in fact, beneficial to the health, rather than harmful. Luckily, every single of the old and weak studies on coffee ha been debunked, either by the researchers themselves (as with the case of Harvard researchers), or other well-recognized researchers/scientists. Thousands of studies on coffee nowadays conclude that the health benefits of coffee are far greater than the health risks, which are few when consuming coffee in moderation or when someone intolerant of caffeine consumes it. I will hopefully make it evident that coffee is very healthy and far more healthy than marijuana. • 2. List and descriptions of health benefits of coffee o Anti-bacterial effects It can be hard to believe that coffee serves an anti-bacterial effect, but the fact that it does is undeniable. Studies from e.g. Italy and also Brazil[1] have proved that coffee can fight bacteria in a very successful way. As can be read on the first reference (site), caffeine itself is one of the compounds in coffee that help in fighting bacteria (which is a good fact against my opponent's attack on caffeine). It also mentions that coffee fights salmonella, and also "Legionella pneumophila"[2]. This is very good reason to drink coffee. o Improving mind/athletic performance It is well-known that coffee contains the substance called caffeine, which works as a psychoactive drug, although not the same way as alcohol or marijuana. It boosts the activity of the brain rather than making it sort of blurred or dizzy. With help of caffeine and antioxidants, coffee "activates" the brain functions and boosts one's mental energy. If someone does not get enough sleep but needs to work and enjoy athletic activities, a few cups of coffee once in a while will help a lot. I agree that coffee will not boost the mind for 24 hours, but drinking e.g. cup of coffee every two hours until one is done with daily activities will surely help a lot. o Reduces risk of dementia and Alzheimer's Many studies have shown that consumption of coffee reduces the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's.[3][4][5] Dementia causes problems to the mind, including the memory. One's life may be drastically changed if one suffers from dementia. Alzheimer's has a similar effect. Both diseases are grave and should definitely be treated a lot. However, the good news is that an occasional drink, namely coffee, can help reducing or curing both. We cannot conclude 100% yet, but that is normal with studies. We can safely say that it only gets better the more we find out about coffee. Therefore, this is another good reason for consuming coffee, and another huge health benefit. o Works as antioxidant - and is #1 Coffee also works as an antioxidant, and some researchers call it the number #1 daily antioxidant we have in our daily lives.[6][7] Antioxidants are very beneficial to the health. They can, for instance, help preventing certain forms of cancer, and that is nothing but good. It means that coffee can indeed serve the good effect of cancer-prevention. See source eight please. o Reduces depression Depression can be a very bad thing for our lives. We may feel regret, hopelessness, and other such things. However, studies have shown that coffee can actually reduce the level of depression, or maybe even remove it.[9] It is a simple drink, a tasty one too, and drinking it to reduce depression is easy and a wise choice, too. o Reduces risk of Parkinson's Parkinson's disease is also very bad. The famous boxer Muhammad Ali suffers from it, unfortunately, and we can clearly see how such a disease affects a person, even one as strong as the person I mentioned. However, coffee can help reducing the risk of this disease. Studies have shown a link between the reduction of risk of Parkinson's diseae and consumption of coffee.[10] Due to shortage of time, I ask the readers to read more about this disease and realize at coffee is indeed good to drink to avoid suffering from such a disease.[11] o Reduces risk of diabetes I will, for this round, talk about this to end the round with. Coffee has been proven to reduce risk of diabetes, which is also very positive. See source #12 please. I thank my dear opponent. -- References -- [1]http://www.ncausa.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://longevity.about.com... [4]http://www.straightfromthedoc.com... [5]http://www.neatorama.com... [6]http://www.physorg.com... [7]http://www.suite101.com... [8]http://cancer.about.com... [9]http://www.ultimate-coffees-info.com... [10]http://www.suite101.com... [11]http://en.wikipedia.org... [12]http://www.reuters.com...

My opening argument is Religon overall is not beneficial to humanity or society. First let’s point out what is logically not beneficial to society and humanity. To start off and name a few Religous motivated violence,the Quashing of science and impediment of education and the teaching of creationism in public schools , political oppressiont he discrimination of same sex couples . Such things are not beneficial being of society and humanity and any of us are nearly entirely becuse of religious ideas and teachings. P1 Religious inspired violence. Devout religious followers have done horrendous acts of violence entirely for their faith and religious reasons. Religion has procured and cultivated Religious extremists such as the Taliban in the Islamic world or even the Christians here in the USA who don't care about separation of church and state ,democracy or respecting other people's right to live differently from them. This is irrelevant to them. because in their mind the only thing that matters to them is making God's will happen. In their mind, God created everything that exists. .. and therefore, God's will trumps everything so with religion producing and cultivating such deas starting in young intellectually defenseless children who are told before they have critical thinking & can think for themselves they are forced to believe that the world around them is, quite literally, irrelevant since their religion has imprinted upon them that the next world is what truly matters. Suicide bombing, "honor" killing such as the attack on the world trade center was a direct cause of Religion Islamic extremism. USA one is also one of the most religious first world countries in the world with a huge rate of gun crime, murder, imprisonment compared to less religious western nations. P2 Oppression. The unverifiability of religion leads to many forms of oppression. It makes religious leaders and organizations extremely powerful because according to them they have God on their side. Their followers as young children are told to implicitly believe whatever their religious teachings and leaders tell them. They are taught that their religious leaders have superior virtue, with a connection to God they've that they should trust their religious leaders and if questioned since childhood they are filled with vivid, traumatizing stories of eternal burning and torture. And for these reasons such things happen. Saudi Arabian women are required to wear the abaya, a black loose outfit that is reserved for Arab women so as to prevent men from viewing them as sex symbols. In Iraq all women are forced to conform to the Islamic religon and thus half of the population lives in cloth bags. If the resist they are beaten ,murderd and raped. In India Hindu law gives women limited rights to inheritance the oppression of females in India, is due to Hinduism as well as Islam, which are religions that confine, restrict and oppress women. A pew survey of 198 countries found that the share of countries with high or very high restrictions on religion rose from 37 percent in mid-2010 to 40 percent by the end of 2011. Equal rights. In the United States, when same-sex marriage has been up for popular vote, it has been shot down by followers of religious groups . It has been consistently defeated largely because the force of several organized religions, especially the Catholic and Mormon churches, have marshaled against it. How could this be helping our society by aiding discrimination and suffering of others? Think about the trouble and pain that same sex couples have had to endure just because a holy book . Is this benefical to their well being and to live a better life? I dare say no. Quashing science and education. religion our undercuts science and education Forcing abstinence-only sex education on kids? Teaching creationism in public schools? School boards all across this country are still spending time and money debating whether or not to have the theory of evolution taught in the schools. while they could be using these resources to actually teach they're spending debating this incredible thus denying our children the future leaders of society the ability to learn and think rationally this is in no way helping them become productive and intelligent citizens of society . The impediment of scientific advancement from Galileo ( took the church until 1992 to apologize) to current Stem cell research bans coming from a direct cause of religious ethics,morals and organizations that are a massive roadblock to the advancement of science. So when religion teaches that believing in the invisible is more important than understanding the perceivable. .. that personal faith is more important than critical thinking. .. that that what God supposedly says about the world is more real what's in the world itself . .. such things are the root of much evil.

You said "People need to do research and learn what's good for your body and learn to reduce/eliminate consumption of these bad foods.", therefore they need access to information. Diabetes is not the MO, sugar is, diabetes is just an example, so meat and dairy are irrelevant to this topic. Plus you've not discussed the addiction and health decay aspects of sugar. I might have to restart this debate w/ someone else soon, sorry but I feel you haven't thought about yr arguments thoroughly.

Green tea is also good and healthy choice, but it has negative impacts, while water doesn't have any negative impacts. So green tea is not the best choice (Remember my topic is supposed to be "The Best Choice") . Beside that, you also generalized that "tea" is better than water from your previous statement, so I'm not in line with you. Not all of tea are good. Maybe you should change that "green tea" is better than water, then we'll make our new debates. According to the website that you've shared above, I doubt about the truth. Do doctors, nutritionists and health scientists actually perform any experiments or do they just give opinions about this? (Because me and my family often drinks water more than 8 glasses everyday in our whole lives until present and we are very fit). I await for your response, thank you. -benshine7-