Question: Should Individuals Opt for a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Vegetarianism: A Detrimental Lifestyle Choice.

As we proceed with our debate, let's outline the counterarguments to vegetarianism, adhering to the agreed-upon rules for respectful discourse. It's crucial to understand that vegetarianism isn't a universally positive lifestyle, as it can have detrimental effects on both individuals and society. Here are the key points:

1. **Promotes Unbalanced Diet**: Adopting vegetarianism often leads to an avoidance of other essential food groups, such as dairy and meats, which can result in a restrictive eating pattern. This can foster unhealthy eating habits, making individuals overly selective about their food, potentially leading to social isolation and self-esteem issues due to being perceived as "picky eaters."

2. **Risk of Malnutrition**: Excessive selectivity can cause malnutrition, a deficiency in essential nutrients. This is particularly problematic in developing countries where meat scarcity forces vegetarianism, leading to widespread health issues. Even in developed nations, strict vegetarian diets can lead to malnutrition and related health problems like anorexia, obesity, and diabetes, especially impacting vulnerable groups like children and seniors who need diverse nutrients for growth.

3. **Inconsistent Ethical Stance**: Many vegetarians claim to avoid meat for ethical reasons, yet they still consume foods like seafood, fish, eggs, and insects, which are categorized as meat by scientific standards. This inconsistency undermines their ethical stance, making them effectively omnivores rather than herbivores, and thus they still contribute to the meat industry.

4. **Economic Impact**: A widespread shift to vegetarianism could severely harm the meat industry, leading to job losses and economic instability. If the meat industry collapses, it would have a ripple effect on the economy, impacting supermarkets, grocery stores, and the overall job market. This could lead to a weakened economy, affecting various sectors like healthcare and potentially causing widespread financial hardship.

In summary, the lifestyle choice of vegetarianism can have far-reaching negative consequences, affecting health, ethics, and economics. It's important to consider these impacts before advocating for or adopting such a diet. Let's continue our respectful exchange of ideas in the next round.

Imply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you"ll find pastas, Beans, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren"t meat- From the source below it states plants emit noises via gas when it is in distresses signals that plants feels as pain. You might say plant cannot register pain without a brain but plants partake in intelligence behaviour that is not committed using a brain so it isn"t a stretch to say this is also possible. - A nervous system is required to experience physical pain. The fact that plants emit gas when harm is imminent in no way proves that plants feel pain. We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nurtients with which meant products are fortified-Artificial meat right? This is very expensive with the current technology and for it to be cheap it would require a lot of capital to be placed into Research and Development. Second source below. - I"m not talking about artificial meat, I"m talking about millions of varieties of foods. There"s no nutrients found in meat that can"t be found in thousands of other foods. If veganism was globalized- Don"t think this is possible without radical change. One example is the Middle East. It is dominated by Islam. They have rituals that require meat to be used in the process. To me the only way this changes is with a revolution or most likely outside intervention. That is why for the foreseeable future global veganism I think wishful thinking. - The subject of this debate is whether it"s moral for us to be harming animals, Not whether or not it"s likely that all people, On a global scale, Will actually stop. Just because Islam does something and isn"t likely to change its ways definitely isn"t an argument that it"s moral. The interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal- Can you clarify? Does this go in line with unnecessary harm? I think this would be misleading without adding unnecessary into it. - I"m gonna need you to rephrase this question because I don"t know what you"re asking. Where in my original sentence would "unnecessay" be added? That animals are the same as human; its points was that they have the same capacity to suffer. "Not all animals are aware of said suffering which does not mean they have the same capacity to suffer. Third source and go to the Animal which it lists Apes, Monkey and Dolphins having the same level of awareness. - Okay< I didn"t word that sentence right. I should have said "They are the same IN THAT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUFFER. " Obviously, Not all animals have the same level of awareness as humans; however, They still feel pain as a physical experience. To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so. - Society should first accept it is as immoral before it should be punishable by law. By giving the government the power to do this why wouldn't they ban other things using the authoritarianism that they have gained through banning this? Animal cruelly is covered by law. I think that is what you speaking about. The person is morally wrong. - If the person is morally wrong to do cruelty to a dog for the person"s own gain, Why is it not morally wrong to be cruel to a pig for our own gain? Can we switch the debate away from the meat industry? I cannot defend it. I concede that point. If you still want to talk about don't expect sufficient responses because I cannot defend it given by how you phrased this debate. No offence but you did put me in a corner either I lie and this debate is not about truth or hopefully you drop it. - If you want me to ignore the topic of the meat industry, What exactly are we debating about? After all, Why else are animals being unnecessarily harmed if not for industry? We"ve already established that we"re not talking about people in countries where they need to kill animals simply to feed themselves and survive. I would also like to note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm sorry for how rushed my response is, I let the time slip by without realizing. If you have anything specific you would like me to expand on in my next response I will be happy to.

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

I think that humans shued not eat meat do to the fact that they are not meant for it just look at some other sites and come back and tell me your opinyoun.

Humans have no evolutionary adaptations suggesting the consumption of meat. Human's share 99% of our DNA with apes. Apes diets consist of mainly fruit and vegetation. If you can provide me with evidence of adaptation's in support of eating meat, that I cannot debunk, than I will happily place the victory of this debate in your hands. Human feature in support of eating a plant biased diet: 1. A carnivore or omnivore's saliva does not contain digestive enzymes. humans however contain carbohydrate digestive enzymes. 2. Humans unlike carnivores have week stomach acid, for herbivores and humans the pH of there stomach acid is between 4 and 5. carnivores stomach acid is much closer to a pH of 1. 3. Carnivores and omnivores have a large intestine that is short and simple relative to there body size. I look forward to receiving your argument confident I can rebuttal it.

"So in the same way, if you were forced to choose between one human life and several animal lives, for example, three fish, you should give preference to the higher number if you truly believed in the equality of humans and animals. No ethical person would kill a human being for the sake of three fish, and everyone would agree that it is the better decision." Of course, because of the inherent nature of every species to protect their own species, the answer to that question is obvious: kill the fishes. But does that signify that the value of the animal's life is any less? No. It means that humans purely have the instinctual predilection to protect members of their own kind, as do fish have the predilection to protect members of their own kind I would also like to introduce scientific points to supplement my ethical points about why we should not experiment on animals. Animals not only react differently than humans to different drugs, vaccines, and experiments, they also react differently from one another. Ignoring this difference has been and continues to be very costly to human health. Examples: The most famous example of the dangers of animal testing is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide, which came out on the German market late in the 1950s, had previously been safety tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a wonderful sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and it supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", at least 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities. Clioquinol is another example of a drug that was safety tested in animals and had a severely negative impact on humans. This drug, manufactured in Japan in the 1970s, was marketed as providing safe relief from diarrhea. Not only did Clioquinol not work in humans, it actually caused diarrhea. As a result of Clioquinol being administered to the public, some 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis and thousands of deaths occurred. You claim that if animal research is discontinued, it will be at the expense of human health and life. Industry groups, such as Americans for Medical Progress credit animal research with advances such as the development of the polio vaccine, anesthesia, and the discovery of insulin. But a close examination of medical history clearly disputes these claims. Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin, are credited with the development of a vaccine to combat poliomyelitis (polio). Yet in the medical industry itself there remains a dispute as to the means by which the development of the polio vaccine occurred and whether or not the vaccine even played a major role in stopping the virus. Dr. John Enders, Dr.Thomas H. Weller, and Dr. Frederick C. Robbins won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for proving for the first time that it was possible to grow poliovirus in laboratory cultures of non-nervous-system human tissue. This team stopped just short of creating the polio vaccine that would be released to the public. Around the time Enders, Weller, and Robbins won the Nobel Prize, Sabin and Salk began using monkey kidney cells to produce their polio vaccines despite the existence of better alternatives. It was unknown at the time that viruses commonly found in monkey kidney cells are now known to cause cancer in humans. The claim that the polio vaccine was developed through the use of animal experimentation is misleading. Furthermore, as far as the benefits are concerned, there is ample evidence demonstrating the harmful effects the polio vaccine has had on human health. Deborah Blum, in her 1984 book, The Monkey Wars, wrote, "In the late 1980s, scientists tracking the life histories of 59,000 pregnant women all vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine found that their offspring had a thirteen times higher rate of brain tumors than those who did not receive the vaccine." (pg. 229) Many historians believe that the decline in cases in polio, like many epidemics of the past, must be attributed to factors such as improved hygiene and not solely vaccination. Animal research is not aiding the fight against cancer. In fact, it is diverting resources from effective research and from the most obvious solution which is prevention. According to the National Cancer Institute, 80% of all cancers are preventable. Clinical observation and epidemiological studies have shown us that high fat diets, smoking, environmental pollutants, and other lifestyle factors are the main causes of cancer. Moneim A. Fadali, M.D., in his book, Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame, reports: "Despite screening over half a million compounds as anti-cancer agents on laboratory animals between 1970-1985, only 80 compounds moved into clinical trials on humans. Of these, a mere 24 had any anti-cancer activity and only 12 appeared to have a 'substantial clinical role.' Actually, these so-called 'new' active agents were not so new: they are analogs of chemotherapeutic agents already known to work in humans." (pg.25) The progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: "What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years". Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals. 1. PCP is a sedative for chimps 2. Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives. 3. Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep. 4. Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses. 5. Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate. The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health. There is no basic connection between animal testing and the human health. The general belief in the goodness of animal testing is basically the result of brainwashing that the general public has been subjected to for a long, long time. Behind these torturous practices are the pharmaceutical companies that spend billions of dollars on financing and publicizing the research universities and institutes. Clearly, if you we are looking to make any progress in medicine, an entirely new approach is required. Human medicine should no longer be dependent on veterinary medicine. It is dangerous and fraudulent to apply data retrieved from one species to another entirely different species.

Thank you for bringing up the “humane” options for meat. I think these are definitely better for the animals involved. As long as the animals are treated as well as they say and they are killed swiftly, I think it is just as ethical as a vegetarian diet. I really hope more people do get into that. :D Before I close, I must address the seeming inconsistency in my position. The resolution of the debate is “A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet.” I define “meat-eating” in the rules of the first-round. Let me quote myself from the first round of the debate: “By a "meat-eating" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person).“ To determine whether it is ethical to eat meat, we must look at what people TYPICALLY do, not what people CAN do. People can choose organic or “ethical” meat, but the truth is that 99% of the meat we eat in America (and most developed countries) is factory-farmed. As I stated in the first round, my argument is for the “average U.S. consumer” not the oddball 1% that choose ethically raised meat. Ethically raising animals takes more land. It would be impossible to set aside enough land to pasture-raise animals in order to feed us. To provide everyone animal products at the rate we consume, we have to confine livestock animals into small cages and make there lives unusually short. Some fifty-five billion land animals are raised and slaughtered each year world wide for agriculture. That's about 8 times the global human population, each year. Animal production occupies 80 percent of the Earth’s total usable arable land. Would it be possible to farm all of these animals with enough space to allow free movement? Would it be possible to let them live longer and still produce the same amount of meat overall? No. It wouldn't be possible. That is why only 1% of the meat we eat is not factory-farmed. So, organic or “humane” meat is better for the animals involved, which is definitely good, but it is not necessarily better for the people. Pasture-raising animals provides just as much strain on the environment as factory-farming the animals. Also, pasture-raising animals takes more land and time to produce the same amount of animals, meaning less food. I'm not arguing for factory-farms, there are definite benefits to moving away from that type of farming. However, not everyone could eat pasture-raised meat for lack of land. Luckily, there is another option. A vegetarian diet takes far less land and produces more food than an organic or non-organic meat based diet. However, you don't have to completely avoid meat to reduce ecological strain, increase the world food supply, and decrease animal suffering. More people eating less meat can have the similar effect; this too is more ethical than eating excessive meat. Conclusion As more countries become developed, the issue continues to grow. The Telegraph reports, “China now eats twice as much meat as the United States and must rein in its appetite or face a food crisis, one of the country's leading farm experts has warned.“ The average Chinese person eats around 52 kg of meat yearly while the average American eats 124 kg. Some experts predict that within 40 years time, we may all have to switch to a vegetarian diet to avoid catastrophic water shortages. Read more here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... In addition, it has been determined that a diet of meat is not necessary for survival or health, at least for those in developed nations. The American Dietetic Association states: "Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer." Source: American Dietetic Association. (2003). Position paper on vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc, 103, 748-765. For those in developed nations such as America, eating meat is a leisure. It is not necessary for survival or health, and there is much research that indicates too much meat can harm a person. It takes on average 41 grams of plant protein to produce 7 grams of animals protein (not to mention the extra water and energy used). The 7 billion livestock animals in the US eat 5 times the grain the entire human population eats. Eating meat is less ethical than a vegetarian diet because: Meat production strains the environment far more than plant production, partly because animals eat the majority of crops we grow. Also, animal production produces more greenhouse gases than all transportation of any kind combined. Meat production wastes food that could be fed to humans. It is like taking the food, and throwing 83% of it into the trash. 18,000 children die every day of starvation. We need more food. Modern cost-driven meat production causes mass suffering of animals. 55,000,000,000 farm animals are killed yearly. 99% of those in America (around 7 billion animals) are bred, raised, and killed on a factory farm. If eating meat was necessary for health or survival, these three results listed above MIGHT be justifiable. It is pretty shaky though. But it has been proven that meat is not necessary for health or survival, at least for those in developed countries. I'm not trying to say eating meat is completely unethical. It certainly has a place our culture and our history. It used to be necessary for survival. But today it isn't. This makes eating meat in a developed country LESS ethical than not eating meat. A vegetarian diet has potential to improve conditions for animals, but more importantly it can improve the lives of the people of the world. I want to thank you for participating, Locke33. You've brought to my attention some new issues and interesting ideas. You've been patient and a great opponent. Thanks again! Sources http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.fao.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... http://www.census.gov... http://vegetarian.procon.org... http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Thanks for the invitation! I'm sure this will be a great debate.http://www.youtube.com...---RebuttalsPro makes two main contentions about livestock slaughter: That vegetarian diets are less healthy for humans than meat-inclusive diets (Points 2, 5, 6, and 7) and that livestock slaughter is better for the environment than no livestock slaughter (3 and 4). I will address each.DemocracyPro's Point 1, however, is somewhat different compared to the other arguments. Pro points out that most humans in the US eat meat. I concede this point, but fail to see its relevance in this debate. This debate is not concerned with a particular government policy, but only about whether or not livestock slaughtering ought to continue. Thus, the fact that slaughtering for meat is commonplace is irrelevant toward the question of whether or not slaughtering for meat ought to exist.Furthermore, Pro's suggested "democratic society" only extends towards humans. In 2013 there were 8.6 billion chickens, 239 million turkeys, 113 million pigs, and 33 million cows actively resisting their demise [1, 2]. A democracy is a "rule of the majority" [3]. If all relevant voices were heard (and believe me: they are loud and clear [4]), a consensus would clearly swing in the favor of resisting livestock slaughter. After all, more "livestock" are slaughtered in the US in one year than the number of humans in the world, plus several US human populations.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com... (audio/video)HealthPoint 2: EvolutionPro suggests that because evolution has given humans the tools to eat meat that that means they must or should eat meat. There are a few problems with this line of thinking. First of all, evolution is merely a description of what kinds of things continue to exist; it does not tell humans what or what not to do. Everything in the status quo is a result of evolution by definition--from murder to rape to computers to diabetes. The claim that something is "natural" due to evolution misses the dynamic nature of evolution; the world is constantly changing, and not slaughtering livestock will make it better. Thus, even if our teeth are able to eat meat, that doesn't mean that they should; just as the ability or desire to murder does not justify murder.In fact, humans' earlier ancestors were insectivores and vegetarians. In terms of evolution, meat-eating is a relatively new diet, developed as humans started building tools, which allowed them to compensate for their non-weaponized teeth. However, humans never lost their ability to have a vegetarian diet and need for non-animal foods [5]. Currently, however, humans' biological cravings work against humans. The sweet and fatty foods that were rare for their ancestors are common for most contemporary human societies due to the massive influx in technology in a short time--so common that humans' cravings are doing massive harm to themselves [6]. They crave ice cream and steak when these empty calories are harmful. Furthermore, early ancestors were constantly running or walking to find these high-energy foods--in a society that does other things besides scavenging and escaping predators, humans are have far too much surplus fat and sugar [6], which leads to obesity, lack of nutrients, diseases, heart failure, and diabetes. Thus, an evolutionary perspective reveals that humans' "natural" cravings are actually harmful, and that their diets are in need of change, such as by removing high-calorie high-fat foods like meat from their diet. Moreover, the actual ancestry Homo sapiens reveals that a meat-inclusive diet to be a relatively recent development, and that vegetarianism is also in our ancestry. Also, the teeth we have allow us to eat animals, but don't help kill them [5].[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...Point 5: Lack of nutrientsPro states that a vegetarian diet cannot allow appropriate nutrients without supplements. However, two of Pro's own sources (www.nhs..., www.eatlife... ) contradicts him: "With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy balanced vegetarian and vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs to be healthy without the need for supplements." (nhs)"Eating vegan or vegetarian is not a problem. Eating processed vegan or vegetarian is." (eatlife)Apparently vegetarian diets aren't a problem if done carefully, according to Pro's sources. According to the Nutrition Society in Oxford, vegetarian and vegan diets are not worse than non-vegetarian diets. Obviously, vegetarian diets ARE able to provide the correct nutrients.According to the American cancer society: "Vegetarian diets also provide more fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and other phytochemicals (plant chemicals) than diets that contain meat." [7]Furthermore, much of the US already has vitamin deficiencies [8].[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...Point 6: Alternatives Pro's own source admits that eating processed foods is not inherent to or necessary for vegetarian diets. Furthermore, even these alternatives are far less harmful than the actual products. Veggie burgers are much healthier than meat burgers.In contrast, livestock farms are the #1 source of food-related illnesses, and responsible for hundreds of human deaths and millions of sicknesses [9, 10]. Ending slaughtering practices will end these diseases.However, there is a more tragic disease that meat eating is responsible for, that can no longer be stopped so easily: HIV/AIDS [11].[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...Point 7: Fat is healthyNo, as it turns out saturated fats are very bad for you, contrary to the book's "riveting storytelling." They greatly increase the risk of heart disease, failure, and stroke [12]. The majority of these fats come from animal sources [12]. Starches are also good to avoid, but this is irrelevant to the debate.According to the American cancer society: "Some studies have linked vegetarian diets to lower risk for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and certain types of cancer, such as colon cancer" [7]. Thus, meat causes massive health problems--problems that vegetarian diets solve.[12] http://tinyurl.com...EnvironmentPoint 3: Farming could be sustainable (one day)Pro admits that livestock farms are currently unsustainable, and fails to show that they could be sustainable in the future. Improving doesn't mean fixing, and Pro doesn't even say how improvement will occur.Livestock farms have contributed to water and air pollution that killed hundreds of thousands of fish, miles of wildlife, and many humans, with hundreds of thousands sick [13]. Global Warming. The United Nations found that livestock farms contribute to 25% of ALL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS [14]. These emissions are more than all transportation combined [15]. Because of global warming, freshwater will become scarce, diseases will spread, and species will be wiped out [16]. Thus, maintaining these practices will aggravate global warming.Livestock biodiversity loss is a huge danger [17, 18].[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://preview.tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] tinyurl.com/kh393zsPoint 4: Need to feed carnivoresObscure real-world examples are excluded from the debate (R1). Feeding dying endangered animals is one such extreme; thus, this concern is beyond the scope of the debate.Even if it were part of the debate, slaughtering "livestock" wouldn't be necessary. Zoos find that allowing the carnivore to hunt is healthy, so the human needn't slaughter. Furthermore, the slaughtered animal needn't be "livestock."---I will further address the nonhuman animal next round.

Animals should not be eaten nor used for experiments. Animals should have rights just like humans.

Thanks con! And... my final arguments! III. Quality of Meat While this is a small benefit, I will mention it anyway. It turns out that when livestock are stressed before slaughter, it negatively affects the quality and taste of their meat. As far as transporting animals goes: "Long journeys are undoubtedly stressful and if the animals are killed before they are recovered, they will have higher than normal ultimate pH values." Things like weather and amount of food livestock received before slaughter could also negatively affect the quality of the meat. [1] IV. Effects of Animal-product Consumption *Now* we're going to address why producing fewer (1-2 billion fewer) livestock animals would be okay. 1. Meat & Cancer "When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters. In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat." [2] Cause for concern? Yes. Cancer kills over 5.7 million people each year in the US. [3] It is the second leading cause of death in the US. 2. Heart Disease Heart disease would be the first leading cause of death in the US. It kills nearly 6 million people each year. [3] Since Atherosclerosis is the most common cause of heart disease, [4] the amount of meat consumed should be taken seriously. Atherosclerosis: "It occurs when fat, cholesterol, and other substances build up in the walls of arteries and form hard structures called plaques... We absorb cholesterol from meat, dairy products and other animal foods..." [5] I understand that consumption of animal products is only one risk factor, but it's still a huge part of many people's diet. One should consider how huge it should be. For instance, "A recent infographic... found that Americans eat at least 12 ounces of meat per day, almost 50 percent more than the recommend daily amount." [6] 3. Economic impact "Now, for the first time, we know how much our national meat habit is costing us: Roughly 414 billion dollars annually in external health, environmental, and animal welfare costs, according to a superbly researched new book, Meatonomics, by California attorney David Robinson Simon." [7] Reviewing the first two leading causes of death, alone, in the US should explain why health costs would go up. 4. Environmental impact The article I will cite says it best: "A new report published in the journal Climatic Change compared greenhouse gas emissions attributable to more than 55,000 meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the U.K. The researchers found that meat-eaters' dietary greenhouse gas emissions were twice as high as vegans'. The production, transportation and storage of food greatly contributes to emissions, the study points out. These emissions range from carbon dioxide related to fossil fuels used to power farm machinery, to the methane released by livestock. Animal-based products tend to release more emissions than plant-based products due to the methane animals can produce and the inefficiencies in growing livestock feed. "Reducing the intake of meat and other animal based products can make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation," the report concluded. Past research showed similar results. A study in April found that annual agricultural carbon emissions could be reduced up to 90 percent by 2030 with agriculture adjustments, including a reduction in global beef consumption." [8] Rebuttals: 1. "For example, organic meat producers themselves confirm that organic meat is substantially more expensive than "regular" meat." - I don't disagree with this. However, it's irrelevant as the debate is about the ethical treatment of livestock, not about organic meat. Organic beef livestock, for example, has to be the following: "-Never receive antibiotics -Never receive growth-promoting hormones -Are fed only certified organic grains (corn is a grain) and grasses -Must have unrestricted outdoor access" [9] The source I cited when I defined the ethical treatment of livestock does not say anything about livestock being fed only organic food. Organic food is more expensive (I feel this is common knowledge, so I won't cite it), so we should expect organic meat to be more expensive. 2. I agree that the population rate is overwhelming, but I'd also like to point out that according to a 2012 paper, as much as 40% of food is thrown out each year. Earlier, "In the United States, 31 percent-or 133 billion pounds-of the 430 billion pounds of the available food supply at the retail and consumer levels in 2010 went uneaten." [10] If this much food is thrown out per year, I feel it's fair to assume that there's an overproduction of food at least in some parts of the world. Therefore, I will assume it's not necessary to produce as much animal products as are produced now. So much food is thrown out that it has demonstrated that we simply need to more effectively use/distribute our resources. Furthermore, if the population continues rising, animal products won't be the only limited resource. Reducing population size is an issue on its own that cannot simply be addressed by saying, "We need more." I also found an interesting article that said, "Not only does meat cost a lot to produce (and even buy), it also hurts our environment. In fact, one 2011 study found eating less meat could double the world's food supply." [6] That's rather astounding. 3. "The intensive farming setting also reduces food turnaround times, poultry chickens which used to take several months to bring to rear now only take 5-6 weeks to be of age of slaughter." I will refer to my previous argument. If small percentage more of the country took hand in farming, the amount of animal products will still be significant. e.g. Production of chickens can still easily be in the billions. A 1-2 billion difference can contribute to the benefits I made in my fourth main point. 4. I'm not arguing that antibiotic use in livestock is immoral, but that factory-farms overuse and abuse antibiotics to the point it becomes a danger for people. "Yet another study has reinforced the idea that keeping animals in confinement and feeding them antibiotics prophylactically breeds varieties of bacteria that cause disease in humans, disease that may not readily be treated by antibiotics." "Some of this resistance comes from overuse in humans, but there's increasing evidence that resistance is being bred in animals that are a) raised in confinement and b) given antibiotics routinely. We want to know, of course, whether these bacteria move from animals to humans. Of particular concern is one called MRSA ST398, or "livestock-associated MRSA." MRSA [2] is shorthand for Methicillin (a type of antibiotic)-resistant Staphylococcus aureus." [11] [1] http://www.meatupdate.csiro.au... [2] http://www.pcrm.org... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... [7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://endhunger.org... [11] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

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


Question: Should Individuals Embrace a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Everyone ought to consider adopting a vegetarian lifestyle.

I firmly believe that everyone should contemplate transitioning to a vegetarian diet. The slaughter of countless animals is not only inhumane but also detrimental to the environment, accelerating global warming, and ethically indefensible. Studies have shown that a vegetarian diet can significantly lower the risk of heart disease and is generally more healthful than a meat-eating diet. While some argue that it's simply a natural process, how can we justify confining animals in cages and pens so tiny that they are unable to move? This practice is a far cry from the natural order we claim to emulate.

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!

Today I will be defending the proposition that it is morally wrong for humans to eat animals, and that people are unjustified in causing suffering and death to other sentient beings for reasons of pleasure, satisfaction, or amusement.

Ecological You state, “1st water is a renuable resource and we shouldn't worry about whether or not it takes more water for a cow then wheat, because it is all going to be renewed and if we chose not to eat those cows they would consume more water to live longer. “ Believe it or not, water usage is a concern. Though fresh water is replenished by the water cycle we have a limited amount at a given time and it takes vast amounts of energy (non-sustainable) to treat the water. In 50 years, our population will increase by 3 billion people. It will become increasingly difficult to provide water for everyone. You can read about it here: http://www.whyzz.com... Also, you say that if we didn't eat the cows, they would consume the water anyway. The meat industry breeds these animals in MASSIVE quantities. They are forced to reproduce much more frequently than if they were wild. If we stopped breeding them for slaughter their numbers would decrease dramatically in a few years. Also, you did not consider that meat production not only takes the water the animals drink directly, but all the water it takes to grow the food they eat. You state that if we all switch to eating plants, we would decrease the world plant population and thus decrease the oxygen on earth. Most of the plants farmers grow are fed to meat animals. If we switched to plant diets there would be more plants, and, according to you, more oxygen. http://www.news.cornell.edu...... About global warming, if you don't believe it is a concern, I'm not sure what to tell you. You might consider having a look at some of these articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...http://www.independent.co.uk... Animal Rights You state: “Next I would like to say why animal rights shouldn't be a question. If you are an evolutionist you believe in survival of the fittest and that the better smarter species will weed out the lesser species, yes of course now days we try and keep a couple around but working against extinction of animals is very condridicting if your an evolutionist. “ Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a scientific concept. Survival of the fittest is not a code of conduct for life, it was never intended to be that. Evolution does not define morality. Just because something behaves a certain way in nature does not make it ethical (e.g. causing other species' extinction). 97% of scientists accept evolution as scientific truth. This does not change what is ethical. http://www.people-press.org... I want to bring to attention that this is not a religious debate. It is a debate on ethics, which to some people does include religion, so I will address it briefly. I am a protestant Christian and I think that evolution is probably true. I don't see a conflict between Christianity and evolution. God has the power to bring about life on earth in the way he chooses. I believe this way to be evolution. All the life on earth shares some percentage of DNA. This makes sense if you believe they come from the same Creator. You mention that the Bible gives authority to man to rule over the creatures of the Earth. Does this mean we can do whatever we want to them? No, we must take care of them. Before the flood, God forbade the eating of meat. After the flood, he designated certain animals as “clean” to eat. Does this remove our responsibility to rule over the creatures with respect? Here are some other things the bible has to say: "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither hunt nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.” -Isaiah 65:25 “The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel. “ - Proverbs 12:10 “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. “ -Deuteronomy 25:4 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or ask the birds of the air, and they will tell you. Speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea tell you. Every one of these knows that the hand of the Lord has done this. The life of every creature and the breath of all people are in God’s hand.” -Job 12:7-10 (NCV) Many early Christians were vegetarian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great to name a few. In some early church writings, Matthew, Peter and James (Brother of Jesus and first leader of the New Jerusalem Church) were all vegetarian. Clement wrote, "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals. The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds, nuts and vegetables, without flesh". God giving us dominion over the animals does not give us license to mistreat them. God rules over us, and he is merciful to us. We rule over the creatures of the earth, should we not be merciful? I do not think we should give rice plants rights. We only share 15% of our DNA with it. Plants have no brain, no central nervous system. There is no reason to think that plants have emotion or feel pain.There is a reason to think animals have emotion and feel pain. Animals are closer to us than plants, some animals are very close to us. Even bacteria share about 2% of our DNA. Does this give them rights? No. When you wash your hands, you kill thousands of bacteria. If you have ever felt pain, than you can surely understand why we should hesitate to inflict pain on the things that can feel it (animals, not plants and bacteria). I agree with you about abortion. For the same reasons I think we should not kill animals, I feel we should not kill unborn humans. But this debate isn't about abortion. Human Consumption I'm not sure what you are saying about the health implications of a vegetarian diet. 8 years more of life is 8 years more of life. To me, that indicates it is healthy to be a vegetarian. Yes, there are many healthy, long-lived people who eat meat, but a diet without meat can be just as healthy (or possibly more-so). http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... You conclude: “Eat meat there is nothing unethical about it.” 18,000 children die every day for lack of food. If the entire nation switched to a completely plant-based diet, there would be 5 times more protein food than the meat produced. We feed farm animals enough to feed 800,000,000 people every year. This world needs all the extra food it can get. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... “And it tastes darn good and just the fact that eating a nice steak can make a good day for someone that's proof enough for me that it's a good thing.“ Well, maybe punching my neighbor in the nose would “make a good day” for my neighbor's ex-wife, but that doesn't make it ethical. Note: I apologize if my arguments seem a little strong, I'm just trying to present the situation as accurately as I can.

'Veges', as these meat-wasting sandal-wearing megaphone-holding sign-waving vegetarian types insist on calling them, are thought to be immune to legitimate criticism. By the end of this debate, I hope to have changed that.So, here comes the argument. Vegans are always blabbing on about how eating delicious mouth-watering bacon burgers is 'morally wrong', 'BLOODY MURDER' and 'totally gross!' They say this because an animal died for you to be able to eat it. However, this also means that eating 'veges' is all of those bad things, because as all intelligent people (like the generous voters!) know, the plants that vegetables come from would not have the energy to live if it weren't for the energy from dead animals/plants. (P1) Eating meat is bloody murder because animals died for it to happen.(P2) Animals died so that vegetables could exist.(C) Therefore, eating vegetables is bloody murder.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether eating vegetables is bloody murder. I hope for a good debate.I thank you. Pictured above: Malicious mother brainwashing sexy spouse to commit murder.

Everyone has his own right to chose what is beneficial to him. Every organism has his own sides, and everybody should chose good diets for himself. In conclusion, I want to say that dieting is not totally harmful for health if it is right diet.

I now agree with what you are saying about people and humans. For all the places you stated human, you should change it to persons, as well as inserting an extra premise in which you define a person. I agree that there are some humans in the world that cannot be considered persons, and it is for this reason that I stated that you can not use persons and humans as the same thing, otherwise it would indicate that all humans can be persons, not just that most humans are persons. I now better understand your premises in which you used the word human instead of person. Thank you for clarifying this issue. 2. I am trying to clear up to you that pain doesn"t have to be an emotion. If someone stabs me, I would not say that the pain is only in my head, it is a physical pain. It would be an emotional pain as well if it was one of my friends that stabbed me, but it would primarily a physical pain. Ok, so if you mean to indicate all pain, please switch premise two to something of the effect as follows, "Pain is something that a subject feels when something out of their control affects their feelings." However, stating this still doesn"t agree with me totally, because I also believe that there can be pain in control of a person, if you think of the example of someone cutting their wrists, or something to that affect. Please adjust the premise to reflect this as well. 5./6. If you do not believe that we can kill or harm any animals in any way, how do you say that we wouldn"t all have to be vegetarians? How could we not be vegetarians without killing or harming any animals. I cannot be lead to agree with your argument that all animals should or even do have the same rights as humans. As an example of this, humans have a right not to be killed, unless it is in war or in cases of the death penalty. However, the deer that wander NJ don"t have a right not to be killed, or we would not be able to have hunting. I know many people that hunt deer. If the deer had the same rights as us, we would not be morally allowed to kill them for meat. This is just one example of how animals don"t have the same rights as us, especially in the right to life, and I could think of many more. However, I think that you might have a leg to stand on if you stated that the animal must not feel pain in being harmed. I understand that there are laws against killing certain types of animals, but you do not have any reason or backing to state that all animals have the same rights as humans to not be killed or harmed. 9. I cannot agree with your statement, because there is no reason for me to believe that animals have the same value as humans. I could bring in a lot on morality, and the fact that humans have cognition, thought, feeling and independence, which animals do not have, as far as has been scientifically proved. These factors alone in humans would lead me to believe that humans are much more valuable than humans. Unless you have a way to prove that animals do actually have the same value as humans, I will have to completely discard this premise. 10. I don"t think that your argument for this has standing. Because you say that all animals have the same value and rights as us as people, I am still inclined to state that you cannot say that we can still eat meat. If you told me that I couldn"t harm any animals, I would immediately believe that I would not be able to kill any animals for meat. If there was a way that you could show me that I would be able to eat meat without an animal being harmed, then I would understand. You could tell me that we could eat animals that were already dead, but if animals have the same rights as humans, don"t animals deserve a proper burial instead of being eaten? If a human dies, we bury him or her, or cremate them or whatever the family choses, but it would be a total violation of the person"s rights to eat them. However, you are saying that animals have the same rights as us, so we cannot logically eat animals then either.

http://m.dummies.com... Here is where cheese comes from. The opponent has not taken this debate seriously. I have stated all the benefits of eating meat that he can not refute. I have shown that meat is essential for a healthy diet. Thank you.

<> I accept your definition of "animal". < question: Could you kill an animal to eat? >> Yes I can. I have done it many times as I hunt duck, deer, quail, dove, pheasant, hog, and geese. I also fish quite often, both freshwater and saltwater. < (www. youtube. com/watch? v=bJfXami4haU)>> That video, unfortunately, is true and it's terrible. However, not all food is grown in conditions like that, as they follow the rules and regulations for raising livestock. Seen at the following link: (. http://www.bffairrodeo.com...) 10. All exhibitors shall furnish necessary feed, grain, troughs, and water buckets for their animals & arrange for their care. Bedding will be furnished by the fair. 11. Entries limited to space available. 12. For livestock limits, see individual departments. 13. Exhibitors must keep their animals, barn area and grooming area clean or premium monies will be forfeited. 17. Exhibitors found to be using abusive practices and/or drugs on animals will be banned permanently from the fair. The fair will notify all fairs in Washington State of its decision. 5. Fair veterinarians will inspect all classes of livestock and poultry before they are exhibited to determine that the livestock and poultry show no clinical indications of contagious infectious disease and ectoparasites. 6. Fair veterinarians will reject any animal with infectious or contagious disease or ectoparasites. Exhibitors should be made aware that ringworm, warts, pink-eye, strangles, contagious ecthyma, scabies, lice, mites, ticks, and fleas fall into these categories. As you can see, what you saw in those videos was not always legal. Which means that we already are trying to stop atrocities such as that. If everyone followed the law, then those animals wouldn't be in those situations. Farmers and ranchers are required to keep their livestock in good health, well fed, and in sanitary conditions so to say that the majority are (as you seem to be inferring) being maltreated is not true. To save characters I will simply answer my opponent's points on her numbers, not quote them. >The Environment 1. However, the US also has to import agricultural crops as they do not make enough locally. So it takes about 127 calories of aviation fuel to bring 1 calorie of lettuce from the UK to here, 97 calories of aviation fuel to take 1 calorie of asparagus from Chile, and 66 calories of aviation fuel are consumed for every 1 calorie of carrot from South Africa. (. http://www.energybulletin.net...). Also, plants take up carbon dioxide in the air and reduce greenhouse gases. This means that as a vegetarian, you are destroying what is fixing our planet, while if you eat more animals you will be trimming down the root of the greenhouse gases. 2. Give me a non-biased link for this please. 3. Some of these grains, corn, and beans are grown specifically for livestock purposes. If there was no more livestock, a significant portion of farmers who use to sell food to the livestock would have a hole in their pockets. Efficiency is not an issue here, as humans are the number one priority for making food. This means that if the food amount started to get low then (assuming your statistics are true) livestock would become less profitable and crops would start to be grown instead. 4. If everyone was a vegetarian then more land would have to be cleared for crops. Crops aren't as good as holding soil as the previous vegetation of grasses, shrubs, and trees. The crops will also suck up the nutrients faster and over a couple years the productivity of the land would severely decrease. The farmers would then move on to the next land leaving a bare and desolate area behind. You can see proof of this in Africa with desertification and with the destruction of rain forests in South America. 5. The two major causes of losing the rainforests are poor farmers and corporations. Poor farmers need it to feed their families, but the corporations only for their own greed. These corporations constitute of both ranchers and farmers, depending on what part of the rainforest is being taken. Some areas are best for livestock and are used as such, yet others are used for crops. If either livestock or crops were to suddenly disappear, then the land would just be taken up by the other. This means that getting rid of livestock for crops would not decrease rainforest destruction. >Personal Health 6. I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plants, I believed a balanced diet is required for the upmost efficiency of one's health. 7. The only fat that is actually bad for you is transfat which is made artificially from humans. All other fats are simply stored calories. So to put it simply, the amount of fat you take in doesn't matter, only the amount of calories. The human body needs cholesterol to survive. "Cholesterol, a waxy substance produced by the liver and found in certain foods, is needed to make vitamin D and some hormones, build cell walls, and create bile salts that help you digest fat. " Although your body makes enough of cholesterol on its own having a little extra wont' kill you. It's like dessert, it's good in small quantities and okay to eat as long as you keep it under control. In fact, fats are required to live (. http://www.visionlearning.com...). 8. Once again, the balanced diet is more efficient for fat and protein intake. 9. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat it. Should we stop eating ice cream? People should be allowed to eat what they think tastes good as long as it doesn't interfere with the morality of society. Besides, meat contains many other essential vitamins "One way or another your body has to have protein, iron, calcium, enzymes, Vitamin B12 and amino acids every day. " Meat is the only substance that has ALL of these substances readily available for easy digestion (. http://www.powerofmeat.com...). 10. True, but many types of pesticides and other chemicals are used on plants to protect them that aren't used on animals. 11. Please post a link so I know what you're specifically talking about. I'm not going to look up your information for you. 12. Most bacteria and viruses are destroyed when cooked. So as long as your not eating your meat raw you should be okay. 13. Meat stays fresh for a long time as long as it's kept cool. 14. As do many diseases in animals. They will start to act sick, have diarrhea, and other symptoms of the specific disease. 15. Link please. 16. This is a gross overstatement by the media to sell their stories. It is much more likely for cancer to be caused by genetics, obesity, and physical inactivity. Plus "In fact, he says, the polyunsaturated fatty acids or PUFAs in vegetable seed oils are the bane of human health — they actually cause cancer, diabetes, obesity, aging, thrombosis, arthritis, and immunodeficiencies. Their only appropriate use, he says, is as ingredients in paints and varnishes. " Soy beans are also believed to make carcinogenic substances when cooked. (. http://www.newtreatments.org...) 17. Only with improper care and illegal activity such as selling meat taken from a sick animal. >Personal Finances 18. Most vegetarians cook their foods and use vegatable oil to cook it which is extremely unhealthy. They also have a fat deficiency where the only fats they do get are unhealthy poly-unsaturated (vegetable) fats. 19. They cost less because the food is smaller in quantity and calories. >Ethics 20. I love animals as well, in fact, I hope to become a veterarinarian. Not enough characters left, I will continue on your list in the next round.

You are overthinking it. what you are talking about with trees does not mean anything in this case. i am a vegetarian even though i wear a dog suit, i also eat organic food. you cannot tell me that i accept animal cruelty, because i do not in any form.

So you are basically saying that eating meat is not unethical. And therefore my claim that eating meat is less ethical than being a vegetarian, is false. However, I am skeptical about your reasoning. Your method of judging ethics is new to me. You mention a part of the brain that triggers when we do something unethical, this is not exactly accurate. I mean the leading scientists say the brain is still not truly understood. Could you elaborate this point further and name the part of the brain that does this please so I know where to begin in debunking it. 'Ethics' is just the vocalization sound I have used to help describe the phenomena of the consideration for others. If you want to talk about brains and physiology then consider this: What we understand as 'love' or 'compassion' is an evolutionary tool to keep us in social groups and 'persuade' us to raise our young. (solitary animals don't feel it-for they have not needed to maintain the group in order to survive). 'Love' is actually a 'thing', its a hormone, it can be measured. It has been 'created' by evolution. There is no 'ethics' part of the brain, there is a hormone that is produced that encourages us to love, and that is it. We therefore have love, but it only extends to our family and our tribe, as its evolutionary function is to maintain group loyalty and family groups. As humans become less ignorant and more aware and connected, there 'love' expands to meet a wider group of beings as we learn to understand them. So we learn that the other tribe are actually quite similar and we encorperate them as well. People are still hateful of other nationalities, other races, people they don't understand or see as themselves, but 'good' people recognise that we are all equal, no matter how different we are. So my argument is that to incorporate other species into our circle of love is a step forward in ethics. How can cruelty to other earthlings be more ethical than not being cruel? I don't agree with your view on how we should determine ethics. Also, even with your view on ethics I still think I am right. For instance, killing an animal makes us feel horrible (until we desensitise), and if feeling horrible and cruel isn't a reflection of 'bad ethics' in my brain, then what is ?


Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Ben Should Consider a Vegetarian Lifestyle
Ben should strongly consider adopting a vegetarian lifestyle for three main reasons: a vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact compared to a diet that includes meat, it can help him achieve his health goals, and it will reduce tension in our relationship. A vegetarian diet is more sustainable for the environment. It's a straightforward fact: consuming 2000 calories from plants uses significantly fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, which require much more than 2000 calories of plant-based food to produce 2000 calories of meat. This is because animals use a considerable portion of the food they consume for bodily functions and heat production, rather than converting it all into body mass. The water consumption by animals is even more wasteful: "The data indicates that a beef animal consumes 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef. Given that it takes roughly 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, about 100,000 liters of water are required to produce 1 kg of beef." Even if this calculation is on the higher end, physics dictates that the water ratio from plant to human cannot be equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Not only are land and water resources wasted, but greenhouse gases are also emitted into the atmosphere. "Shifting less than 1 day per week’s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to alternative protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers." Check out this chart for more information: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier for individuals. "The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children, and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and diabetes." This point is a personal commitment to oneself, unlike the first point, which is a moral obligation to promote public health. http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com... A vegetarian diet will improve our relationship. In a practical sense, this change will

I also enjoy debating political points but this issue of ethics also interest me very much. In reference to your points: You said: "Animals eat as they are designed to do". I disagree. It's not the design so much that forces them to eat the food they eat. It's their lack of choices. Animals cannot grow vegetables and farm crops such as corn and soy. Animals eat what they must. The beauty of human anatomy is that humans can cook and eat vegetarian food and prevent animal suffering. As you agreed, capabilities alone do not justify actions. This was my whole point. We can make ethical and rational choices and cause less suffering on this planet. As to your second point: "Eating meat is ethical because it is accepted in society. " Child marriages are accepted in Sharia law in Pakistan. They were once accepted in mormon societies also. A girl aged 13 can be married off in Pakistan if she is past her initial puberty period in her life. Child labor practices are common in Nepal, India and parts of Africa. Slavery is accepted in parts of the world although it's not called slavery. Many societies perfectly accept second class status of women yet we frown upon them. USA has had slavery, women once upon a time could not vote, yet we threw out all those "unethical and irrational" belief systems long ago to treat others with dignity and respect. Thus my argument that we can change and live a compassionate life. Capabilities does not justify actions, as seen in the case of violence and sexual offenses. We restrain ourselves to prevent harm to other humans. Why can't we do the same to prevent suffering of animals?

First link of yours didn't work. "I would end this by asking is it sustainable or moral that we grow more grain and sanitise more water for cattle than we do for ourselves. (humans)" Pro While the above may be true, would you mind proving an outside link? "The modern methods for producing cattle are swiftly destroying our natural environment." Pro You imply that one method of cattle raising is much more environmentally friendly than another. There are a multitude of indisputable facts evidencing this point. Which I will elaborate on further." Pro Do you care to elaborate now? Outside sources will increase the validity.

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

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

To clarify, the title is exactly what I meant to put. I'm going to run through my stadard opening. .. 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, without consent, 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. Conclusion Killing 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.

====== Case Con ====== Contention 1: Rights and Preferences "From where do rights flow? Clearly, there is no consensus on this. I agree with my opponent that suffering should be minimized, and I agree to an extent about the idea of preferences. But I disagree that animals can truly have preferences. Very few animals are self-aware (. http://www.wiu.edu......) (. http://www.americanchronicle.com......) (. http://earthtrust.org......); all other animals are incapable of having true preferences. They may have evolutionary directives, but that is a much more superficial concept. Self-awareness is necessary to have true preferences. Therefore by my opponent's ethical standard, it is ethically possible to eat meat purely for pleasure. " I completely agree with you. This doesn't detract from my argument in the slightest. It merely adds to the list of exceptions I have already carved out. There is nothing absolutist about my position and I've never claimed that all animals can hold preferences. The resolution is not "consuming meat for pleasure is always wrong regardless of circumstances". Snails probably aren't self aware therefore I wouldn't be opposed to eating them for pleasure. Chickens, cows and pigs however are self-aware, however primitively, and thus can be included in our moral purview. And even if certain animals weren't self aware, by your standards, they would still be capable of feeling pain insofar as they had evolved a nervous system. Contention 2: The Moral Imperative "Humans have no loyalties to members of other species. In survival of the fittest, we may do whatever we please to further our own goals. " A. )This is a very dangerous slippery slope that my opponent is going down. I'm reasonably confident that I could overpower my antagonist if not physically then certainly with the aid of a gun and take his money. Insofar as this increases my chances of survival then why shouldn't I do this? If my own selfish desires were all that's relevant to questions of ethics what moral boundaries would prevent me from subjugating the weak or using slavery to further my own goals? What's to prevent me from raping women that I find to be attractive? After all, I would be propagating my genes and thus acting naturally. Chimps do this all the time in the wild and even in captivity. [1] On top of all this my opponent also committed the naturalistic fallacy. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) In other words he posits that if X is natural then X is good. In this view survival of the fittest is a natural principle and therefore it is a moral principle for guiding our decisions about ethics. B. )My opponent apparently views membership in a species as being significant to questions of ethics. At the potential expense of your patience allow me to take you on a thought experiment. Imagine that a mad scientist took your brain and placed it inside the body of a chimpanzee. You would still be the exact same person with the same mind, desires and goals except now you would be trapped into the body of a chimp. Would I be right in locking you in a cage and treating you as my pet merely because you are now a member of a different species? I think not and unless my opponent is willing to defend the view that he should be removed from our moral sphere if he were in the body of a chimp then my contention stands. Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering "I can provide several cases in which eating meat for pleasure is not unethical, and in doing so I win this debate. " A. Come on stop playing around. You know full well that I wouldn't be opposed to eating meat if it didn't lead to the death or suffering of a conscious creature. I've already stated that there is nothing prima facie wrong with the consumption of meat if it doesn't lead to animal suffering e. g. (eating road kill), (eating tissue grown in a lab) etc. Insofar as an animal is incapable of suffering then I wouldn't be opposed to eating it. Ergo I wouldn't be opposed to eating ants because I'm fairly confident they can't suffer their own destruction in any meaningful way. Your casuistry does nothing to further the debate. B. The argument you brought up about painlessly euthanizing livestock is quite interesting but it doesn't reflect reality. Its first fault lays in the fact that it is flagrantly unrealistic. This just isn't the way factory farms operate. Its second, and more crucial fault is that it disregards the importance of animal's future abilities to feel happiness. The future potential to experience happiness, insofar as that ability had been previously present, is relevant to questions of ethics. If I were to painlessly murder everyone in a city in their sleep I would be acting in a way that did absolutely nothing to increase my victims suffering. Therefore by your own standards there would be nothing wrong with this action. I'm tempted to say Q. E. D. but I think I overuse it sometimes. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Contention 4: Source of Morality "Morality is but a code of conduct that is useful for communal creatures. These communities that we live in consist of humans, so morality relates to humans and humans alone. We do not cooperate with other animals (although sometimes we force them to do our labor), so conventional morality does not apply to them. " Contention number 4 makes the exact same mistake that contention number 2 makes. It views membership in a species as inconsequential to questions of ethics. So, allow my previous arguments to carry over. ====== Case Pro ====== Contention #1 Humans do not need meat to survive. Contention #2 It is wrong to cause a conscious creature to needlessly suffer. Contention #3 Eating animal meat for pleasure is unethical insofar as the animal eaten has the capacity to suffer. Contention #4 Membership in a species is no more relevant to questions of ethics than skin color or gender. Contention #5 We share a responsibility in the suffering and death of animals when we eat meat because we empower factory farms when we buy the meat they produce. Best, Freeman Sources [1] . http://www.thesun.co.uk...

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.

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.

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!

This is a duplication of a debate started by kbub and I was pipped to the post by a more worthy adversary but we have agreed to also have the debate ourselves. The official resolution is: "The practice of humans' killing "livestock" animals for food in the US ought to continue (Is the preferred of the two possible worlds)" The "practice" may include ANY practices of "livestock" slaughter, including so-named "humane" slaughter practices. "Practice" limitation However, neither hypothetical examples nor obscure/extreme real-world examples will be included as instances of "practice" in this debate. Therefore, for example, it is not expected to address a slaughtering of two calves to save one human child on a deserted island, etc. Theory The burden of proof (BoP) will be shared. The Pro and Con positions will be evaluated on balance. Voting limit (elo) Voting will be limited to those with elo scores over 2500. No new arguments Furthermore, the last round is reserved for summaries. Neither Pro nor Con should give new arguments in their last round (R4). However, new analysis of old arguments (such as how to weigh them) is permissible. Failure to meet these standards is not an automatic loss, but the new argument in question ought to be completely ignored by the voter. Thanks for your interest! Feel free to message me or comment to suggest changes or accommodations. Best of luck! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro Initial Argument First I wish to qualify my stance on the argument proposed. I believe that the current way in which we manage livestock is not acceptable. I will be arguing specifically on the point that consumption of meat as a part of our diets is preferred to a on meat diet and that therefore we ought to continue to rear and slaughter livestock. Point 1 - There is a revealed preference for meat consumption From a study completed by Gallop (http://www.gallup.com...) showed that 5% of the current population in the USA are vegetarian and that this has remained relatively static over the last 13 years. As a democratic society you can therefore see that the preference is towards meat consumption. Point 2 - Our bodies are designed for Meat https://www.vrg.org... Through evolution, homo sapiens have bodies designed to consume a mixed herbivorous and carnivorous diet. We do not have a fermenting vat commonly found in herbivores, our teeth are structured as those of a typical omnivore, our intestines are not large enough to extract enough nutrients from plants. It is therefore natural for us to consume meat and unnatural for us to live solely on a herbivorous diet. Point 3 - It can be sustainable http://www.cam.ac.uk... http://www.fao.org... Current farming methods for livestock are not sustainable but they could be. There are many things we are already aware of that can improve the sustainability of livestock based farming and I'm sure there will be more in the future. Also allocating areas of land for livestock grazing has been shown to maintain the landscape. (http://www.openspacetrust.org...) Point 4 - Carnivorous animals in zoo's and rescue centres There are currently many zoo's across the US and they house many carnivores. These carnivore rely on a meat based diet. If we were not to slaughter animals to feed these carnivores then we would not be able to keep what are mostly endangered species within zoos. A similar argument is applicable for rescue centres allowing for rehabilitation of animals into the wild. Point 5 - Vegetarian Diets to not provide us with the correct nutrients Vegetarian Diets tend to lack several vital vitamins and minerals including iron, calcium, vitamin B12, vitamin D and omega-3 http://www.nhs.uk... Although there are way to include these within a vegetarian diet but it involves large consumption. Vitamin B12 is the most difficult to include in a vegetarian diet. One option to mitigate this is the use of supplements but like all heavily processed products, we are realising that there may be drawbacks to this. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... Point 6 - Highly processed alternatives The majority of meat alternatives are heavily processed and contain many additives to make them possible. As I touched upon in my last point there is a growing consensus that heavily processed products are generally less healthy of an option. http://www.eatlifewhole.com... Point 7 - High carbohydrate and low fat diets Meat is our best source of good fats and protein. The alternatives lead to eating a high carb low fat diet, like any unbalance diet this has health impacts. http://www.theepochtimes.com... I hope my argument is sufficiently well structure and look for ward to your responses.