Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

Consumption of meat is beneficial for health.
The argument against eating meat on moral grounds is irrelevant to this discussion, as we are focusing on the health implications of consuming meat. I would require credible sources to validate any claims made in this debate. My opponent's claim that reducing meat consumption would solve world hunger is a non-sequitur, as it does not address the health benefits of eating meat, nor is it a verifiable statement. To support my argument, I have used the Mayo Clinic as a source (below). According to their information, meat and poultry are significant sources of protein and other essential nutrients [1]. My opponent has not effectively challenged the health benefits of meat that I presented in the previous round. Meat contains vital nutrients and vitamins, such as Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium, and others, that contribute to overall health. I have already addressed any potential correlation between meat consumption and heart disease, and I will continue to refute any claims regarding mortality if supported by reliable sources. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.org...

Thanks a lot for your argument, it is much appreciated. My rebuttal for all three of the above arguments offered by pro is very similar. All of these studies are observational. They demonstrate correlation, but not causation [1]. I can attribute this to the fact that many vegan eaters are more health conscious in general, as veganism is normally applied as a health choice, and are more likely to be healthy, not because of their vegan habits, but because vegans are more likely to exercise, less likely to smoke, and more likely to be married [2]. All of these factors have also been attributed to longer life. This is especially applicable to the third argument offered. There is no reason antioxidants cannot be obtained from an omnivorous diet, as omnivores can eat all of the same foods vegans can, and therefore have the same amount of sources for antioxidants, with additional benefits and nutrients as well as essential amino acids offered from meat, eggs, etc. Although the above arguments cannot be proven to stem from causation, even playing the devil's advocate, if they could be proven so, they still could not outweigh the positive effects of omnivorism, e.g. protein, certain vitamins, amino acids, omega-3's. A health conscious, natural-eating omnivore has a better chance at a healthy life than a vegan. In a recent study, Adkins-diet (high fat, low carbs, a healthy, omnivorous diet) using overweight women were compared with Ornish diet (high carbs, low fat. Basically a vegan diet) using overweight women. (These women were randomly assigned to the diets) The Adkins diet users lost more weight and had more beneficial metabolic results [3]. This study DOES demonstrate causation as the women were randomly assigned to the diets and were not pre-existing omnivores/vegans. Thank you for your time. [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://qz.com... [3] http://nutrition.stanford.edu... And here's another interesting article, if you would like to take a look: http://www.marieclaire.com...

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...

Honestly, you coul'd be vegan i dont care that your, freedom right. I dont know if your trying to force veganism on people because if so that violationg the first amendment.

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?

I hope to change your mind on this topic, Although people seem to be deeply rooted with their beliefs, I hope my arguments make sense so that you may change your mind on this issue. To answer your questions, Yes I am vegetarian because I do find value in life, Whether it is human life or animal life. Do I think it"s right to kill others while defending our country? Yes and no, I think there are solutions other than war but when it comes to the safety of the people of this country there is a legitimate reason to take the life of others, Because in the end it is protecting ours. And yes, In the case of rape and incest it may seem odd how it should be okay to kill the fetus in this situation if abortion is so morally wrong, But because a woman would be forced into this situation and she didn"t knowingly get herself into this situation, Then I don"t think the government at least should have the right to tell her what to do in these situations. Do I think it is morally right to still abort a fetus even in these cases? No. But do I think it would be extereme if our government told women who were raped or involved in cases of incest to carry the baby to term? Yes. Sometimes there isn"t a good answer to every question, And in any case it is tragic if a fetus is aborted, But would it infringe upon the rights of the women if in every case we told her as a society that she has to carry to term? Probably so. I don"t see this is a flaw in judgement, I see this as finding a way to respect the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. Just because there are exceptions to rules it doesn"t mean that it makes the basis of that argument invalid. For example, The death penalty and the right of police officers to use lethal force when necessary is a great example. We as a society have established that murder is bad an not morally right. I can"t just walk to my local store and just start shooting people. But, We as a society have agreed that in some cases that extreme criminals should face the death penalty because of their crimes. Similar to this example, Police officers carry weapons and are allowed to use lethal force if they feel necessary, I. E. They fell as if there life is threatened and they do not have a choice. Just because there are instances where it is deemed okay to murder another person doesn"t mean our overarching idea of murder being bad is flawed. Just because we are allowed to kill in these circumstances doesn"t mean it should be okay for everyone/anyone to do so, I think we can agree on that, Hopefully. In deeper response to your vegan/vegetarian question, As I said before I am vegetarian because I do not believe in killing other life"s for my own personal gain. If I am able to live and be healthy without killing an animal in the process, I don"t see how that is a bad thing. I don"t think we can compare animal lives however to human lives for the sake of argument, But yes I do value all life. The reason my views may come off as selective and hypocritical is because I say that in some cases the female should at least have the option to abort a fetus, But only because there needs to be a "middle ground" where women"s rights aren"t being infringed upon, But at the same time they are being held accountable for their actions. On this note, I think other things in our current system need to change to support this as well, Such as free birth care. I challenge anyone of the pro-choice stance to really evaluate why they have the beliefs on this topic that they do, To actually look at this philosophically and judge then if people should have the right to end another life if it"s just "too inconvient" for them to have a child. There isn"t going to be a perfect answer to this issue, But I truly believe that this is good answer for both sides.

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...

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?

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.

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'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.


Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

The environmental benefits of vegetarianism may be overstated when considering the impact of animal overpopulation. One crucial aspect often overlooked is the necessity to manage specific animal populations, such as cows, to maintain ecological balance. Without the consumption of meat, the unchecked growth of these populations could lead to environmental degradation, potentially causing more harm than good to the planet. You argue that a significant portion of the earth's surface is dedicated to animal grazing, but the release of these animals into the wild without human intervention could result in overgrazing and destruction of vital ecosystems like rainforests. It's more sustainable to maintain controlled animal populations than to let them roam freely. As for water usage, there are numerous alternative strategies to address water scarcity that don't involve altering the diets of the 90% of non-vegetarians. Moreover, the health benefits of vegetarianism are conditional; many vegetarians consume unhealthy substitutes for meat, such as high-fat cheeses and junk food, which can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12. Athletes, children, and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable due to their higher nutrient requirements. Vegans, who exclude all animal products, must be especially cautious about vitamin B12 deficiency. Poor dietary planning, illness, stress, and excessive supplement use can all pose risks. Before adopting a vegetarian diet, it's advisable to consult a nutrition expert to ensure all dietary needs are met. Sources: [1] Vegetarian Times [2] Calorie King

I accept but I must clarify a few things. I am not a proponent of harming ANY animal without a meritable, socially acceptable reason. As such, I will not be advocating those practices in anyway. I will, however, show that consuming, hunting and testing animals for ones own benefit can be perfectly moral, well in line with the laws of nature, and has nothing to do with my wanting or not wanting to be eaten by another animal. Legally, an animal's life is not as important as a humans. Morally, some people may agree with the simplicity of that statement, however very few people would actually practice a lifestyle that did not contradict that belief. If an animal's life is equal to human then you have a moral obligation to insure you never assert your importance over their own. Did you check to make sure the state/city/neighborhood you live in did not displace/kill thousands of animals while being created? If not, then you clearly don't live by a standard of equality with any animal other than your own species. Eating animals to survive is both natural and benifical to you and the environment, without this process being repeated throughout nature, the circle of life would not exist. Being human, and understanding that it may be unpleasant to the party being consumed, does not remove us from the circle. If humans did not hunt and kill a pantheon of the animals that we share this world with we would be overrun by them and our way of life would be next to impossible. If they have to be hunted, why should they go to waste instead of being eaten or even used for some sort of testing?

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

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.

Vitamin B12 is critical for the health of the brain and nervous system and is primarily found in animal foods. A deficiency can cause all sorts of adverse effects on brain function. [1] Creatine is an important nutrient in muscle and brain that helps to supply energy. Studies show that vegetarians have a deficiency in creatine that leads to adverse effects on muscle and brain function. [2] A large part of the world is deficient in Vitamin D3, which is only found in animal foods. A deficiency in this critical nutrient is associated with depression and various diseases. [3] Carnosine is found strictly in animal tissues. This nutrient can reduce damage caused by elevated blood glucose and may have strong anti-aging effects. [4] The Omega-3 fatty acid DHA is critical for proper function of the brain. It is primarily found in animal foods like fatty fish. Studies show that vegans and vegetarians are often deficient in it. [5] 1. http://www.m.webmd.com... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.m.webmd.com... 4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.m.webmd.com... My above arguments and sources are in favour of my original argument, which is that it has been proven rather difficult to maintain a balanced diet as a vegan. Is it possible? Yes. But it's difficult, and much easier to do as a non-vegan. It would be unfair and not right to limit people to only eating vegan foods, and at the end of the day, there is no good reason to do so.

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.

“"My opponent has committed the non-sequitor that if it should be considered to kill animals for their meat, that the farmers will lose their land and that they have to get rid of their cows." When my opponent speaks of committing a non-sequitor he has clearly done the same thing for an entire two paragraphs in which he states that suffering as well as animal suffering is "bad". I have experienced first-hand with my personal exposure to agriculture, that cattle do no suffer when they die. They are shot and instantly killed with no pain.” Before I address the latter part of my opponent’s argument here, I would like to highlight that he has not addressed the criticism here, rather using the logical fallacy of ‘tu quoque’ to say that I have also committed the non-sequitor. This does not excuse his own logical fallacy, even if I have committed one. Furthermore, my opponent has straw-manned my argument in that he suggests my argument said that suffering was bad, therefore animals shouldn’t be killed for their meat. Clearly, I made an argument against the imposition of killing animals, which is a required part of my argument – it is the combined suffering and imposition that make it immoral. “I know that a carnivorous, starving sentient animal would without a doubt kill a human. So what is stopping us from doing the same? Did we give that wild dog permission to kill us and eat us?” This is not moral philosophy. This is simply: ‘he did it to me first! I should have every right to do it to him!’ “I would find it extremely immoral if we killed sentient animals and not utilized as many body parts as we could like we do so today.” Obviously, you would have to kill them in the first place in order to make use of their body parts. However, if you killed them to save them the burden of having to live in agonising pain, and then made use of their body parts, this would be moral. It’s simply that you can’t kill them for their body parts – the intention makes it immoral. From round 3… “1.Become overpopulated.” How will they become over-populated if they are not allowed to breed? “"The government of the country could help subsidies the cattle’s existence, and the cattle can be stopped from reproducing so that the problem does not become permanent." This sounds extremely immoral from my stance. Not being from a rural area you do not understand that a mass operation such as this would be extremely difficult. A cow is not going to stand still while it is made sterile. Take it from personal experience.” Extremely difficult =/= immoral. You consistently argue differing levels to which my argument is difficult to enact, when this isn’t all that relevant to a moral debate. “This is how slavery and raising cattle is different. We do not make cattle do work, we feed them regularly and keep them healthy, move them to different areas so they do not overgraze…” You missed the point. The point is that both were considered ethical at one point, but this doesn’t make either of them moral. You appealed to popularity, so I showed why the popular thing isn’t always the moral thing. “I have pointed out how it is immoral to take away what an entire family's life has revolved around for hundreds of years.” They are doing the wrong thing in the first place. If someone had a black-market industry of selling pre-teen prostitutes and super-hardcore drugs, that had existed for more than 100 years, it would obviously be the right thing to abolish the awful business, despite the livelihood being generated from it and whatnot. “I have also pointed out that it is immoral to simply keep cattle from reproducing.” I would like to borrow David Benatar’s Asymmetry for a quick response. (1) If a person exists, then his/her pain is a bad thing. (2) If a person exists, then his/her pleasure is a good thing. (3) What does not exist cannot suffer (therefore this non-existing pain is a good thing). (4) What does not exist cannot be deprived of any pleasure (therefore this non-existing pleasure is not a bad thing). Therefore, it is immoral to reproduce, given that not bringing sentient animals into existence should be preferred; therefore, it is not immoral to stop cattle from reproducing. Besides, my opponent no convincing reasoning as to why it is immoral to stop animals from reproducing. “1. That I gave all possible scenarios not just for animals being shipped into the wild, I also gave examples of what would happen if they were taken care of.” You continue to address the difficulty of stopping the mass slaughtering of cattle, when the moral aspect is far more relevant in a debate on morals. Even if it would be very difficult to deal with the cattle, it would still be the moral thing to cease slaughtering them for their meat, let alone preventing it on a mass scale. “2. My opponent has also failed to address the face that even will government funding no amount of money will keep these cattle from overgrazing. Even if this would happen isn't our government in enough debt where as they shouldn't have to keep cattle alive with no benefit whatsoever to the American people or themselves. It sounds immoral to fund a cause with no return profit.” Again, this is another argument against the difficulty of it, and you wonder why I didn’t bother addressing either of these. If you want to argue against the difficulty of implementing something moral, go do so away from a debate about the morality of harming animals. “3.My opponent has again failed to address how it is morally right to let an animal die painfully by natural causes instead of being kept in a safe environment and being peacefully killed when it reaches it's mature age.” From what you suggested, the imposition on life would be immoral (i.e. breeding cattle so that we can eat them). It wouldn’t be moral to knowingly let an animal die painfully; when did I ever argue the opposite? I haven’t yet addressed these arguments because they are either an appeal to difficulty (rather than morality), or a straw-man of my position. “My opponent has also spoke of an alternative method to get protein called "In vitro meat." He has failed to cite any sources for this so called vitro meat so I will cite. This method also is extremely costly to produce and we won't see it for another decade. So how do we get our protein for an entire ten years…” I couldn’t find any credible sources on In Vitro Meat (and nor has my opponent in quoting Wikipedia), so I will drop this argument . However, my opponent assumes that protein can only come from meat products. This is simply not true. Tofu is extremely rich in protein. Conclusion My opponent continues to centre his argument on the difficulty of stopping the slaughtering of animals for their meat, rather than the moral aspect. As this is the case, a lot of his argument has seriously diminished value in a debate about the morality of killing animals for their meat. Again: difficult =/= immoral. In the few places that he does address my moral framework, he either straw-mans it or misses the point. For example, he concludes that [according to me], “All that matters is suffering is bad. Even though livestock is killed peacefully.” There is a section I wrote that is headed with the title: Killing animals is morally wrong,which involves explaining how killing animals for their meat is morally wrong, even if they don’t suffer. This is, once again, an example of another straw-man.

"This is true, however, it's just not easy, and I think we can both agree on that." Con Veganism is mostly difficult because there are insufficient vegan choices at restaurants and not that many vegans worldwide. The more vegans, the easier it would be to be vegan. "Worldwide veganism would bring just as many cons as it would pros." Con Con has not proved this point. Pro has shown how worldwide veganism would help. "But let's take a look at the cons: A radical change: Going vegan is a huge change" Con The status quo is not self justifying. "and can sometimes be even more complicated if you are not allowed to eat certain ingredients such as soy." Con In a previous round the discussion of relying too heavily upon soy was discussed. Over consumption of soy is different than the complete elimination of soy. Relying too heavily upon any ingredient will most likely lead to food allergies. The exception being water. Pro does not think you can get a food allergy from drinking too much water. Soy in moderation is healthier than meat in moderation. Soy has phytonutrients and fiber which meat doesn't have. ""Complete plant proteins are found in soy products, so if you're trying to moderate your intake of soy, you have to learn how to put together complementary foods to form complete vegetarian proteins," says Jackie Keller." Con Pro calls the entire complete vegetarian protein a large misunderstanding. Just eat a variety of vegan foods and enough protein and you will be fine. Your body can synthesize ten out of twenty of the amino acids. "Myths abounded about the necessities of combining certain foods in order to obtain complete protein. In reality, protein deficiencies are uncommon in vegetarians who eat eggs and dairy products, according to the Harvard Women's Health Watch. Vegans, who eat no animal-based foods, can get enough protein by eating nuts, grains and seeds, which offer incomplete proteins that nevertheless meet your body"s needs when consumed responsibly." [30] In summary, don't worry about complete proteins. "Potential interference with existing medical conditions: If you have a condition such as osteoporosis or diabetes, it is critical to consult with your physician and a registered dietitian when starting and implementing a vegan eating plan, as a vegan diet may interfere with your condition." Con There is some question of whether or not the body can use calcium from milk. "The galactose in milk may explain why milk consumption is associated with significantly higher risk of hip fractures, cancer, and premature death." [31]. Calcium can be found in leafy greens like collars and kale . Kale contains 9% calcium and only 33 calories per cup [32]. Soy milk also has a large amount of calcium. [33] As for diabetes. Meat and dairy consumption can cause diabetes and insulin resistance. Fiber and phytonutrients help with blood sugar spikes. "Red-meat consumption is already linked to higher levels of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis, heart disease, and stroke). Now researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have added an increased risk of type 2 (adult onset) diabetes to that list. " [34]. "Low-fat vegetarian and vegan diets are associated with weight loss, increased insulin sensitivity, and improved cardiovascular health." [35]. Links 34 and 35 prove meat and dairy increase the risk of diabetes. Link 31 proves drinking milk increases chances for hip fractures. "Difficulty when dining out: Not many restaurants offer true vegan choices and this can make dining out difficult. Mehta advises carrying vegan foods and snacks to make eating out easier when traveling long distances." Con True, this is why its imperative to ban meat, eggs, and dairy. Then, many more vegan choices would be offered in restaurants. "Loss of essential vitamins and minerals: There is evidence to show vegan diets do not contain vitamin B12, an essential nutrient." Con Some vegan diets are healthier than others. There are supplements. B12 comes from bacteria. Bacteria can be found on raw fruits and vegetables. "There has to be a balance of diet, exercise and a proper fitness regime." Con There is wisdom in these words. If you are sedentary, not matter what diet you are on you will not have ideal health. "So, what is my point, you may ask? Well, I am certain a chicken would put another chicken's life before a human's. While you are thinking about the animals, we have to think about the humans as well..." Con Pro has proven through scholarly peer reviewed journals that a vegan diet is healthier. Even if animals weren't sentient, a vegan diet would still be healthier, the environment would benefit, and land designated to feeding livestock could now feed hungry humans. Pro has once again refuted Con's claims. Save animals, humans' health, the environment, and feed the hungry by eating vegan. Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Vote Pro. Links 30. http://www.livestrong.com... 31. http://nutritionfacts.org... 32. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 33. http://nutritionfacts.org... 34. http://harvardmagazine.com... 35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.

You should adopt a rescue dog instead of a dog from a breeder Pets can add to the health and happiness of the individual who adopts them t takes a few minutes with a dog or cat to feel less anxious and less stressed. Your body actually goes through physical changes, in that time it make a difference in your mood. The level of cortisone, a hormone associated with stress, is lowered. And the production of serotonin, a chemical associated with well-being, is increased. Reducing stress saves your body wear and tear. People who own pets often feel the need to care for them, and makes the person feel needed. You aren"t supporting dog mills or pet shops. dog mills- a terrible place were dogs are breed in huge mass and inhumanely, they are under minimal car. they are sold to dealers and pet stores there are more than 5000 puppy mill in the US and after the female in "of no use" or can"t make any more babies she is killed It saves a life 8 million stray dogs are taken by shelters , 3.7 million (almost half) are inhumanly killed 11,000 pets every day shelter uthanation is the #1 reason why animals die Seventeen million Americans acquire a new pet each year -- that is more than double the number of shelter animals! Sadly, only 3.5 million people, or about 20 percent, choose to adopt their new pet. The rest choose to buy their pets from pet stores or breeders, or they choose a variety of other cheap or free sources, such as friends, neighbors or Internet ads. In the 1970s, American shelters euthanized 12-20 million dogs and cats, at a time when there were 67 million pets in homes. Today, shelters euthanize around 4 million animals, while there are more than 135 million dogs and cats in homes. This enormous decline in euthanasia numbers"from around 25 percent of American dogs and cats euthanized every year to about 3 percent"represents substantial progress. We will make still greater progress by working together to strike at the roots of animal overpopulation.

Ok, Sorry for putting God into this debate. I had gone back to the bible and it surely didn't say anything about human eating livestock. The reason we should eat cows is simply because we need to eat it. We have a natural appeal towards meat. The reason we don't feel guilty and sympathy is because they are livestock. Cows are way dumber than dogs and elephant and they don't have self awareness. Human consume beef because they are born to be eaten by human. That is their life purpose.


Question: Should Individuals Adopt a Vegetarian Lifestyle?

THW argues that consuming meat is superior to eating vegetables, but a balanced diet is crucial for optimal health. Humans are omnivores, and this fact is undisputed. Our bodies require a balanced intake of animal and plant-based products to function correctly. Over millions of years, our bodies have evolved to consume, digest, and thrive on a diverse and varied diet that includes both hunted meat and plant-based foods like berries, herbs, and vegetables. Saying that eating vegetables is better than eating meat, or vice versa, is an oversimplification. To truly understand which diet is superior, we must consider the effects of consuming only one type of food.

Let's begin with vegetarians. A quick internet search reveals numerous sources highlighting the benefits of a meat-free diet. Vegetarians typically have higher quantities of nutrients like fiber, antioxidants, vitamin C, vitamin E, potassium, and magnesium. They are also less likely to develop heart diseases, have lower blood pressure, and lower cholesterol levels. Some studies suggest a reduced risk of cancer as well. Vegetarians are more likely to exercise, drink moderately, and refrain from smoking compared to the general population.

However, a meat-free diet isn't without its drawbacks. Vegetarians often have lower amounts of calories, saturated fats, cholesterol, omega-3, EOA, DHA, iron, zinc, and vitamin B-12, which are abundant in meat products and fish. If they avoid milk and egg products as well, they may experience a shortage of vitamins B-2, D, and calcium. The lack of calcium can increase the risk of bone diseases and fractures. The low cholesterol level may decrease the chance of heart failure but could increase the risk of early mortality. It's important to note that individual results may vary, as diet is not the only factor affecting health.

To compensate for the lack of certain vitamins and minerals in a vegetarian diet, individuals must either consume meat, eat an excessive amount of plant-based foods that include some of the needed minerals (which can be unhealthy in some cases), or supplement with synthetic nutrients, pills, or find other natural sources that may not be readily available.

Now, let's examine the typical meatatarian diet, which is less common and can be challenging to study. The Inuit diet is a prime example of a diet based solely on meat. Inuit, native to the Arctic regions of Canada, Greenland, and Alaska, primarily eat seal, walrus, whale, caribou, polar bear, muskoxen, birds and their eggs

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

People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.

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.

Ok. Thank you and good luck. I will copy and paste my introduction since there are many things that we could argue about. So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned. In our society, killing animals is just fine because we want to advance it science. There are other ways to advance in science without putting chemicals on innocent animals. The way this thing works is that they use the animal, put it through pain, and then kill it. What a life. Testing on animals can be avoided and instead you could test it on a dead corpse (I'm going to the extreme) or something else. We are killing innocent animals because we can, there are "too many", and we think it's okay. We should not only advance in science, but in love and compassion. We are killing innocent things everyday and yet, everyone feels it's ok. Do you think a homeowner should abuse his/her dog or cat? Do you believe they should be able to do that? So many people go off on the foreign countries because they eat dog or they eat cat or they eat etc., but as a hypocritical country, we do not see ourselves almost doing the same thing.

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...

I urge the voters to to disregard con's FF in round 4. Please vote solely on whose points outweigh whose. On that note, I hope all is well with Envisage. Summary/Conclusion: The unethical treatment of livestock... -Encourages and causes food contamination -Weakens the treatments available for not just food borne illnesses, potentially all illnesses treated by antibiotics -Pushes rising prices to consumers and unfair pay to farmers because of industries' monopolist market power -Raises the quality of meat people consume -May slightly reduce meat produced each year, with a good potential for indirectly decreasing the amount of animal products consumed by people. This may likely lower high rates of cancer and heart disease, the first two leading causes of death in America. -Costs the country (US) roughly $414 billion dollars each year in health, environmental, and animal welfare expenses. -Has a huge negative impact on the environment; meat-eaters produce about double the dietary greenhouse gas emissions than vegans do. With the ethical treatment of animals, producing a significant of animal products each year is still possible. Lessening factory-farming, and therefore lessening monopolistic control, would be good news for farmers who are left with very little options in buyers. It would even be good news for the job market because it would be more viable as a competitive industry. The ethical treatment of livestock does not threaten the food supply, nor do developed countries like America necessitate the need for such a significant amount of animal products. As I've pointed out, Americans throw away up to 40% of food each year, and a study suggests that the world's food supply could be doubled if people ate less meat. Which, if I say so myself, more than makes up for difference in meat produced ethically vs. unethically. Also, farms that uphold the ethical treatment of livestock do exist and can be very successful - like in the example I gave in round three. I will acknowledge, however, that it could be catastrophic if the US enforced the ethical treatment of livestock at once. This sort of system would require gradual, yet strict change. Once people have moved over to it though, it will more beneficial than the current system, in which factory-farming controls costs and indirectly wreaks havoc on people's lives. And to boot, the ethical treatment of livestock will also please the many people who consider it the moral road to take.

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.

"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.

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

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)