Question: Should Individuals Embrace a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Vegans motivated by ethical principles should consider adopting Freeganism instead.

(1) To address this debate effectively, it's crucial to clarify the meaning of the resolution. "Vegans practicing on moral principle" indicates that the discussion will revolve around the ethical stance of veganism. The focus will be on the moral underpinnings of vegan practices. The term "should" implies that we are debating what vegans ought to do based on the moral principles outlined in the first part of the resolution. Lastly, "become Freegan instead" suggests that, considering the ethical principles (yet to be defined) that guide vegans, they should abandon veganism in favor of freeganism. Proponent's argument, however, is misplaced as it asserts that freeganism is inherently ethically superior, without defining or defending the moral perspective that underlies this claim. This is irrelevant to the resolution, as Proponent is tasked with demonstrating how the ethical principles behind veganism support the notion that freeganism is ethically superior. Given that vegan principles explicitly aim to end animal suffering, it is implausible to argue that freeganism stems from vegan principles. Proponent has failed to adhere to the resolution, opting instead to argue (without a coherent ethical foundation) why freeganism is a superior choice irrespective of the unique moral sensibilities of veganism.

(2) Even if we overlook the initial criticism, it cannot be disregarded that Proponent has resorted to points lacking any ethical justification. That is, even if one could coherently argue that this debate is solely about which practice is ethically superior, Proponent has failed to provide a compelling ethical justification for consuming only what is wasted. It is not immediately clear why minimizing animal suffering is ethically inferior to consuming waste. In fact, given that pain is intrinsically connected to our moral sensibilities, it seems apparent why veganism would be ethically superior to freeganism (as opposed to the reverse). Proponent's arguments are based on the assumption that preventing waste is not only ethically correct but also ethically superior to alleviating animal suffering. I do not intend to concede either of these principles. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with Proponent to argue in favor of them.

(3) However, as the burden of proof is shared, I will also provide an argument for the ethical superiority of veganism over freeganism. As previously stated, it appears reasonable that alleviating the suffering of sentient beings is ethically superior to reducing

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

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

So your argument is that eating meat is morally permissible because A. no species will go extinct and B. once an organism has reproduced, it's life has no value. While in an evolutionary sense this is true, as breeding means ensuring the survival of the species, in a moral sense this is a horrifying way of thinking. Think of it this way. In the movie "Logan's Run", all people are executed at the age of thirty. The species survives, and there are no old people using up food and space and healthcare resources. Does this sound like an ideal world? I think we can agree that we would not want to be executed after we have had kids. So, the argument that "It is right to eat meat because their species will survive" does not hold up. A species is actually a pretty abstract concept. A species does not have rights, or thoughts or feelings. It is just a collection of animals that are biologically similar enough to reproduce. In summary, the argument that eating meat is morally acceptable because it will not cause extinction is a weak one, and the argument that a being that has reproduced can be killed simply because it has fulfilled it's "duty" of reproducing is mortifying. I once again challenge you to demonstrate why killing animals for food is permissible.

I propose that in the modern world we live in. The modern methods for producing cattle are swiftly destroying our natural environment. There are a multitude of indisputable facts evidencing this point. Which I will elaborate on further. At no time in human kinds history has the earth faced a more dangerous threat than that posed by agribusiness and in particular the production of cattle. I would start my argument in support of this statement with one simple word. SUSTAINABILITY What does this word mean, and how does it apply to this situation? When we refer to something being sustainable we imply that the activity or process it relates to is able to support itself with minimal input and with a minimal impact on the environment and minimal impact on future generations due to what is being produced for us today. I would put to you that producing cattle in the manner we do now is neither sustainable nor moral. We are pillaging our natural resources in order to provide an oversold and overrated product that requires extensive resources to produce. By overrated I mean the end product (protein) for which we need to survive can be sourced in a much more ecologically friendly way.

Hello Mr. Burns,Humans are superior to every other animal. As a human, I say that as a superior mind to 99% of the animal kingdom.We, the human race, have been a driven force for the last 13,000 years, creating civilizations and creating an infrastructure to resist the deadliest phenomenon's of nature.Let's end these 1 sentence paragraphs. I think what you are thinking of is a trade, a trade between life and materials. Because you didn't put enough info in your initial argument I infer that you're implying that we should be completely ban and criminalize the act of killing (in any way shape of form) any animal. This absolutely disgusts me due to how it destroys human nature.I am a complete Darwinist and believe in the progression of species via natural selection. Survival of the fittest. That's what I believe in. (If you do believe DON'T believe in natural selection, I gladly volunteer to talk about that.)Honestly, I think if we should, we should destroy all other life on Earth. That's fine.And I do believe that all animals (besides insects) have sentience. Able to feel happiness and pain.Though what you're implying is so GRAY.How should we decide and play god on who we should pardon and who we should kill?How should we decide which animals are good and which are bad?We should just kill animals as we see fit (excluding mentally deranged and wasteful circumstances). And do as how EVERY OTHER animal on the planet does it.

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.

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

And I will state that if it is morally wrong to eat animals, it is also morally wrong to eat plants.

Thank you for accepting. First of all I would like to say that vegetarianism is a terrible idea because we are omnivores, so we need both animals and plants in our diet. But my first main argument is about the medical condition risks. First of all you do not get enough vitamin B12 which means you don't have the proper vitamin to create your DNA, function the brain and make red blood cells. You also could get the symptoms: sore tongue, constipation or diarrhea, rapid breathing and heartbeat, easy bruising and bleeding, upset stomach, tiredness and weakness. You can get vitamin B12 by eating a lot of dairy foods but even that would cause diarrhea, and even the much rarer problems could be some kinds of cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Believe it or not, one study showed 92% of vegetarians have vitamin B12 deficiency. Other nutrition things needed that vegans don't get a lot are: 1. Animal protein; animal protein is important for muscle mass, bone structure and more importantly, amino acids. 2. Creatine; low creatine is harmful for muscle and brain function. 3. Omega-3 fatty acid; helps depression, prevents asthma, helps blood fat, prevents Alzheimer's disease, helps baby development and much more. Sources http://www.webmd.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.newlr.com... http://authoritynutrition.com... I await your argument.

Do to internet problems I don't have much time to write this, so it will be disorganized a bit. But on the issue of BoP Con has it completely wrong. Let's examine how Con interprets the BoP he states as follows (notice the position of the word "not"): "Remember my opponent must show necessarily NOT UI . .. " Con uses the synonym "necessarily" instead of "inherently". However if we examine the ACTUAL premise/title of the debate using the synonym: "Eating Meat is NOT [necessarily] Unhealthy or Immoral. " Notice that the premise is not "[necessarily] NOT UI". Do you see the problem? Con switches "NOT [necessarily] UI" with "necessarily not UI". So in correcting Con's misguided attempt to place 100% of the BoP on me we get "NOT necessarily UI, where con must prove not NOT [necessarily] UI". The BoP is placed upon Con to prove that all forms of meat are inherently UI, he is arguing as a vegan after all and this would be in line with his original position. I have to show that there is a way meat can be healthy and raised/slaughtered ethically. I have done so with the example of free range farming, which for the entire debate Con has ignored in favor of fighting the straw man of factory farming. Con believes just because he can point out a slight fault, take fish and mercury poisoning, this negates the health benefits of the meat. He thinks that just because mercury poisoning would kill 24 people this negates the 7,000 who would be saved from fish. This is a debate of an extreme position vs. a moderate one. The vegan represents the extreme, ALL meat is bad. My position represents the moderate, SOME meat is ok (you can read my position in Round 1). The key word is "inherent", if I can divorce the concept of meat from unhealthy and immoral I win. In other words, if I can show meat can be produced in a way that is healthy for humans and moral (or at least amoral) for animals, I win [see round 2 & 3]. The vegan will have no recourse for rebuttal given their position. Now to address some points made by Con: Con doesn't see how [Con 1] helps my position, read my Round 1 position, because my BoP is to prove meat is not inherently bad I point that it is not the meat that causes poor health effects but the irresponsible over consumption of it. [Con 1] confirms this hypothesis "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA . .. exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers. " READ THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN. It is the over consumption that leads to the diseases not the meat itself. As for those 8% obese vegetarians, how did they become obese if they weren't eating meat? If meat is inherently unhealthy how could these people become obese if they avoided meat? As far as morality is concerned, Con has 2 counters: it causes pain and environmental damage. Free range farming inherently eliminates the pain involved in raising cattle because they grow up in their natural environment, grassland (free to relax from the fear of natural predators). Before animals are killed they receive what is called a "stun bolt" which numbs the creature so when it is killed it feels no pain [6]. Causing a painless death is at least amoral as it serves a purpose to humans without harming the animal. As far as environmental damage is concerned this is a moot point. Almost everything humans do causes environmental damage, especially agriculture (vegan food) with pesticides running into the water supply and soil degradation. If meat production is immoral by these standards then all food is immoral, in this case we would all starve to death. In regards to not needing meat, this may true but it is irreverent. We may be able to live without meat but just because we can doesn't mean we should live without it. Meat has many nutrients that are important and if we included meat in our diets this gives human the full range of nutritional options [1]. Sorry for the hap hazard organization but internet connection problems took precious hours away. There is plenty of evidence that meat can be a part of a healthy diet [1, 2, 3, 8, Con 9, ], and through free range farming meat can be ethically harvested [5, 6, Con 8]. I have stayed true to my Round 1 position and have met my BoP. Con has abandoned his Round 1 position by making non-vegan arguments and most of his sources have been put into question, help my case, or are irrelevant. He has not shown meat to be inherently UI.


Question: Should Individuals Embrace a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

The Global Population Should Embrace Vegetarianism

I genuinely hold the view that the global population should not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Firstly, it goes against the natural order of things. Renouncing an activity that we are biologically designed for, and that our bodies require, seems counterintuitive.

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?

For more than 2 million years, humans have been primarily meat eaters. Our bodies are designed for it. We have our incisors and molars that are designed for eating meat. It helps keep blood sugar levels steady due to its fat and high protein content. There are no proven health benefits to not eating meat. While I do feel as if a vegetarian or vegan diet can be good for you, I have been eating both pork and beef my entire life and I have had no health problems. We have enzymes in our intestinal tract specifically to digest meat, and meat helps us grow. Larger brains have benefited from meat eating. So, in conclusion, I feel as if humans should eat pork and beef.

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.

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.

This debate will have a few topics related to it. Not only philosophy, but health and ecology too. I understand that some societies rely on hunting gathering to this day and they cant survive without meat. But why societies that can can survive without it continue doing all that to them? I believe that animals deserve equal amount of rights as we are. We have no right to adapt the supremacist view that they are above us. Here is a list of things we do to them, which they dont deserve: - Cows, Goats and Chickens. We use them and what they produce (milk and eggs) for food. - Foxes and cows. They are being skinned to make leather or fur. - Geese and ship. Are victims because of their feathers or fur. Geese have their feathers plucked out violently to make products like pillows and Ship have their fur removed for wool clothings. - Horses and some dogs. Being forced to participate in races. They go through terrible conditions before those races. - Killer whales, dolphins and some other fish. Forced to perform tricks (in places such as Sea World) or simply live in small confined places. - Lions, tigers, elephants, monkeys. They either live in a Zoo or perform tricks in circuses. - Dogs. They are used in the military and police to find drugs and participate in dangerous operations. When they are not active they sit in a small cage. Some dogs dont participate anything, they are just tied down to some place. - Wolves, Deer, bears, rabbits and some other animals. Are targets for hunters. - Rats, cats and monkeys. Often used for animal testing, mostly which isnt necessary. - Fish. Are victims to fishing, a lot of time done for sports. So what arguments are there to justify all what I listed?

However, people still crave meat, why is that? Because it's natural. If humans weren't made to eat meat they wouldn't crave it. Also, a lot of countries entire industry is built in the export or import of animal for slaughter, and raising the animals ourselves is a lot better than going out into the wild and depleting natural species. And, human consumption of meat plays a vital role in the ecosystem, we diminish overpopulating species.

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

Thank you for accepting. :)Let's begin.Ecological ConcernsIn 2006, the United Nations calculated that the total climate-change emissions of animals bred for meat was 18% of the global total; this is more than cars, planes, and all other transportation combined. Besides greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide, cows and pigs produce many other polluting gases.It takes 108 pounds of water to produce one pound of wheat. It takes a pound of beef around 20,000 pounds of water. Farming uses 70% of the water available to humans.The majority of plant food grown on farms is used as animal feed. It takes 8.4 kilograms of plant-food to produce 1 kg of pork. The 7 billion livestock animals in the US consume 5 times as much grain as the entire population directly consumes. A Cornell analysis states: "Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein,""Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption. About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from grains and 15 million tons from forage crops. For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein.""If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,""More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.""On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. . . . Grain production, on average, requires 3.3 kcal of fossil fuel for every kcal of protein produced."So, by producing meat, the population loses a vast majority of protein. In addition, the amount of energy and land used is far greater than that of plant food. On top of this, the soil erosion and greenhouse gases produced by raising livestock makes it far less sustainable than plant foods.All these facts are from:http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://www.news.cornell.edu...Animal RightsThe first thing to address here is the most basic question, "why should we care about the plight of the animals involved?" Ok, that's valid. After all we're humans, we have to look out for our own species first. However, we are the most intelligent of animals (probably), so we can examine ourselves and other species logically. Modern science concludes that humans evolved from other animals, specifically apes. Since we evolved from these creatures, they are basically distant relatives (of course, plants are much more distant relatives). Coming from the same ancestors, we have many similarities to other animals, especially mammals. The DNA of the chimpanzee is 98% identical to that of humans. Of course, not many of us eat chimpanzees. The cow's (Bos taurus) DNA is 80% similar. (Source 1) On the other hand, we share 15% with a rice plant. (Source 2) So what does this similarity mean? This brings us to animal intelligence. A dog, for instance, is thought to hold an intelligence that measures up to a 2 to 2.5 year old human. (Source 3) Pigs are thought to be more intelligent. Some apes are able to communicate with humans via simple sign language. Some chimpanzees have been found to perform some intellectual tasks better than humans. (Source 4) This isn't to say they are more intelligent than humans, it's just a testament to the fact they are somewhat intelligent.It is the widely accepted by scientists that an animal's brain complexity is directly linked to their ability to feel pain and suffering. The Discovery Channel stated, "Psychologist B.F. Skinner proved that animals feel pain in a clinical test in which animals were shocked with electrical current as they approached their food." (Source 5) A recent study indicates that even crabs feel pain. (Source 6)Ok, so we've established animals are somewhat intelligent and can feel pain (similarly to that of a young child). Now, does the meat industry cause suffering to the animals used?Well, take a look. A pig's natural lifespan is 15 years, pigs are generally killed for pork at 6 months of age. Male pigs are usually castrated without anesthetic. They often have their tails removed and teeth clipped. Many pigs die in the bad conditions of transit. (Source 7)In 2010, 62 billion animals died for American food. Here's the ones that made it to the slaughterhouse:23,627,000 ducks35,330,800 cattle110,367,000 pigs242,619,000 turkeys8,790,478,000 chickens7.3 billion fish12 billion shellfishIn 2010, the average meat-eater's diet is responsible for 207 animal deaths. At that rate, it is around 16,000 animals over the course of a person's lifespan. (all from source 8)Human ConsumptionThe above arguments must be balanced with this. How is meat useful to humans? Humans are, after all, naturally omnivores. However, there is much research that indicates humans lived almost solely on plant matter as recently as 10,000 years ago. (Source 9 and 10) This isn't to say they were strict vegetarians, like the great apes, they very occasionally ate meat. However, it is likely that humans ate much less meat than they do today.Probably the hardest arguments about vegetarianism is health. Can you be healthy without eating meat? Well, apparently, vegetarians live on average 8 years longer than regular meat-eaters (this is comparable to the difference between smokers and non-smokers). (Source 11) The protein and vitamins of meat can be derived from vegetable sources, except without the cholesterol and fat. That's not to say that all vegetarians lead a healthy diet, if they replace meat with high-fat dairy, it does little good. But, on the whole, vegetarians live longer.ConclusionToday, we live in a society where it is possible (and beneficial) to choose a vegetarian diet. Perhaps in some parts of the world, eating meat may impact health or survival. But if you aren't in poverty, you don't need to sacrifice health to abstain from meat. Therefore, for us, eating meat is a choice of leisure, rather than need. A vegetarian diet greatly lessens our ecological impact and decreases the food we need to produce. A vegetarian diet undoubtedly lessens the hardship on animals as well as other human beings. I would call that more ethical.Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. -- Albert Einstein.Sources1. http://www.sciencemag.org...2. http://eugenes.org...3. http://www.sciencedaily.com...4. http://www.nature.com...5. http://curiosity.discovery.com...6. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com...7. http://www.chooseveg.com...8. http://animaldeathcount.blogspot.com...9. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...11. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

First, I want to say thank you to Envisage for accepting! =) I'm going to address this debate in parts, rather than present all of my major arguments in the first round. I. Health Risks Involved in "Factory Farming" 1. The unhealthful conditions livestock live in compromise the success of medical treatments for people. Many livestock animals live in their filth and feces in confined spaces with little to no lighting or fresh air. Living conditions like these can cause livestock a lot of stress, [1] and stressed animals are known to behave aggressively in response. They may harm other animals and even themselves. Animals have trampled one another because so many other animals are contained within the same space. [2] Because of this, these animals are at serious risk of infection and health issues. Consequently, use of antibiotics on livestock is a popular practice. According to PETA, factory animals are, "Fed drugs to... keep them alive in conditions that could otherwise kill them." [3] "The Food and Drug Administration... put in place a major new policy to phase out the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in cows, pigs and chickens raised for meat, a practice that experts say has endangered human health by fueling the growing epidemic of antibiotic resistance... This is the agency's first serious attempt in decades to curb what experts have long regarded as the systematic overuse of antibiotics..." [4] So why does it matter if livestock get antibiotics? Well, as my source pointed out, the overuse of antibiotics can endanger human health. As bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics, treatments for people will become less successful. This wouldn't just be detrimental to health outcomes for people with a sinus infection, but also for people with serious conditions like pneumonia, post-surgery infections, food poisoning, and Tuberculosis. In other words, a lot of people could die because of increased bacterial resistance through mistreatment of livestock. By providing livestock with better living conditions, the need for antibiotics would drop tremendously. In my fifth source, a speaker even discusses how bacteria could more easily combated through less antibiotic usage. [5] 2. Not minimizing stress experienced by livestock before slaughter increases risk of food contamination. There's a neat little fictional book called "Toxin" that was written by a doctor who worked at Harvard Medical School. In it, he conveys how the rapid slaughter of cows - in an assembly like fashion - truly heightens the stress that cows experience. Upon hearing the loud noises of machinery, cows will defecate. Everywhere. [6] Increasing the risk for contamination via E. Coli and other bacteria. This is supported by a peer-reviewed study: "Contamination of beef products primarily occurs during slaughter when meat is contaminated by fecal material." [7] Apparently, fecal matter contamination isn't just an issue for cows. "Potentially harmful bacteria was found on 97 percent of chicken breasts bought at stores across the United States and tested, according to a new study." "And about half of the chicken samples had at least one type of bacteria that was resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics, the investigators found. The tests on the 316 raw chicken breasts also found that most had bacteria -- such as enterococcus and E. coli -- linked to fecal contamination." [8] Furthermore, "When animals, for example poultry, are slaughtered, the content of the intestines may contaminate the meat with salmonella microbes." [9] Couldn't caution and precision stop this, for the most part, from happening? This would likely require less reliance on factory methods. Even a little further back before slaughter, the transportation livestock receive can have a huge impact on food contamination. The ride to slaughterhouses are often long. The animals are confined and sometimes they're mixed with ill animals. This is not a recipe for healthy animal products. "Barham and colleagues found the average prevalence of Salmonella within feces and on the hides of cattle was 18% and 6%, respectively, before transport. After the animals were loaded onto a vehicle and trucked for 30 to 40 minutes, the levels of Salmonella found in feces increased from 18% to 46%, and the number of animals with contaminated hides escalated from 6% to 89% upon arrival at the slaughter plant. Fecal pathogens on the hide may then end up in the meat supply. Similar results were found in pigs and chickens raised for meat." [10] So is food contamination that serious? Let's take a look: "CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases." [11] Now, 42% of these illnesses and 44% of these deaths come from meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs - the industries of relevance to this debate. [12] 3. The careless handling and care of livestock allows for further food contamination. Now, if the all of the fecal matter contamination mentioned above wasn't caused by stress before slaughter, then we can fairly assume it's a matter of cleanliness and health concern for the animals throughout the whole raising process. Aside from fecal matter contamination, here's why the handling and care of livestock is important: -Unethically treated animals probably don't receive veterinary care. So sick and diseased livestock can easily be overlooked and mixed in with healthy livestock. They will in turn get passed on to the consumer. As I discussed in my first point, poor conditions already put livestock at risk for sickness and disease. Even for something as simple as egg products, we should be concerned... "Eggs from an infected chicken can also become contaminated." [9] -Machinery and factory equipment can injure livestock, as well as increase the chance of letting sick livestock pass through onto consumers. Take a look at my 13th source to see how massive some factory farms are. [13] If we take a look at my next source, it can be seen how young turkeys get caught on equipment and expose their blood and internal organs to other livestock (WARNING: GRAPHIC FOR SOME VEIWERS). [14] Seeing both of these sources, it can be said that managing the unethically treated livestock can be an overwhelmingly difficult task. Furthermore, what about making sure no sick or diseased animal products get passed along onto the consumer? That might be impossible in some factory farms considering the vastness of the quantity of livestock. [1] http://www.reed.edu... [2] "Forks Over Knives" - film [3] http://www.peta.org... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] https://www.ted.com... [6] "Toxin" by Robin Cook - book [7] http://www.marlerblog.com... [8] http://consumer.healthday.com... [9] http://www.infonet-biovision.org... [10] http://www.hsi.org... [11] http://www.cdc.gov... [12] http://www.cdc.gov... [13] http://www.farmsanctuary.org... [14] - video (MAY BE GRAPHIC FOR SOME PEOPLE)

"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.


Question: Should Individuals Embrace a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Should people consider adopting a vegetarian lifestyle?

Should cormorant birds be culled?
Indeed, they should. They are nothing but a bunch of senseless creatures that consume everything in their path. Moreover, my religious beliefs, rooted in Judaism, inform me that animal lives hold no significance, thus, the lives of animals are inconsequential.

Note: The original document contains offensive language and derogatory terms. In the interest of maintaining a respectful tone, these elements have been omitted in the transformed document. However, the core argument and semantic style have been preserved.

Yes humans are animals anyone would know that. You even admited that we started as animals. If today was some milion years ago we would be killing each other. Indeed we dont chase our tails, monkes too dont chase their tails. Indeed we dont live in a jungle, to the animals london is a jungle to them. Indeed animals dont work, but eagles go hunting for their young ones. Call a zebra an animal, zebras also see us as animals. Conclusion we are all animals with different lifestyles, mentality, abilities and appearence. Thus killing your dog is killing a fellow inocent animal and is MURDER!

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

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...

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

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

I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore. Anyways its clear to me that cattle used for meat and dairy consumpition should be banned all together. Cows should be viewed as companion animals like cats and dogs.

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.

Even though I am the Pro, the Con is technically advocating that Animals should not be eaten or tested on, meaning she is PRO animal rights. I am also Pro animal rights, but i sleep well at night knowing we can eat animals and that we use them for tests. Reasons for the consumption of meat and for testing on animals Consumption: 1 - Meat can be healthy 2 - It is natural 3 - It is usually humane Testing on animals 1 - Saves lives 2 - Not all tests put the animal's life at risk 3 - Testing on animals can help other animals be healthier 1A) Meat is high in protein, and it is even recommended to have meat or fish servings in one's diet. The proteins are packed with amino acids necessary for any life form to function, and even though you can get these elsewhere, you need to eat a low of extra stuff just to match the quantity of protein you can find in meats. Some meats can be bad for you but not all meat is bad, and so since meat can be healthy, it shouldnt be banned. http://www.livestrong.com... 1B) Animals eating other animals is natural, its been like that far before humans ever walked the Earth, and unless a catastrophe of epic proportions wipes out all life forms, animals will still eat other animals long after humans are gone... What is natural in most cases is acceptable, and shouldnt be outlawed. 1C) When humans eat animals, the animals are usually humanely killed before being processed, excessive torture is frowned upon, outlawed, and those who do treat them poorly are often prevented from continuing to continue. Humans have the means to humanely kill other animals to consume, and no other animal has the means of doing that or even the will to. Humans eating animals is taking something that is already natural, and making it more humane. 2A) Testing on animals saves lives, its as simple as that. It could come as testing vaccines, it can come as actual parts that are integrated into a human (transplants can work across species), and it flat out saves people. Coal miners would often bring canary's down into the mines and if the canary died, it was because there was an unsafely high amount of dust in the air that could make a single spark into an explosion, killing dozens of miners. Vaccines developed from animal testing has helped treat what were debilitating diseases completely treatable and even preventable. http://www.mofed.org... http://www.farmanddairy.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2B) Not all testing puts an animals life at risk, People use animals to test new kinds of pet foods, to test cognitive abilities to humans, to point out similarities in humans and animals organ systems, etc. If you want to ban animal testing solely on the grounds that it kills animals, then you would only be banning about 10% of animal testing. For a science project I used a hamster as a test animal, I put the little thing in a cardboard maze, a hunk of cheese on the other side, and I recorded the results. Every time the animal was in no danger and 33% of the time he even got a nice hunk of cheese out of the experiment. 2C) Testing on animals can help save the lives of other animals. Animals arent tested on just to make vaccines for humans, they are often tested to find vaccines to fight diseases in other animals as well, such as apes, rhinos, elephants, chimps, etc. http://www.caller.com...

I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got " Too " big for the current food market. We would do what humans do whenever they can't make enough of a product for the demand. Improve the different aspects in that products life cycle so it meets the demand. A total meat industry reform is much more sensible than changing not only the way the whole world eats but our culture. I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities. If somehow the world did change over to vegetarianism it would lead to an over dependence on nutritional supplements. Iron and protein tablets would become like oil. Pharmaceutical companies would become large empires who charge people ridiculous amounts of money for something they need to survive. Does that seem like a better world to you?

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.