Question: Should people become vegetarian?

Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that humans should become vegetarian.

Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Humans should become vegetarians because meat eating and the killing of farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is morally incorrect, evolutionary incorrect, and unhealthy. Meat Production also causes issues regarding pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use; all of which are unbeneficial to the increasing human population.

Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: I'll be arguing that the opponent's claim that "humans should become vegetarian" is not adequately supported and cannot be upheld. I'll be stating now the assumption that "vegetarian" refers to a person who doesn't eat animal meat. I'll furthermore clarify that the word "should" implies a moral, ethical and/or pragmatic desirability factor. As such, he is making an objective claim and possesses the Burden of Proof. I look forward to opening arguments.

Title: Should People Become Vegetarian Content: Many people disagree over the topic of Should People Become Vegetarian as it is controversial issue. My opinion on the issue of Should People Become Vegetarian is that people do not have to become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that raising beef is one of the most efficient way to produce food and access to get protein for humans. This is a good thing, because with the rapidly increasing population, we need as much food as we can provide that also provides us with the nutrition we need. Inevitably, we must agree that not everyone should be vegetarian, because we need to provide everyone food and this is one of the most efficient way.

Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty.

Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments.

Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: Thank you for the acceptance, I look forward to a nice and clean debate. Moving on, I would first off like to remind my opponents that they would have to prove the benefits of why becoming vegetarian is moreover a benefit than a harm for I am doing the exact opposite. C1) Violation of one's rights It's pretty straight forward. Forcing others to eat something takes away a person's freedom to eat what they want to eat. Let us look at our status quo. In our modern day society we have people who are vegetarian, people who eat all sorts of food, lactose intolerant, and many more "styles" of what and how people eat. If we supposedly do make everyone eat meat in America, what is taken away from the people? Freedom. When we are practically forcing our citizens to eat something that they are 1) Not use to or 2) Doesn't want to eat we are violating and taking away the citizens right for something that is vital to our life. Our world gives us limited freedom and rights I agree, but we are now taking away a freedom and choice for food. This of course violates ones limited freedom. This is not right for our society to decide what we eat now. C2)Feasibility Pretty straight forward. Making people vegetarians are not feasible enough in our country. Because my opponents are proving that we should enforce America into becoming vegetarians, how would they do it? What if they do eat meat? Would they go to jail or get arrested? What would happen? C3)Health Issues Vegetarian: 1. A person who does not eat or does not believe in eating MEAT, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.[1] The definition of Vegetarians includes that they do not eat meat. Becoming vegetarian certainly means that there will be much less protein intake. Having protein is a must in your regular food chain. Protein is makes up the building blocks of our body and essentially all we do when we eat meat is to recycle the flesh and to use it to reconstruct our own. Vegetarians may tell me that you still can get protein from beans and eggs. But here is the real problem here. We as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. [2] Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. You can only get this source of vitamin from meat, unless you count earth's ground and dirt as "food". B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy and problems utilizing calcium which can lead to osteoporosis and arteriosclerosis in the future for people. [3] [4] Conclusion: Today if we put on a scale, my side sees much more weight on the harms. Even if my opponents explain on how becoming vegetarian is very healthy, we have still proved that meat is crucial. As well as it can be a problem to obesity, we see a much bigger health issues from a society without meat. As well as it harms the people, it harms our freedom of one thing that we should have full access too. With our status quo we see no major health problems being just the way we are, vegetarian or not. There would be no need to change what we already is succeeding in for our future. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.healthguidance.org... [3] http://www.mnn.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet Content: As I thought. Pro has changed their tack. And now adopted the word "should" and ditched the word "is". A seemingly innocuous change, but a change that actually alters the context of this debate completely. A vegetarian diet is to be preferred is a completely different proposition to, a vegetarian diet should be preferred. Under these circumstances I do not feel obliged to respond to Pro's third round evidence. My second round assertion that approximately 78% of the Worlds population ate a meat inclusive diet was derived from the Wikipedia article, vegetarianism by country. This evidence alone is enough to negate Pro's opening proposition. As it clearly indicates that approximately three quarters of the world's population prefer a meat inclusive diet. (Presumably no one is forcing these people to eat meat) Whether or not three quarters of the world's population should prefer a meat inclusive diet is another issue altogether. The same studies also stated that approximately 1.75 billion people were vegetarian out of necessity, rather than by choice. It is highly likely that given the chance, some of these people would also prefer to be omnivorous. But should they? Well, who has the authority to make this sort of judgement?...... And of course, that wasn't what we were discussing.

Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: I don't think everyone should HAVE to become one; everyone should have say in what they eat or not. 5 Reasons Why They Shouldn't: 1. Humans have been eating meat for millions of years and it is an essential part of our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. 3. Meat is the most convenient source of protein. 4. Research has shown that many plants feel fear. 5. A meat-centred diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options.

Title: People should eat much less meat Content: Rules: 1. Polite conduct at all times 2. A picture or cartoon with every argument (just to be entertaining :D ) I will be arguing that people should eat a lot less meat or become vegetarian, Con will be arguing that meat is beneficial to the human diet. .. .

Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the last round. I did not get my argument posted in time. My conclusion is that if everyone went vegetarian, it would save a lot of animal's lives and it would give less money to huge industries. :)

Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: I sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.

Title: A healthy debate for two. Content: I will accept. Lets make our topic becoming vegetarians. I will be Pro and you will be Con.

Title: Vegetarianism Content: A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans.

Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Remaining Round 4 Sources[4] http://michaelbluejay.com...[5] http://www.onegreenplanet.org...My opponent forfeit their previous round, therefore my evidence stands unrebut. In conclusion, humans should become vegetarian and expel the killing of farm animals because it would promote kindness and compassion. Humans have arrived at the point in which meat isn't required in order to survive, and poorly preapred meat can result in obesity and high blood cholestoral. Furthermore, raw meat can cause sickness for humans, whereas it doesn't cause as much sickness for omnivores and carnivores. Lastly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that livestock causes pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use.I enjoyed this debate despite my opponent's forfeit. Thank you to all viewers and voters of this intriguing discussion!

Title: Vegetarianism is a good idea. Content: However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - "All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy." I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.

Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: I will be making the argument that we has humans should not ender to become a vegetarian species, that we should remain omnivores. Just like eating too much meat eating only vegetables is unhealthy. You need meat for the following: B12 Calcium Iron Zinc EPA & DHA http://chriskresser.com... While it is true that you can find vegetables with these items the human body does not take them in properly from vegetables, this is why most vegetarian animals spend most of their day eating. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. This disregards that the rainforest is being clear cut in part to make farm land. What about all the living plant creatures? How is this not harming them? This argument to me sounds like, “We should care about all forms of life. Well, other than them plants. Who cares about them?” http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... All of my opponents other arguments disregard that there are other options to carnivorous eating than live stock. It is less wasteful if you raise insects on the waste from farms. This turns that waste into soil. Then we could eat the insects.

Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?

Title: The farming of animals causes suffering. Causing suffering is wrong. The farming of animals is wrong Content: The issue is whether people should eat meat or not. From a nutritional and free choice standpoint, the answer is people should be able to choose whether or not to eat meat, and not be subject to any law which would ban the eating of meat. (See the arguments for nutrition in this debate). Those who say "no" from an environmental/moral standpoint are extending this argument which, in my opinion, belongs in another debate. However, to answer the rebuttal to my argument (to the right), his/her argument is more about the practices associated with (in particular) factory farms. I have studied and viewed documentaries concerning factory farm practices, and agree with many of the things my opponent has to say. However, we tread on dangerous ground when we offer the simplistic solution of not eating meat. There are many who would legislate what we put into our own bodies. Freedom in this country means the freedom to eat what we choose to eat (other than cannibalism). We go down a slippery slope when we begin to legislate what people can eat. We are already on a slippery slope, in my opinion, as more laws are passed and government gains more control over the lives of citizens. The answer to the problem outlined above, and by my opponent, is to go through the proper legislative channels to improve regulations concerning how factory farms operate. In the meantime, you can choose not to eat meat, or to buy meat from those corporations and farmers whose practices you approve of. Personally, I choose to eat wild game because it comes from a natural environment in which the animals have eaten natural foods. These range of choices allow us to preserve the freedom to choose what we put in our bodies, including the freedom to do business with those who engage in humane farming practices, as well as the freedom to present legislation to change the inhumane practices of factory farms.

Title: Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live. Content: There are many reasons that people have for becoming a vegetarian. I believe I have heard all of them, but none of them have seemed to hold up against logical scrutiny. From health issues to ethical issues, all of the arguments that have been attempted have some major flaw. In this forum, I will attempt to point out the fallacies in all of these arguments. My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.

Title: Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Content: Sure, being vegetarian is the healthiest way to live, but it isn't healthy for the environment. If we all stopped eating animals or animal products, Animals would overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem. If that happens then we would have to kill mindlessly.

Title: Should People Become Vegetarian Content: Many people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that.

Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: Vegetarianism is much more "natural" than raising living, breathing creatures for slaughter. I have been vegetarian for a little over a year, and I feel better than I have my whole life, so my body obviously does not need meat. If humans converted the land that they use for meat to gardens, the world would have more food and world hunger could be greatly diminished. Breeders feed their animals tons and tons of corn and grain each year, and for only a few pounds of meat, which is a complete waste of food and life.

Title: Vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet. Content: Since my opponent forfieted the round for some unknown reason, i shall state something else. The question of Whether vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet, can only be made from an extremely spoiled point of view. We, as citizens of a first world country, have access to a variety of foods. Yet, people in third world countries, or even second world countries, dont have access. Therefore, having a vegetarian diet is not only fatal to their health, they would even go to the point of starvation without meat. And yet these people who eat meat, such as those living in china, live to be well over 90 years old.

Title: go vegetarian Content: There are problems with being vegetarian

Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: Thanks for the response. In this debate, some of my refutations shall be later explained in my later arguments. If such occurs, it will be shown. (ex. [argument 69])REFUTATIONS"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong." Here is precisely where you are completly false. Killing is wrong, however if it is neccesary for humans [argument 1]. So in a way, it is not cruel to kill animals if it is neccesary and aids you body. Furthermore, workers at slaughter houses kill animals, not the consumer. So the consumer is not killing the animal. It is not harming the environnement, because it is done with animals breeded specifically for meat. How does such effect the enviornnement? Simple, it doesn't. And it has no relation whatsoever to global warming. I doubt you even know what global warming is. Global warming, to say it quickly is when the atmosphere becomes thicker due to green house gases, preventing the heat from UV rays from leaving the earth, thus heating up the earth. [1] How do killing animals have anything to do with global warming?". It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets."Being omnivorous, you can still have a vegetarian diet, and eat meat in moderation. Because of such, we can have these benefits in a omnivorous diet, while still being alowed to eat meat."Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?" It is natural because it is important for humans. This is just like saying if a lion eats a zebra it's unatural because the lion killed the zebra.ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Humans have omnivorous digestive systems. [2] Meat has plenty of protein, which is important for stregthening the bones and muscles in the body. There is also many of B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more. Eating the correct amount of meat, we are staying healthy, and gaining many healthy nutrients. So meat helps stregthen out bodies and provides various imporant nutrients that are difficult to find in only vegetables. So being vegetarian, we wouldn't have all these benefits, being omnivorous, we gain all these benefits and more.Argument 2: Being omnivorous, you are now open to eating any possible meal. Because of such, you would have a greater variety of possible things to eat, whereas being vegetarian, you have a difficult time finding specific foods. So if everyone was vegetarian, the amount of possible foods would be less.Argument 3: Many people would lose their jobs if everyone went vegetarian. Butchers, slaughterhouse employees and livestock farmers would lose their jobs and land. This would bring millions into poverty. If every went vegetarian, the amount of people living in poverty would increase.======================================================================================================= In conclusion, forcing everyone to go vegetarian would not be beneficial. Many would lose their jobs, have toruble getting the important nutrients they need, and have a smaller variety of possible meals, making them pickier. My opponent presented no proof whatsoever on her arguments, and I already proved them all wrong.Sources:1.http://www.nrdc.org...2.http://authoritynutrition.com...;

Title: Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Content: Thank you for accepting the challenge. Here is a list of the arguments I will outline in the following paragraphs. 1)Health benefits of being vegetarian. 2)Global benefits of vegetarianism. 3)Environmental benefits of vegetarianism. 4)The ethical question behind eating meat. Argument 1: There are numerous health benefits that a vegetarian diet can have. First of all, studies have shown that vegetarians are at least %25 less likely to contract chronic heart conditions, the biggest killer in America. Heart disease has plagued western civilization since the dawning of mankind, and perhaps a vegetarian diet is one of the keys to a final solution. Vegetarianism is healthy for the cardiovascular system as it reduces the amount of animal fats and cholesterol that people consume, instead replacing it with antioxidants and fiber. Furthermore, vegetarianism has been linked to a decrease in the likelihood of getting cancers. A study in Germany found that vegetarians have a decreased likelihood of getting colon cancer, for one. Lastly, vegetarian diets have been shown to help people lose weight, which explains why there are very few obese vegetarians out there. The diet essentially decreases the amount of saturated fats and excessive calories that people consume. Meat has very condensed calories, and our brains simply can"t figure out when we are full until about 20 minutes after our stomachs say ENOUGH. So condensed calories, plus a brain that can"t read if we are full or not fast enough, essentially spells out bad news for the bathroom scales. Plants, on the other hand, have very minimal amounts of calories, meaning that more of them can be consumed without causing weight gain. The major issue that people have with a vegetarian diet is the belief that vegetarianism can be linked to nutrient deficiencies, and in some cases, this is true; however, when the diet is well planned out well, then malnutrition rarely poses much of an issue. The major nutrients that vegetarians lack are vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and protein. The only one of these nutrients that cannot be found in plants is vitamin B12; however, this is found in many supplements available to essentially everyone. Many people say that iron cannot be taken from plants as animals have a different kind of iron known as heme-iron; however, this is simply not true. Although it is harder for our bodies to process iron from plants, it can still be done fairly easily and efficiently, and for the person who can"t process it, there are cruelty-free supplements of heme-iron out there as well. In summary, if the vegetarian diet is planned out well, the effects can be remarkable, including lower risk of heart disease and certain kinds of cancer. Argument 2: A vegetarian diet can have many positive effects on many current, global issues. A recent study found that nearly %40 of corn and %67 of soy produced in the United States is going towards raising livestock for the meat and dairy industry, essentially meaning that about 13 pounds of grain goes into one pound of edible meat. Doesn"t add up, right? In a society where approximately 805 million people live in starvation, does it really make sense to essentially throw away that much food? No, it doesn"t. But it gets a lot worse than that. Not only is food thrown away to the livestock industry, but water too. We"re talking about the raising of over 56 billion farm animals every year. That"s a lot of water. To put it into statistics, that"s about %27 of the freshwater deficit. Thus, vegetarianism not only has a positive effect on an individual"s health, but also the current state of global affairs. Argument 3: The livestock industry has a horrible effect on the environment that only a vegetarian diet can really fix. Animals raised for food in the U.S. produce about 89,000 pounds of excrement per second. Where does it all go, then? Well many places, places that people probably don"t want feces. One of the ways to dispose of waste is to sell it as fertilizer, and all though this makes apples in the supermarket extra sweet and juicy, it also causes a run-off effect. This means that when it rains or water is sprayed on the area, the excrement flows into surrounding rivers and lakes where it kills fish and other wildlife. The other disposal method is throwing the excrement into lagoons and waiting for it to decompose. This too causes a seeping effect. So what does seeping actually do? The EPA reported that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. When 25 million gallons of putrid hog urine and feces spilled into a North Carolina river in 1995, between 10 million and 14 million fish died as an immediate result. Aside from water, animals grown for livestock also contaminate the air. A Consumer Union Study in Texas found that animal feedlots in the United States produce approximately 14 million pounds of particle dust each year, dust that contains harmful pathogens and toxins. Another way that the livestock industry gets rid of animal feces is turning it into a mist like substance and having it carried away by the wind. Unfortunately, unsuspecting citizens of neighboring towns inhale this toxic air and can become severely sick from it. There really isn"t a way to stop the industry from doing this, as what are their other options, contaminating more water and damaging the environment even more? The only real way to ensure that these horrible things don"t happen is to cut all funding to the meat and dairy industry by going vegetarian or vegan. Argument 4: Whether or not it is right to kill an animal for the purpose of meat has been an ethical question for decades. The simple fact is that no, it isn"t. Nature dictates that killing an animal is okay when it is absolutely necessary. This is usually not the case with people. The simple fact of the matter is that in the general population, meat is consumed because of convenience and taste; however, what most people don"t realize is that the animals that the animals that they eat once had a face, a mother, maybe a son or daughter. We know that animals feel familial connections maybe even stronger than people do, so the idea of a baby calf being torn from its mother"s arms only moments after birth to be shipped off to some veal factory is simply horrendous. Or, it can be spun the other way, where the mother is torn away to be shipped off to a slaughterhouse. To cause an animal so much pain for the sake of a hamburger or a piece of steak is simply wrong and unethical. What a vegetarian diet does is stand up for the animals and essentially say that people don"t want to be a part of such cruelty. Furthermore, the meat industry has shown time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be allowed to care for animals. It seems like every month a new case of animal abuse comes out. Two months ago it was chickens drowning in their own feces, while last month it was ducks being forced to walk on wire floors, breaking their feet and smashing their faces against the iron wiring. These cases pop up all the time and no matter how many lawsuits are filed, nothing changes. The only way to fully end this kind of cruelty is to go vegetarian and stop giving money to torcher. In summary, vegetarian diets have many positive effects on everything from a person"s diet, to the state of issues like world hunger and pollution.

Title: Eating meat is right! There is nothing wring with it. Content: In this debate, the opponent (Con/Against) must prove that eating meat is wrong and should not be done. Basically, why be a vegetarian (besides health-related issues)?

Title: Going Vegan Content: Con, please excuse my forfeited, I have been busy these past days with school. I will now respond to both of your arguments. Con, I did not mention anything about health issues. So I guess you should see that we are not talking about dietary vegans here. "In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by "people." Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take "people" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post." I am very sorry for this, and I would like you to refer to me as a she, if you may so. Anyway, I am not comparing veganism to any other type of lifestyle. I was trying to say, it is healthier and safer. by people, I mean people. Not all people on Earth, because as you stated, that would be boring. And I doubt everyone would be vegan anyway. There is always a rebel, don't you agree? People as in unhealthy people, people who need a healthier life. People who are against animal cruelty. If you don't want to become vegan, its your choice. After all, God did give us freewill. I am sorry for being brief on my last argument. http://earthdivasblog.com... ^ in the link above, it says "There are no silkworms left in the wild; all of them are raised in homes and farms" How many more animals do you think are living like this ? I bet if I research some more, I would find alot more animals like these silkworms. My reasons for becoming vegan : 1) Its healthy. Obviously. Here you get to eat more vegetables and fruits. No fat. People wouldn't suffer from cholesterol, diabetes, strokes, and some cancers. Many people wouldn't die from heart problems. 2) Its kind. It is unnecessary to be killing animals in order to feed and clothe ourselves. Plants can keep us alive. Some slaughter houses, are really cruel to animals. http://www.youtube.com... 3) Better for the environment . Meat production uses up alt of land and water. Cows expel amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Their hooves pack the dirt, making it less likely for it to absorb the rain. Manure from animal industrial facilities leaks into waterways, and gets into the groundwater. 4) Its delicious. People from all over the over the world have created plant-based dishes. Many familiar foods have a vegan versions, such as pizza, casserole, even chocolate cake! The real question here isn't "Why go vegan?" but instead "Why not?"

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

Title: Vegetarianism Content: Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health.

Title: Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. Content: I explicitly specified in the instructions that rebuttals were suppose to be in the 3rd round and 4th round. The 2nd round was solely for main arguments without rebuttals. 1. Since when was my argument implying everyone to become a vegetarian? This debate is simply focused on how being a vegetarian helps the environment more than not being a vegetarian. -These implications in your argument, " If everyone was a vegetarian, the amount of cows and deer roaming the earth would be FAR to much for planet earth to maintain, and we would (eventually) end up dying because we didn't eat meat (Daniel_B)", are irrelevant to the topic. Besides, arguably if we just slaughtered a good portion of the populations of livestock and processed the meat without breeding more livestock, then that would not be an issue at all. 2. What are these "many ways" that you are referring to that would actually significantly help more so than lowering the water supply for livestock farming? -"As for the water usage there are many ways in which we could cut down on this water shortage in other ways without disturbing the 90% of people who aren't vegetarians." California already has implemented fairly strict regulations now concerning private and public water usage because of the drought, so people are less likely to use as much. However, those policies are an insignificant aid to lowering water usage because of the amount of water that I discussed earlier that is used per pound of beef. 3. Your argument that vegetarians will eat unhealthy food is irrelevant because we are discussing the environment in this debate.-"And, of course, not all vegetarians eat healthily. If a vegetarian replaces meat with high-fat cheeses, junk food and so on, they"re unlikely to reap many health benefits (Daniel_B)". This is indeed irrelevant because as the topic statement says, "helps the environment more", not people more. 4. Your argument that vegetarians will have a lower nutrient intake is irrelevant because again, we are discussing the environment in this debate.-"Replacing meat with poor substitutes can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12 (Daniel_B)". Besides, certain types of meat have a high amount of fat and eating this meat too often can create a higher chance in cardiac diseases. Restating the main issue at hand though, the concern in this debate is over the environment and not people's diets. There are many other angles of arguments that could have been made, think carefully in your next input for this debate.

Title: People should not eat animals. Content: This is my first debate, so I would like to start with something simple and pretty straight forward. There are three reasons why becoming vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is both beneficial to the person and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is healthier. All required nutrients may be obtained easily with a little attention, and a vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholestrol and very little saturated fat). 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contribute to the species extinction from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. For the environmental impacts of animal agriculture: http://www.vegetarisme.be... For the American Dietetic Association's position on the vegetarian diet: http://www.eatright.org...

Title: Animals should be protected, within reason Content: If you accept this then I am not arguing until round 2, so please just use this round to state your personal opinion on the subject. Animals should definitely be protected, and by "within reason" I mean not all becoming vegetarians but by improving farms and animal shelters.

Title: The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. Content: It would be a progressive step for the human race for as many people as possible to begin following vegetarian plant based diets. I think this is something that will inevitably happen over the next few hundred years.

Title: The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. Content: I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.

Title: Vegetarianism is good Content: Thank you for setting out a plan, though I thought such guidelines were assumed, and I only expect you to follow them loosely. I will be arguing that Vegetarianism is good for moral and ethical, healthy, and environmental issues. My First Point: Vegetarianism is good, because it is moral. The causing of pain, or the ending of life on a whim, as we do not need meat to live, is deeply immoral. Some say that animals are somehow lesser than us, and this justifies our people from eating their flesh, but such a desperate claim holds no water. Would we butcher people if they were of the same mental capabilities as an animal? Or perhaps meat eaters are actually intolerant of different species. When it comes down to it, such a theory is just an attempt to justify the murder of another race of creatures, and in many ways an outdated prejudice. Society over time has changed to embrace the different. Why then condemn many races that share more than 80% of their DNA with us, and are in a way, our evolutionary cousins? There is, frankly, no way anyone can justify the ending of lives without a good reason. There is no good reason to kill animals, as humans can live without eating meat. Therefore, no one can justify the eating of meat. Now many meat eaters claim that somehow it is unhealthy not to eat meat, as one would have less iron or protein in one's diet. This could be true, but only assuming I simply removed meat from my diet. In fact, most people who give up meat in their diet are sure to make up for it in other foods, like beans, nuts, seeds and apricots, that replace needed iron and protein. People can live like this very easily, and have in parts of the world for thousands of years, as part of the culture. Not only is vegetarianism healthy, but it is also more healthy than the eating of meat. [1] Scientists have now connected the eating of pork, beef and other types of red meat, with cancer and heart disease, and recommend cutting, if not removing, meat from the diet, and meat is a major cause of food poisoning. So frankly being a vegetarian is good for one's health. Finally, the meat industry is a major source of pollution, cutting down trees for grazing space for cattle, catching fish to extinction, and breeding cows that produce methane that is harmful to the ozone layer. To support the meat industry is to support the giant business that is neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly. This is why vegetarianism is good for the environment. I hope you too understand that all of us must take a stand prejudice and cruelty, obesity and disease, and of course the destruction of our beloved world, and for these reasons, it is indeed good to be a vegetarian. Thank you, and please vote Pro! [1] http://www.time.com...

Title: Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg Content: I accept your challenge. Good luck to my opponent. First of all, please choose your exact definition. It's either vegetarian or vegan; there's a difference. But for this purpose, because it was indicated in the title of the debate itself, I choose vegetarian. Yes, there are certain vegetables that are rich in calcium and proteins. But there have been surveys, one of which I will give you a link to, that clearly show that vegetarians lack in zinc, a mineral that helps in cell production, protect the liver from chemical damage, formation of bones, etc. Also, red meat, specifically beef, provides your body and mind with Vitamin B12, which the blood uses to create erythrocytes (red blood cells) and more or less maintain the nervous system. One effect is that without this, it can cause memory loss as well. Science also shows us that heart disease is caused by unsaturated fats, specifically polyunsaturated, which is found mainly in vegetable oil. Pretty ironic, huh? And don't tell me that you can substitute meat and dairy with merely soy. Only fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tampari are actually qualified as healthy. The other soy foods that you vegetarians consume are predominantly tofu, in which is actually ingrained an anti-nutrient, which carries out the nutrients out of your system. Now, to your point about killing innocent animals. Personally, I like to think of myself as an animal-lover and environmentalist. But if we all become vegetarian, we'd also be killing those animals. If a great portion of the U.S. became vegetarian, then, of course, we'd consume way more plants than we usually would in this present day. We would deprive those animals of food, given that most of the food that we non-vegetarians eat are grass-fed. Plus, if we consume more enormous quantities of plants as a result of becoming vegetarian, then we'd dispossess herbivorous animals of their main source of food as well, now would we? And I don't think that would be very beneficial to the environment, either. Unfortunately, life for multiple species cannot go on without consuming life of other species as well. http://www.mnwelldir.org... May God bless you as well. (Are you Catholic? If so, hi five!)

Title: I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian Content: I partially watched the video as asked, but found that it had little impact on my feelings towards meat. I was already well aware of the bitter things that occur in slaughterhouses to put food on our plates; I find it is a necessary evil to maintain a healthy lifestyle with all the nutrients you need to survive. Vegetarians must take extra precautions to gain every nutrient the human body requires. [1] The resolution was that Pro would turn me vegetarian. This has not happened; I will continue to eat meat. Thank you for the quick debate. [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...

Title: go vegetarian Content: Vegetarianism is healthier

Title: A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet. Content: I accept. I would like to point out pro has not said I couldn't take the stance of being omnivorous, as omnivores are meat eaters as well. Point 1- You need fat sometimes. Fat is not bad for you in controlled quantities, and especially when you exercise. Also those who eat exclusively vegetables are at a higher risk for vitamin B12 deficiency. Point 2- Taking the stance of being an omnivore, I see no reason you cannot eat meat for the benefits it has, and vegetables for their benefits as well. Point 3- Your point is valid, however the survey conducted would have had skewed results. First off most people eat meat, so there is obviously more heart problems found among them. Second, we also have to remember that vegetarians are not gaining any good cholesterol. Thank you.

Title: Vegetarianism is wrong Content: Good luck to both of us! :) My opponent begins by pointing out the human teeth structure. While it's true that we have teeth suited for consuming both meat and plants this doesn't necessarily mean we have to. Humans are, by nature, considered to be omnivores. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Due to this nature we are able to survive by consuming only plants. We have the teeth structure that we do so if we do choose to consume meat we can. Secondly, my opponent mentions the higher rates of animal reproduction among certain species that are bred to be consumed by humans. However, one can also assume that this wasn't always the case. For example, humans probably didn't always eat the animals they eat now. One prominent example is the Cro-Magnon man which survived largely off seeds, berries, fruits, nuts, and some smaller prey such as insects and bird eggs. . http://studyingsocieties.wikispaces.com... Another point I'll like to mention is rabbit reproduction. Rabbits are not bred primarily for human consumption, yet have a notorious rate of reproduction. One female rabbit and her offspring would be able to produce about 64 billion rabbits in seven years. . http://www.quickspay.com... Thirdly, my opponent goes on to talk about nutrition. Following a vegetarian diet can carry quite a few health benefits including lower medical costs and lower risks of disease. it is estimated that the medical costs in the United States attributed to meat consumption are about $30-60 billion a year due to a higher prevalence of hypertension, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other conditions. . http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... It has also been observed that vegetarians live about seven years longer than the average meat-eater while having lower risks of dying from diseases such as cancer. On a low budget? Vegetarian diets are much cheaper than an omnivore diet, being able to save about $4000 a year. You'll also be slimmer too. . http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... I'll pass this on to my opponent. Thank you and I look forward to my opponents rebuttals. Good luck . :)

Title: Advocating Vegetarianism Is Not A Solution To Animal Cruelty in Slaughter Houses Content: hello Kevin. as a vegetarian, i will happily take up the arguments of my own cause. I understand your confusion. I agree that tougher standards need to be pushed for in animal slaughtering - that would be a good first step. But first, I want to establish why someone ought to be a vegetarian. it may seem a little off-topic at first, but as i make my point, i think you'll understand why/how it works. To be brief, there are three main reasons to advocate vegetarianism. 1. killing animals is morally wrong. if we can help it, we should not end life. pretty basic. 2. the way in which animals are killed (varying of course by country) is morally repugnant and cruel. Animals ought to be treated better because they have nervous systems and are capable of suffering. 3. raising animals take up a huge amount of resources - food, energy, water. raising animals producing huge environmental waste products - feces, remains from processing, (sometimes dirtying water, etc. as a side note, which creates tons of environmental problems) and also (don't laugh just yet) animal farts and burps. believe it or not, animal farts and burps are the number one cause of global warming gases - more environmentally damaging than cars or buildings. 4. vegetarianism is healthier because animals are the primary source of saturated fats, which most doctors agree is bad for you. Ignore reason four, it doesn't really pertain to this debate, (I encourage you, of course, to pick up a copy of the book "The Way We Eat, why our food choices matter" and learn more about all these problems). How would one subjectively respond to reasons 1-3? Not eating meat is not necessarily the answer, with that I am with you, but not *purchasig* meat is essential. By not purchasing meat, we do not contribute to the problem - by buying meat, one is literally putting money into the hands of those that encourage the problems i offer in 1-3 and telling them "take this money, and keep doing what you are doing. then I'll buy more from you, etc." Thus, vegetarianism is not necessarily about not eating meat, but rather it concerns boycotting an industry that is corrupt, cruel, and harmful to society. In this way, vegetarianism is in fact an effective method of pushing for higher standards and discouraging the industry. For example: If many people suddenly stopped buying pork because they thought the way in which pigs are castrated before being slaughtered (without sedative, etc) the industry would take notice because "wtf? where'd the money go?" they would listen to the activists, and the objections, and they would seriously need to consider giving a little so that they could continue to sell meat. In this way, the vegetarians (those boycotting pork) have stopped the inhumane treatment at least a little bit, despite the fact that many other people ate meat anyway. To respond to your case more directly - you're right of course there will always be meat eaters. but the question is, can we educate enough of them that their human reason shines through and make progressively more and more of them realize that by eating meat they are promoting an industry which is unjust. You really need to warrant this argument more - it is your case's greatest weakness. without showing how vegetarians will never get enough recruits to make an impact, your argument doesn't support itself. good question though!

Title: A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet Content: Topic:A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet. I'll take on the Pro position of the debate, meaning I'll argue for vegetarianism.Definitions:A vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat or fish, but does not necessarily abstain from eating animal derivatives like eggs and milk.By "ethical" I mean morally right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. This includes examining the issue from both ecological and animal rights standpoints, as well as the implications to us as humans.By a "meat-eating" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person). Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Don't just say "you can't survive without meat" unless you back it up with a reliable link. Also, it is best if you tell us why this source is credible.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)

Title: Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial Content: Once again, yes you can get nutrition but you do not get the extra two years of life, according to the German Cancer Research Center, Loma Linda University, and many other studies. The oldest woman ever was a vegetarian, and even if people smoke and are vegetarians they generally have a longer life expectancy. They are also less likely to have cancer and osteoporosis. Unless you have an IQ so low that you need a tape to tell you to breath, having these reduced risks and longevity of life would be seen as healthy due to the fact that you restrict your meat intake. Why is it so hard to comprehend? I would like to remind voters that even though these benefits are achieved through other forms of vegetarianism, pesci-vegetarianism is still beneficial. I would also like to remind you that there would not be billions of people jobless. We created diversified economies for this very reason. The fish industry would need more workers, as would the soy industry. Yes, jobs in the meat industry will disappear, but with new demands comes new jobs. And please remember, I never said that everyone should go vegetarian and not everyone will, but the people who do it (the number of vegetarians have increased to 10 times the number that they used to be), will benefit the environment, and if it keeps on growing at this rate, the economy will be able to go into a smooth transition. About elitism once more, people could make the same argument about gyms and other health centers. So maybe it is a type of elitism. Does it have a negative impact? Some people could say that because people are getting healthy that TV industries are at steak, which they are. But we do not see this as something that it necessarily harmful. That will not cause a WWIII, and neither will pesci-vegetarianism, as my opponent points out, so why won't people at least have respect for the idea. Besides, once again going back to the environment, will the environment wait for the economy to be perfect? No, which is why sometimes we have to realize that the earth itself is more important than money. My opponent claims that economic impacts outweigh environmental impacts. Which is more important I ask you? The air you breath or the green in your wallet? The earth you live on or your job that depends on the earth give us a healthy environment. Well, with methane and nitrus oxide emitted from the animals that you eat every day make the economy worsen because the earth worsens. When the health of the earth is at steak, we simply cannot continue to ignore it and let it get worse as we become selfish and decide to not help. CON says that this way of eating is horrible overall, but really it is part of a solution to our problems, because we live longer, we help the earth, we take away jobs but give new ones. It helps the air in your lungs and the earth that you see every day.

Title: Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat Content: No questions, then lets get this party started! A few definitions. Vegetarian: "a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc." [1] Meat: "the flesh of animals as used for food."[1] First of all, why are some people vegetarians? some people think its because they are doing the animal a favor, but they are hurting the animal by not eating it. Now to my 4 points 1. The meat is already there. 2. It's a huge waste. 3. It is healthy to not be a vegetarian. 4. Not eating meat wont change anything but make waste. 1. The meat is already there. The basic outline of how a cow becomes a hamburger, a cow is raised and then when it gets big they kill it and turn it into ground beef and then it gets packed and sold. One reasons why vegetarians choose to be a vegetarian is because they think they killed the animal by eating it, so in an attempt to save it they choose not to eat it. It is common sense that the vegetarian didn't kill the cow and that cow that they admired not to eat will go to waste if they don't eat it. 2. It's a huge waste. It's a huge waste to say no to eating meat. Some vegetarians think that not eating meat will preserve the animal, but it would make the animal die for nothing. Lots of grains, and other resources are needed to raise animals to slaughter them to make meat, if they don't get eaten all of those resources go to waste. 3.It is healthy to not be a vegetarian. Meat contain a lot of needed nutrients such as iron. Meat is very easy to get and it contains protein and iron. Not eating meat can lead to unhealthiness due to not getting enough iron or protein or any other important nutrient in meat. 4. Not eating meat wont change anything but make waste. Some vegetarians think that not eating meat will make it so that the slaughter houses will stop making meat. Not eating meat will not change anything, but make some meat go to waste. That is my case on why vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat. Vote Pro! [1] = Dictionary.com (just search the words)

Title: Vegetarianism Content: Given the hilariously vague opening statement of my opponent, I am forced to simply define my own ground for this debate in negating the topic of 'vegetarianism'. I will do this, with a very particular slant: I will negate that Vegetarianism is a moral imperative. But, I will not disagree that if you don't want to eat meat you should have that right. Most theories of rights tend to assume that human beings have rights that other creatures do not. For example, if I am sick I can commit bacterial genocide by taking antibiotics to remove the infection, but if I take the life of a single person I have committed a truly heinous action. I argue that this distinction is derived from the vastly different cognitive capabilities between humans and animals which create different desires that must be preferenced accordingly. This leads to animals not having a fundamental right to life because their cognitive capabilities do not allow them to understand the abstract concepts of life and death. To do so requires the uniquely human concept of self-awareness to allow one to understand existence and the possibility of an end to existence. So, animals do not have a right to life and their desires are worth less than our own so eating meat is morally OK. This reduces vegetarianism to a matter of preference making it no more weighty a decision that deciding which flavor of ice cream to order

Title: Vegetarianism Content: Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America. Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Rounds 2 and 3 will be arguing and clash, and Round 4 will be for summarization. Please abstain from semantics, introducing arguments in the last round and ad hominem attacks. Feel free to ask questions in the comments, but please do it before you accept.

Title: Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Content: Pro Statement : 1. "Eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. " a) First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. b) Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. Rebuttal : 1) I state in the case that eating meat is not a huge problem now. It's just a small case. Pro is like to excess the problem like it's a doomsday or what. ( no offense ja, Hehehe. .) a) I think that there are a distinction between a land of nature for planting trees (forest area) and a land of nature for grow animals (savannah or steppe (lots of grass and water)). If there are forest that have been cut down, it mostly used to build a resident for people to live. The area of forest is not good to grow livestock animals. If you think that being vegetarian would save nature, it would be a wrong way of thinking. You still need to do both of your solution, maybe either do the reforestation, planting trees or be a vegan. b) Overweight already have a source of problems. The main problems is a no good lifestyle. In detail is like Eat a high Calories food, like meat, fried food and No body training. To prevent overweight, they need to change their lifestyle into a good one, like more body training and eat a healthy foods like vegetables. But Vegetarian is not really the urgent decision to do in this 21st Century. Disastrous can be happened if your lifestyle is no good. Arguments : 1) Freedom of Choice i can said that you have choose to be a vegetarian. It's your choice, no one can blame you to have this choice. I think it's a good choice for someone who wants to let go desire of killing or hurt animals. But, it still not a good choice if the goal is to prevent land expanding or overcome overweight. 2) Comparing method i can show another method that maybe in compare with this vegetarian thing, because of so many method, vegetarian become a no more or less effective choice than the other method. a) doing a "fast" (no eating in full a day or half a day) b) Meditate c) Yoga d) body exercise, workout e) etc. .. all of this method is in term to do a good lifestyle 3) Pro's Burden a) show that vegetarian is good in ethical way b) show that why vegetarian is the only choice c) show that 21st Centuries is differ than the previous or the next term to do or not doing vegetarian as lifestyle Thank You :D

Title: Going Vegan Content: Thank you for the great debate topic. Pro's definition of veganism is that of the ethical vegan, which is the orthodox side of veganism. Other types of veganism exist such as dietary veganism, where the reasons for becoming a vegan are more for personal health benefits rather than for the salvation of animals. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would class the dietary vegans in somewhat of a conservative or reformed type of veganism. Some ethical (orthodox) vegans do not like dietary vegans to be called real vegans because they aren't fully converted to the full vegan lifestyle. http://www.theveganwoman.com... You'll see me draw several parallels between veganism and religion in my arguments as I will show that vegansim is very much a type of religion. It's not a religion that touches the subject of God, but its a religion where the orthodox adherents must not waver in their vegan beliefs or actions unless they are to be ridiculed and excommunicated from the community of orthodox vegans. I hold that every person should have the freedom to do what they choose, live the life they want to live, and live with the positive or negative consequences of their decisions. Pro's argument is that "people should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle, and that way we don't harm or kill animals." In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by "people." Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take "people" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post.

Title: You can't be a meat eating environmentalist. Content: Clearly, pro has blinder's on. I would much rather have everyone recycle, regardless of they're choice to eat meat. So now that I have efficiently proven that you don't HAVE to be a vegetarian to help the environment, I'll tackle your theory or eating animals hurting our world. If you want to be 100% environmentally friendly you can eat meat. Going to farms that give they're animals special attention, open pastures to graze in, and no chemicals is the key. These animals live healthy lives, and animals fecal mater can be gathered, and used as natural fertilizer for vegetarian's vegetables. Also, think of ALL the land that would be monopolized if every single person in the world went vegetarian. Not to mention the equipment used to harvest, process, and deliver the veggies. To live a totally comfortable life, no body is going to be perfect, environmentally. Our job should be to do everything possible to make sure we're thinking about our impact, and take steps to make our world cleaner. Beef is the animal that releases the most carbon into the atmosphere. Human's release more. What about the carbon chickens, or chicken eggs release? The chicken close to none, and the egg absolutely none. Should we all stop eating poultry and fish because beef releases carbon? Carbon is a natural gas, and in moderation is normal. Man made production of carbon is what we need to watch out for and moderate. Would vegetarian's want to kill all of these carbon releasing animals for the ozone? I don't think so. If human's weren't polluting, then we wouldn't have to think about the carbon released from animals. This, to me is a step off the path of making our world environmentally friendly. Thinking this way is a big deterrent for meat eating people to want to be involved in doing they're part of keeping the world clean. Don't mark meat eating people as hater's of the world. Why don't we all work together and think of feasible ways to help. Having everyone stop eating meat is impossible, and naive. Recycling meat eater's aren't "posers"... they're regular people that recycle. No one can be perfect, I'm sure that you have driven in a car... so that makes you slightly a hypocrite. What's important is that EVERYONE does something they feel helps the environment. So, in my saying that no one environmentally perfect, living a normal life in America. We ALL should be environmentalist, and notice things around us and take steps to better our world. We're never going to be envirnomentaly perfect. What our job is, is to make sure we do what we can to be healthy, and keep the world clean. So, my opponents thoery of not being a envirnomentalist and eating meat has been proven 100% false.

Title: Animal Rights Content: Rebuttal: According to research in the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Following a vegetarian diet reduces the mortality rate from ischemic heart disease by 25% (20% in females, 30% in males). Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome, dementias such as Alzheimer's disease, obesity, and other disorders. A study of vegetarian and non-vegetarian adults, conducted in Taiwan, showed that there was no major difference in the bone density of vegetarians and non-vegetarians, and showed that non-vegetarians are at equal risk from Vitamin B12 deficiency as vegetarians. The China-Cornell-Oxford Project, a 20-year study conducted by Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the government of China has established a correlation between the consumption of animal products and a variety of chronic illnesses, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and various cancers. Vitamin B12 can be consumed by vegetarians in the form of tempeh, collard greens, leafy greens and tofu; Omega-3 fatty acids can be taken through walnuts, edible seeds and flaxseed oil. Milk can be consumed in its organic form by ethical vegetarians in certain countries, especially India (where beef is very rarely sold and is an unprofitable business) and some other countries. Milk can help in calcium and B12 deficiencies. Ethical reason for animal rights: Most people are unaware of the horrendous abuse that animals endure everyday; lab tests on animals have been proven unnecessary and are yet practiced by a variety of companies; animals are killed for ENTERTAINMENT (Spanish bullfighting) et cetera. Animals have the same ability to feel pain as humans, and many can even feel emotions. To help forge society, humans created a concept of ethics, based on the stronger psychology of human beings. While one can argue that ethics is only mutual, and meant for intra-human relationships, why do animals not deserve similar respect from humans? All sentient beings deserve respect. An animal may kill a human, and yet that animal is psychologically made to do such a thing; ethics is too complex for animals to practice. Humans, though, have the ability to extend compassion, and animals deserve this compassion. Animals are an important portion to the world's evolution. Why do animals deserve to be treated equally to humans? Many years ago, humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and psychological environmental-fostering such as compassion. By these ethics, murder and torture, for example, are considered crimes, as is cannibalism. While one could argue that it is biologically necessary for humans to help each other for the survival of the human species, ethics was, in fact, made as the framework of civilization and society for humanity. So, humans gave rights and welfare great importance. Yet, why are animals not given the same respect? As the legendary Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Why do other non-human species deserve such equal respect? 1. Animals can feel emotions and physical impulses. They feel pain, et cetera. 2. By the basic human concept of ethics, they do not deserve any direct infliction of pain by humans, bound to follow these ethics by society. 3. Humans have caused great harm and destruction to the Earth, while animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance. 4. Animals cannot commit "crimes". What an animal does is morally justifiable as animals have a varied notion of "ethics", and do not have the psychological complexity to understand these ethical propositions. Therefore, animals have not committed crimes, and do not deserve infliction of pain. Research on dogs and arthropods at the University of Lincoln showed that these animals react to stimuli by a nervous charge pattern similar to that of humans while experiencing emotions, proving that animals are capable of emotions. Thus, I conclude with the fact that animals deserve equal respect, welfare and rights, and do not deserve to be treated in cruel conditions of factory farming, slaughterhouses and laboratories that practice animal testing. Sources: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Mortality in Vegetarians and Non-vegetarians; BBC news, "Rejecting meat 'keeps weight low'."; Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian diets; International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders: Lower Body Mass Index in Non-meat Eaters; Diabetes Care Journal; Diet-Brain Connection: Impact on Memory, Mood, Aging and Disease - by Mark P Mattson; Proceedings of the Nutrition Society; Public Health Nutrition: EPIC-Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33 883 meat-eaters and 31 546 non meat-eaters in the UK; Environmental Values: Why the Naive Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naive; Journal of Popular Culture: Configuring the Human in Western History; The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity; The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University)

Title: Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so. Content: To get the formalities out of the way;Resolution"Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so. "As Con, I will be arguing against this resolution. As Pro pointed out, this resolution does not cover those whose bodies cannot sustain such a diet due to, what I assume Pro means, a sort of sickness or disease stopping them from being able to survive without meat specifically. Definitions1. Vegan- One who does not eat meat, dairy, eggs or use any animal products** This debate seems to be about diet specifically, so non-edible animal products will most likely not be discussed, but since it is part of veganism I've decided to include it in the definition anyway in case it does come up.2. Ability- The capacity to do something3. Diet- The kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eatsBurden of ProofPro will have the BOP as he is advocating a dietary shift from the current status quo. Given that the scope of Pro's resolution includes "everyone", it falls unto Pro to argue for the sustainability of a vegan diet relative to both the individual and society, meaning Pro must show that a vegan diet can be just as healthy (if not moreso) than a non-vegan diet and show that such a diet could be economically adopted by society. Pro has also opted to argue for the morality of veganism, but unless Pro also intends on arguing for objective morality, the "morality" of veganism becomes relative to the form of morality being discussed, which defeats the purpose of arguing for the morality of anything. Given this, I recommend that Pro does not predicate his case on moral grounds and instead focuses on health and environmental reasons, less this becomes a debate on morality rather than veganism. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.

Title: Vegetarianism Content: I will be arguing against vegetarianism from a health standpoint. My opponent must argue that a vegan diet is healthier. Please begin your argument.

Title: go vegetarian Content: Being vegetarian helps the environment

Title: Eating Meat is Ethical Content: Thank you Byndam for creating this debate, I will defend the position that eating meat is unethical for human beings who are wish to consider themselves civilised....... Eating meat in ethical in some cases where human beings must survive, but in such cases the human being must consider themselves as uncivilised, because in circumstances where a human being is civilised it is completely unnecessary to eat meat and the myth that humans need meat to obtain certain nutrients or vitality is easily busted by observing how the Shaolin Monks who are vegetarian by requirement can perform super human fetes and display strength and skills which are way above the average person who does eat meat....One monk called Shi Yan Ming even boasts the worlds most deadliest punch by far even breaking the record held by Bruce Lee, http://www.history.com... it is no secret that these monks perform super human fetes. and none of them eat meat to get the strength to perform such amazing skills is easily refuted by observing how strong and healthy the monks are able to live. I would like to offer some quotes by very famous and intelligent people concerning the matter of eating meat....The first quote I will offer comes from a well loved scientist, Albert Einstein. "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 This quote is not said whimsically or off the cuff, I believe Albert knew very well what he meant when he stated this and that is that the greatest chance of survival we have is to become a vegetarian race....My opponent states above in his first round how methane from cows is damaging the ozone, well that could be reduced significantly if we humans never bred the poor animals simply to kill them for their flesh to satisfy our taste buds and to supply fast food chains all across the planet. No more characters allowed. Thanks.

Title: Pro's choice Content: During the course of this debate three points will become abundantly clear to the reader. 1. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more healthy for humans. 2. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more humane. 3. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is better for the ecosystem. It is my hope that the reader and my opponent see the clear advantages to vegetarianism as a more reasonable way of life. In his opening statement my opponent makes the claim that vegetarianism doesn't provide humans with enough nutrition, specifically protein. I submit that this claim is patently false. Most foods contain at least some protein. Sources of protein for vegetarians include nuts and seeds, pulses, soya products (tofu, soya milk and textured soya protein such as soya mince), cereals (wheat, oats, and rice). The lack of protein argument is one made up by flesh eaters and is not at all supported by nutritional studies. In fact in relation to human health, studies have shown that vegetarians often have lower incidence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, obesity and some forms of cancer, and actually tend to have longer life spans. . http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org... . http://www.ajcn.org... . http://www.ajcn.org... Vegetarianism is morally superior to the carnivore lifestyle. My opponent makes the claim that it is 'unnatural'. Many of the things that modern humans choose to do with their lives are 'unnatural', but serve to create a better, more humane experience for those around us. For instance much of modern medicine is not at all natural, yet we participate in it because it is more conducive for living a longer life and more empathetic towards other humans. I submit that as humans we have a moral responsibility to maintain the well being of other species around us. All life should be valued, and the practice of slaughtering animals, when there are valid alternatives is simply barbaric and backwards. It is something you would expect from an undereducated society, two thousand years ago, but in this day and age, we should evolve morally to avoid killing other things for our own pleasure. If there are alternatives to meat, then in essence humans are only killing for pleasure, which is similar to watching cock fights, bull fights, dog fights or inflicting pain on animals for entertainment. We all agree that inflicting death and pain on animals for pleasure is morally reprehensible, (I hope), so it is time that we acknowledge what the carnivore lifestyle is TRULY promoting. I will save my third point for round 3. .. . http://search.playlist.com...

Title: It is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons Content: Vegetarianism for the reasons of morality and health concerns are sound arguments for vegetarianism. Before I begin to break down my opponents ideals I will first point out the vegetarians that I will be defending today. The simplest definition of vegetarianism is a diet free of meat. At the other end are vegans, who reject eating all animal-based products, honey included. Raw foodists are vegans who eat mainly raw fruits, vegetables, legumes, sprouts, and nuts. Lets now look at the moral reasons for vegetarianism.1. The vegetarian centre states,"Nobody would argue that animals don't feel pain, fear or enjoyment. This gives them the basic right to be treated in ways that respect their own personal value, just as humans are. This includes the right to live, not to be slaughtered or treated unjustly."This argument is sound. No animal deserves to be killed over another or to be deprived of life. No animal deserves to be raised in a cage all its life to be slaughtered at any moment. Vegetarians realize these moral facts. They sympathize with these animals and imagine if humans were breed to be killed that our quality of life would be terrible. It's almost equivalent to the ideal of treat others how you want to be treated. Im aware that everyone might not agree that they want to be vegetarian because humans are naturally omnivores. Humans are also naturally violent, but that doesnt necessarily mean that we are bound to being violent. We can change who we are and what we do in life with the injection of strong moral values.Let us now move on to the ideals of my opponent."Now, I am strictly against cannibalism."In the paragraph I received this statement from pro he is trying to compare humans eating meat to humans eating humans. Obviously majority of humans don't care about eating animal meat as opposed to human meat. Sane humans would most likely be disturbed by eating the meat of our own species. Wait now that I think about it I see what my opponent means now. But he fails to realize that humans eat food that are in the shape of humans and or human organs. Examples being sour patch kids,eyeballs and arms on Halloween, or maybe pictures sprayed on a cake. Are all these acts then cannibalism? No. Neither is it morally wrong. So making tofu into animals is not immoral. Following my opponents line of logic then when we eat sour worms we are then actually eating real worms. This is basically what my opponent is trying to suggest her. We all commonly know that this isnt the truth. As a famous philosopher once said, Looks are deceiving.Health reasons"Some vegetarians do not believe that eating meat is unhealthy"It seems my opponent attempted to say that eating meat is unhealthy. Here's what the data says...."Most doctors and nutritionists agree that a low-fat diet high in fruits, vegetables, and nuts can be a boon to health. There is also widespread acknowledgment that reducing or eliminating red meat from the diet cuts the risk of heart disease.""Research also has shown that a plant-based diet can improve the health of people with type 2 diabetes. A study in 2004 and 2005 showed that people with diabetes who followed a low-fat vegan diet had less of a need for diabetes medications. They lost weight and their insulin sensitivity increased. They had improved glycemic and lipid control."http://www.webmd.com... It would be absurd to say all vegetarian diets are healthy. This is obviously not true many people only eat potato chips and are still considered vegetarians. Is that type of diet healthy in this situation? NO. Vegetarian diets have the potential to be very healthy. Most vegetable servings have less fat and calories than meat. Obviously meat has fat in it often times alt of fat and possibly cooking oil. You also have the risk of contracting E.coli and other meat-borne diseases. So yes the status quo of being a vegetarian can be more healthy than a meaty diet.

Title: A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet Content: Hello. Firstly, let me compliment you on a well presented and well researched debate. Unfortunately I do not have either the time or the inclination to be as fastidious in my response. As I stated previously, what you are actually referring to is not preference. My dietary preferences are as individual as yours and as individual as everyone else's. What you are actually suggesting is that a vegetarian diet is better than an omnivorous diet. Better with regard to physical health, environmental impact and human morality. But of course, an individual will always have a preferred dietary regime, irrespective of what may or may not be good for them or good for the planet or good for their mental wellbeing. Therefore, it is not possible to question individual preference using scientific data or third party subjectivity. However, statistical evidence does prove that approximately 78% of the world's population has a meat inclusive diet, which conclusively backs up my assertion that globally an omnivorous diet is thought to be preferable by the majority of people. Nonetheless. Are increased health benefits and consequent longevity, beneficial to society and the environment? Population growth as it is, is exponential. Further adding to this problem will only increase human pressure on the environment. The expectation of an ever increasing life span, could be regarded as being just as immoral as eating meat. Food production is one of many human actions that impact on the environment. I would suggest that maintaining our energy dependant and materialistic lifestyles, has a far greater impact. Morals are subjective and human-centric and a cannot be subjected to a greater judgement. That is to say, it is arrogant to proclaim that killing and eating sentient creatures is immoral. Ultimately eating meat is a personal decision, based on personal interpretation of acquired knowledge and acquired conditioning. Lifestyles vary greatly and nutritional requirements vary accordingly. A "well balanced" diet for one person may not be a "well balanced diet for another. Health problems are as much a consequence of lifestyle choice as they are about food choice. In simple terms, a sedentary person, who consumes a poorly balanced diet excessively will inevitably have greater risk of long term health problems and a shorter life expectancy. Whereas an active person who eats a sensible well balanced diet has a much greater chance of leading a healthier, longer life. But of course that does not take into account all the many other non-dietary factors that may or may not impact upon our physical wellbeing and life expectancy. On a level playing field where all people are equal, it might be fair to suggest that a vegetarian diet could in the long term be marginally healthier and therefore better than an omnivorous diet. But as things stand at this moment in time, all people are most definitely not equal, therefore nutritional requirements vary greatly and cannot be judged or set using one standard. One final consideration: Is vegetarianism a lifestyle choice, based on sound scientific information. Or is vegetarianism primarily a moral judgement, that uses appropriate and selective scientific information to back up that judgement? I would suggest that vegetarianism is quite often a very fickle moral judgement, with little or no regard ever given to scientific information or dietary implications. Of course, we must not overlook the fact that in certain regions of the world people are vegetarians out of necessity rather than choice.

Title: Tim Spin's Debate Tournament R1: Vegetarianism Content: Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an carnivorous (or omnivorous) one for healthy adults in modern civilization. By "modern civilization" I'm essentially referring to the fact that alternatives exist. We are not referring to a hunter-gatherer society where food is constantly scarce and man and beast are frequently pitted against each other in an evolutionary show down.I will be taking the PRO stance and the burden of proof is squarely on me. First round is only for acceptance and definitional qualms from Con. Additionally, although we'll try to make the debate quick as I am on a deadline - August 13th through August 20th I will have no internet access. I have made this clear and in the event that the debate does go overtime it will not count as a forfeit, but rather be continued when I come home. Regardless, I will try to respond quickly but thoroughly to meet the deadline.Good luck, Con.

Title: It is healthiest to eat a balanced diet with both meat and vegetable products. Content: We should eat five or six portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but without adding some meat or fish it is hard to make sure our body is getting the protein and iron it needs to be healthy. It might be OK for adults to choose a vegetarian diet for themselves, but should we allow vegetarian parents to impose such a diet on their babies? Meats are an easy and reliable source of protein, an essential building-block for the human body.

Title: People should stop eating meat. Content: One reason to go vegetarian or Vegan is that it's good for the environment. I strongly believe that and know for a fact that factory farms are taking away water and using it for there large unnecessary quantity of animals. I find it horrible to eat and innocent creature that once had a soul and a beating heart.

Title: Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals. Content: The type of vegetarian that we are debating about is someone who is lacto-vegetarian that means they eat dairy products; but no eggs or meat. There are many reasons for being vegetarian and not only because you feel that have had the animals deserved a better life. There are health benefits from being vegetarian as well as solving many world food shortages. Also becoming vegetarian would help the world as well as you, like global warming could e reduced (assuming this is an accepted theory), and if everyone became vegetarian there would be better water supplies throughout the world, being vegetarian can also save you money. Being vegetarian is healthy, Vegetarians are usually lean and strong, because knowing that they cannot eat some things, the watch their diet more than the average person does. Vegetarians rarely have vitamin deficiencies because the foods that they are leaving out don't have many vitamins to start with. Also within meat there are bad things such as fat and drugs that the animal has taken in. I an average stake contains 9.5 grams of fat [1], that is over half of your daily guidance, which clearly is a good reason for not eating too much meat to start with. On top of this the animals that you are eating as a non vegetarian are being filled with drugs and chemicals to make them grow faster, these when consumed in large amounts can make you feel ill and drowsy. There are many other illnesses that you can get from meat, like Osteoporosis, Kidney Stones and Gallstones, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Arthritis, Gum disease, and acne can be caused. This is all because of poor animal fodder. If you were under the impression that meat is good for you there is another problem that faces you which is an excess in protein. The average American eats 400% of the RDA for protein which can cause excess nitrogen in the blood that causes host of long-term health problems [2]. If you are a vegetarian and you don't eat meat, then you also save money, meat is more expensive than vegetables and other vegetarian foods. Also because you are healthy, for the reasons of being healthy see above, you don't have to spend as much money on healthcare as you otherwise would have had to. Reasons to become a vegetarian based on environmental factors is that the production of meat costs more fossil fuel emissions and other bad gasses then producing vegetables. We can also conserve water by eating more vegetables and less meat. "It takes 3-15 times more water to produce animal protein as it does plant protein. " [2]. To help human food resources we can eat more grains. This is because for 100 acres of land we will produce enough beef for 20 people the same amount of land and we can feed 240 people. With the excess food we can feed a lot of starving people. [3] [1] . http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk... [2] . http://www.britishmeat.com... [3] . http://www.flex.com...

Title: I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian Content: I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian!Debate Rules:1) Accept the debate first2) Then watch the video (hint: You do not need to watch the whole video)3) If you forfeit or become overly abrasive - you shall lose the debate4) List further opinions-arguments in the comments**Voters Must Read Comments Before Voting**http://www.youtube.com...

Title: Pro's choice Content: First my opponent attacks nutrition, and protein. Other than meats, there is not a lot of protein in foods such as nuts. Besides, using cause and effect, beCAUSE people will turn to vegetarianism, less people will eat the animals designed to be eaten by humans, thus increasing the amount of cattle, poultry, and pig/hog (whatever you want to call pork), without increasing the amount of room/their food. By doing that, you cause their population to dramatically drop, due to starvation. My opponent says that medication is not natural, when some of it is. The Native Americans used to make medication from plants, with no artificial flavors or benefits, so I can see that medication is sometimes natural. To this day you can find natural medicines for almost anything. . http://naturalmedications.com... This is a lot more natural than going against what we are. As I have stated humans are designed to eat both plants and meats, therefore, it is only natural for us to eat such foods. My opponent's next argument is that vegetarianism is more moral than eating meat. How would it be against our morals to eat what was intended for us to eat? Would it not be more immoral than to let the offspring suffer, and starve, due to the fact there is more of them than there is hunters of them? Why would letting living breathing creatures, their due in at least living a productive life? No it is not like watching cocks fight, or any other animal. If most of us become vegetarians than that would be like watching animals kill each other for fun, my reasoning is the fact that I have brought up twice, that if the population suddenly is not hunted as much, they will make the same number of offspring, and less food, which btw is plants for most of the animals listed, sometimes nuts in the case of poultry. This link is 10 reasons why man is not a vegearian, please read it. It is the rest of my arguement for this round. . http://bodybuilding.com... Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

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

Title: eating meat is not immoral Content: My thanks to Dairygirl for posting this debate. The reality is this: I eat meat, but for a number of different considerations I am not proud that I do so. 1. Humans are omnivorous, not true carnivores. 2. Humans moreso than any other animal have true choice about what we eat, from our ability to shape the environment to support any plant or animal life, to our knowledge of nutrition that has allowed to isolate what components truly make up a healthy diet, we have less need to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore on the planet. To neglect this true choice is indisputably immoral. 3. Meat is wasteful. The amount of crop land it takes to feed a herd of cattle is heinous compared to how that land could be used to grow grains that would feed many more people. Even growing protein-rich crops like Tofu, Quinoia, and Saytan yields enough food to feed more people way longer. 4. Meat is self-destructive. While in very small quantities, meat can be healthy, meat has a high potential to raise cholesterol and contribute to obesity. The addictive nature of meat makes overindulgence in it to be more likely than many other foods. 5. Meat is hurtful. It is a basic reality that in order to eat meat we must harm other creatures. Even early man was not comfortable with this fact and constructed ritual to excuse or be forgiven for the act of taking life to sustain their own. Modern man no longer needs meat to lead healthy, long lives, and thus needn't burden himself with the guilt and moral discomfort for any reason than the sheer pleasure of eating meat. Harming others for ones own pleasure is the definition of immorality. For all these reasons, I urge readers to vote CON. Over to you, PRO!

Title: To be suggested by the contender Content: My opponent stated that vegetarians have "a certain dietary control in GENERAL that leads to these health benefits." Therefore, it is a logical connection to link vegetarianism with the said health benefits. Obviously, vegetarians do have significant dietary control, it is their diet that leads to the health benefits. I'm not entirely sure why that is a logical fallacy. My opponent then suggested the argument of including lean white meat and fish. Certainly, this is a better option than continuing to eat fatty meats; however, for the benefits to be received in full, you must practice a pure vegetarian diet. Not only this, even lean meat and fish have significant health threats. According to the Department of International Health, "The US population typically consumes diets high in meat and saturated fat and low in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. This dietary pattern increases the risk for heart disease, certain types of cancer, stroke and diabetes- four of the leading causes of death in the USA. The costs due to poor diet for just these four diseases are estimated to exceed $33 billion per annum. On the other hand, high intakes of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and 'Mediterranean' dietary patterns, typically high in plant-based foods and unsaturated fats, lower the incidence of chronic diseases and their risk factors, including body mass index and obesity." Now, I don't mean to repeat myself, but combine those facts with the following: According to the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "Demand for meat in the USA continues to grow, particularly for poultry. The American Heart Association recommends an upper limit of 138 lb of lean meat per person each year, more than 80 lb less than the current average US consumption of 222 lb. Americans consume about 10 billion animals each year, not including fish, averaging, for a family of four, 120 chickens, four pigs and one cow." As we can see from these statistics, the average American family eats significantly more chicken, which is considered to be lean meat, than red meat every year. However, they are still experiencing the health problems associated with meat; certainly, not all heart disease can be attributed to the single cow. As the demand for poultry rises, it is clear that more people are being swept up in the "lean meat" trend, but the health problems are not decreasing due to their change in diet. Also, the American Heart Association would not recommend a limit for something they found to be inherently good. As you can see, the average American already well exceeds the recommended limit. Undoubtedly, they would exceed it significantly more if they were to cut out all none-lean meat from their diet. In addition, the Center for a Livable Future blatantly states, "Meat is not a necessary component of a well-planned diet. Ovo-lacto vegetarian diets that include eggs and low-fat dairy products can easily be nutritionally adequate. Studies suggest that diets high in animal protein, regardless of fat content, increase the risk of cardiovascular mortality." This statement out rules my opponent's claim that it is fat alone that causes poor health, as well as their claim that a vegetarian diet is not nutritionally adequate. My opponent's final statement for this first argument was, "So including just a little bit of lean meat in the diet can make up for whatever extremes you need to go through in order to get those nutrients from a vegetarian diet." Apparently, my opponent thinks that taking a dietary supplement is an extreme. They chose to bring in the fact that they are a biomedical student, so I will bring in my own personal fact. I am, in fact, a vegetarian. And I am, in fact, incredibly healthy. And I do, indeed, take a nutritional supplement. It is not at all a hassle, nor an extreme of any sort. A simple multivitamin can make up for any nutritional benefits of meat, while ensuring that you do not experience any of the negative effects of meat consumption. My opponent suggests that their proposal would encourage the meat industry to process healthier meats. Simply because they are processing healthier meat, does not mean that they would produce any less CO2. The meat industry would continue to produce the same amount of carbon whether they're processing healthy or unhealthy meat. The fattening up of the animals does not contribute significantly to carbon emissions. Also, my opponent states that their proposal would increase the fishing industry to satisfy the higher demand for fish. Apparently my opponent is unaware that, at our current rate, the oceans will be depleted by 2025. An increase in fishing would accelerate this process and destroy ocean ecosystems. As a clearly intelligent person, my opponent should understand the delicacy of Earth's equilibrium, which has already been devastated by massive amounts of CO2 and depletion of wildlife. The sudden loss of an entire ecosystem would send countless natural cycles into turmoil. Not to mention that when the fish were gone, people would rely even more heavily on lean meat; therefore, making the meat industry expand and expel even more pollution. A purely vegetarian diet has resounding health benefits, while even a diet including only lean meat and fish can be threatening to ones health. No essential nutrition is lost through a vegetarian diet that cannot be regained through a multivitamin. My opponent's proposal would not, as they said, "be better." It would cause over fishing to escalate, and would not encourage the meat industry to pursue more environmentally sound alternatives. A purely vegetarian diet is the only way to receive the health benefits and protect the environment by reducing fishing and pollution.

Title: People should not eat animals. Content: Mathnerd: Of your three reasons to be a vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is beneficial to both the vegetarian and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is more healthful. All 13 amino acids and other required nutrients may be obtained easily with very much attention. A vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholesterol and very little saturated fat). Actually, some veggies contain huge amounts of saturated fats - coconuts for example. So we are in close agreement on point one. 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contributes to the extinction of many species from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. To say nothing about the higher costs of vegetables because of the reduction of quality arable land. I'm not terribly concerned about green house gases, as I am not a subscriber of human caused Global Warming Theory, but I generally agree with point two. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. My divergence from you position is in the inconsistencies of accepting the consumption of milk and eggs and the fact that your profile shows that you are pro-abortion. Chickens that are used for egg production are kept in tight environments, Additionally their beaks are cut back to prevent damage to their crowded-in neighbors. After a very miserable life they are slaughtered for soup, when they are no longer productive. Presumably, they would still be slaughtered for pet food, even if all persons became vegetarians of the egg and milk variety. In the case of milk cows, heifers are welcomed but (male) calves are eschewed as a liability. Right now they are immediately slaughtered for (monkey) veal. Their venerated sisters will calve and produce milk and calve, again until they no longer produce. They then become food for pets. Not a great life either. Lastly, you favor abortion. Forgive me if I presume that your sympathies are reserved for animals. Even though I am not a vegetarian, I try to limit my intake of animal flesh. I disagree with PETA in their ‘Animal Rights' position. There is certainly, an ethical requirement that we the limit pain and discomfort that farm animals must endure, but animals have no rights. In the other hand . I admire your compassion for animals. Your arguments are well reasoned and strongly stated.

Title: Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Content: Why i should win this debate? 1) I don't think it's a fair debate, because the government team have just found what he wanted to stand for in the 3rd Round. You are the one who created this motion. But when i rebutt your case, you just avoid some question and avoid to answer my arguments but instead try to enlarge the problem with a solution by an unlogical process to get what you wanted. 2) There are lots of my Arguments that you didn't response. Does it mean that you didn't know what to do about it? or what? 3) I already said that the point in your issue is not a Huge thing that you have thinking of. But you are inssist that it's a huge problem that have the solution by choosing a Vegetarian as "Best Solution". But i still didn't see the process that would take into the goal. I Wonder if i being a vegetarian, i didn't eat meat anymore. then everything change to be a lot of forests, no animal harming, everyone healthty and never get sick. It's just to something. So Illogical. It can't be a best solution if you just say about how worst this situation is. 4) I already bring up my other optional for your problems like going to Gym, have an exercise to lower the potential of overweight. Start to do reforestration, no illegal logging, save the gas emission to reduce the effect of Global Warming. I think this solution (Some already be done by some individual, organization, companies, industry, international organization, etc)would be more clear to get into the goal then by just be a vegetarian. 5) Why it's the best choice? why Vegetarian? why the big problems will come in the future for just not being a vegetarian? My suggestion is you show the process of what you want to do, into what you want to get. If not, it will be taste like a glass of sour wasabi with olive oil. Thanks for the debate.

Title: Vegetarianism Content: To clarify, we are debating "Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America" Adding the adjective 'healthy' to adults does not make this debate include that vegetarianism is more healthy. However, I will still address your argument on that. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality, such as good and evil, or right and wrong. Having said that, there is no agreed on definition of 'ethics', as people can have very different views of what is moral or immoral. A couple examples of these would be abortion, and homosexuality. Now, I will start my rebuttal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a specific agency to prevent this. The Agency of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's tasks include the prevention or cessation of inhumane treatment of animals. Slaughterhouses are held to certain standars because of the Humane Slaughter Act, passed in 1958. Inspectors from the FDA or USDA are responsible for overseeing compliance, and have the authority to stop slaughter lines. I am aware that there are certain situations where animals are not killed humanely, or treated humanely. Please note that this is illegal. Pro's next argument does not actually pertain to this debate. It states that a vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet. There are certain situations where this actually is true, such as possibly lowering the risk of heart disease or obesity. Vegetables are generally lower in cholesterol and fatty acid than meat. In today's society, meat is often consider the staple food, or main course in a meal. This is not healthy. The correlation is not between decreased meat consumption, rather it is increased vegetable consumption. There are also a number of health problems related to vegetarianism, including calcium, vitamin b, and fatty acid deficiency. "by buying something, you are supporting it" Buying meat or animal products does not cause the death of these animals. If you were to stop buying animal products, this would not stop the animals from being killed. As for buying these products being financial support of them. This isn't really true, I mean obviously you are buying it, but this suggests that there is a correlation between the numbe of animal products you buy, and the number produced. If you were to stop buying these products, there would not be any less amount of products made. Your first and third point have now been rendered moot. The second never actually applied, and it still does not. "Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided" Of course, I agree. However, this suggests that eating animal products causes suffering, which is false. Now I will move on to my first argument. In nature there is something called a food chain. It is necessary to keep this balanced. Humans are what is known as a tertiary consumer, or apex predator. In nature, tertiary consumers generally are carnivores. Though humans are an example of one that is not, along with bears, both omnivores. It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers. The 3 biggest animals killed for food are pigs, chickens, and cows. Note that all of these animals are primary consumers and in the wild would be eaten by other predators. Yes, humans can survive without eating meat, but it is not wrong to eat meat. Now, my second argument. "by buying something you are supporting it" Vegetarianism is a vague term, as some vegetarians drink milk, eat eggs, and eat fish. Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo. Therefore, by your own argument you are actually funding the killing of animals as well. Note that I did disprove this argument, but I decided to reverse it anyway. I have now rebutted and disproved all of Pro's points, and made two arguments. Sources--------- http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.acsh.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Funny jokes. Content: Now, if anyone here is ethically opposed to eating meat, there is a vegetarian option. You can f*** off.

Title: Cowspiracy Content: Have you watched the documentary "Cowspiracy?" I have, and it was a eye opener for me. It made me realize that the meat eating is a major reason for the global warming. Not only that, but what a difference we can make by reducing our carnivorous. Belive it or not, it helps our future generations, children, grandchildren, and perhaps our great-grandchildren, to be able to live on this earth. Me personally, do not want to stop eating meat completely because I love meat. But, I could imagine eating vegetarian once a week to contribute to the global warming reduces. Imagne if everyone in the world would do that. We do not need to become vegetarians or vegans, but we eat incredibly much meat today and we can make a change. Together we can recude our impact on global warming. Even though it is a small change for us to do in everyday life, it will be a big change for the world. There are many other small things we can change in our lifes that also reduces our impact on the global warming. For example, we can choose to take the bike to school, work, the gym or locations relatively close instead of taking the car. By taking the bike, you get free exercise and at the same time we reduce the carbon emissions. I think most do not know how serios global warming is and what consequences are. I really recommend all of you to watch "cowspiracy", not it purpose for you the become vegans or vegetarians but that more people will relaize how serious the situation is. More in order to you to learn than anything else. We can make a change, do what YOU can to save the world. What are your opinions on meat eating and the environment issue?

Title: Vegetarianism is wrong Content: I will now conclude the debate with a few final rebuttals. I'll begin by addressing my opponent's statements about the Cro-Magnon man. He claimed that they were one group of people living in one small region. However, this is not entirely incorrect. When they roamed they were THE humans, evolving from earlier humans, and then finally into the modern human known as "Homo Sapiens Sapiens". . http://www.elephant.se... Cro-Magnon were all part of the same species so generally all lived similar lifestyles regardless of where they came from. Next, my opponent addresses the point about different trends of meat consumption in different areas. While it's true that fish is consumed on a massive scale worldwide, it's still more widely consumed in coastal societies. . http://www.fao.org... . http://www.fao.org... Next, my opponent addresses technology. It would be very much possible to import and eat tiger meat if people suddenly decided to eat it. The same technology used for processing other kinds of meats would be used. As for rabbit meat, it generally isn't transported as it's consumed on a lesser scale than more mainstream meats such as beef, poultry, and pork. My opponent then goes on to state that humans are the largest predators. However, many animals in the wild die naturally without exposure to humans thus they don't need exposure to humans in order to kill them off. We could get away with not eating meat as other natural elements would kill these animals. As for the neutering, that was intended to bring up the point that animals in captivity are often kept in controlled conditions to prevent reproducing. Nutrition was also addressed. As addressed in the previous round, vegetarians do suffer from health problems, just not to the same extent as meat-eaters. However, many vegetarian health problems result from vitamin deficiency which is easily preventable by taking vitamin supplements. . http://www.essortment.com... Lastly, by giving this debate the title of "Vegetarianism is wrong" it is implying that you're intending to argue from a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective one. I have countered this by stating that saying something is "wrong" is a matter of perspective, which vegetarianism is. There are many facts out there supporting both sides of the argument. Finally, thank you again to my opponent for providing an interesting debate. It has been fun and I will now turn it over to the voters. Good luck to both of us! P. S- please vote fairly! :)

Title: Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet Content: Okay. Several things wrong with Pro's argument. Rebuttal: "In order to save our environment and feed a growing population we need to switch our diets to become vegetarian." In what way is the environment dying off? I know that meat comes from cows, chickens, and pigs, but it's not a non-renewable resource. Just get it from farms, which let the animals breed. Also, it's not like there's only 3 farms inn a state holding only 4 adult pigs at a time. As for the vegetarian part, we eat meat because it has protein. Fruits and vegetables don't contain protein. "We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop." This statement needs to be backed up. Also, are you referring to all of Earth's population eating twice the meat as from 30 years? Because population DOES grow, and that would make sense. If you're referring to a single person eating meat, give proof of this. "Nearly 30% of ice-free available land is taken up by livestock." livestock is animals on a farm. Thank you for showing that we have a sufficient amount of livestock to feed us humans. The next part makes no sense. "One billion people go hungry every day but most of our crops are consumed by livestock." My opponent's saying to stop eating the livestock, and eat the crops, but the crops get eaten by livestock. Therefore, we eat the crops. What does that do for Pro's case? And, again, it doesn't make much sense. Now for my argument. (Yeah, I often get into these debates and argue with new people, but take it easy.) I'll bring up the food chain as my argument: Corn -> Pig -> Human The pig eats the corn, and we eat the pig. But, we also eat corn. It's not like we're carnivores. We're omnivores; we eat both plants and animals! (and candy) Here's a food web (multiple food chains): Human ^ ^ / Corn -> Pig l l V l Chicken l l V V Cow -> Human This is a food web of cows, chickens, pigs, corn, and humans. The energy from the various locations are distributed nicely, I'd say. A tip to Pro: Do not forfeit Round 2. There's a glitch running around this site. If you forfeit a round, the entire debate is on hold until the glitch is fixed.

Title: Vegetarianism is wrong Content: Thank you for an interesting response. I'll now proceed to offering rebuttals to my opponent's arguments. Firstly, I'll like to address my opponent's points about animal reproduction and diets around the world. It makes sense that one group of people would develop a diet based on their environment. To go back to the example of the Cro-Magnon man they ate much different things than what we would consider to be a balanced diet today. Why? They ate whatever they could scrounge from their surroundings. There wasn't much large game thus they didn't eat much meat. It would be the same for a society today living in a landlocked country. They wouldn't eat much seafood in contrast to a coastal or island community. People tend to eat more of the resources that are available around them. As for my opponent's point about beef being eaten worldwide, much of that has likely resulted in modern technology making it possible to raise any kind of animal worldwide. Another point to bring up is that it's now easier to import certain kinds of food due to refrigeration technology so people no longer have to rely on what is available locally like the Cro-Magnon man had to(which eventually led to more meat consumption by humans) as food can be transported over longer distances and kept safe at the same time. http://articles.directorym.com... Next, my opponent addresses the point about rabbit reproduction. Rabbits often breed in the wild which is filled with predators and other factors which would naturally lower the rabbit population. This keeps the population under control. However, the animals which are domesticated or bred for food are usually kept in controlled conditions thus aren't exposed to the conditions that would naturally lower the population. Some examples include the neutering of pets in order to keep them from reproducing(http://www.humanesociety.org...) and segregation based on the gender of the animal. Finally, my opponent goes on to talk about nutrition. My opponent mentions vitamin B12 and that it's non-existent in a vegetarian diet. While meat is the main source of this nutrient it's not the only source. It can also be found in eggs and dairy products, both of which vegetarians consume. Vegans consume neither of these products, but this debate is about vegetarianism, not veganism. There is also research being done to find possible plant sources of vitamin B12. Soya products, seaweed, and algae are all being considered as possible sources. http://www.vegsoc.org... As for the health problems caused by vegetarianism, they are not non-existent. They are just less likely to develop certain health problems such as cancer and heart disease which is the number one killer in America. Cancer is a close second. http://www.cdc.gov... Another point addressed by my opponent is obesity. This certainly occurs in larger numbers of meat-eaters than it does vegetarians. The over-consumption of meat is likely the main culprit. Lastly, my opponent talks about my point about the low-budget of vegetarian meals. It is natural that somebody on a low budget would be inclined to eat less meat as meat is often expensive due to the nature of producing it. http://wiki.answers.com... I thank my opponent for numerous interesting rebuttals. I'll now like to point out that vegetarianism being wrong is a matter of perspective just like vegetarians saying eating meat is wrong. That's also a matter of perspective. Also, certain animals are likely only bred in large numbers due to large demands as a result of the high number of people who consume meat. If vegetarianism was widespread there would be a lower demand for these animals. Good luck in round three! :)

Title: Humans eating non-primate sterilised meat, in moderation, is moral Content: My opponent is trying to take us away from our natural ways of living to the extent that he claims we can live on a vegetarian, he even states vegan diet, and be totally healthy to justify that we aren't built to eat meat. To deny that eating meat is moral one can't simply state that we dont' have to do it. If not having to do something made it wrong to do then debating, especially on debate.org, would be immoral without a doubt. His example of eating his friend Johnny is irrelevant as I stated non-primate meat in the title of the debate states non-primate meat. Humans are omnivores for our teeth has canines and one set of premolars is sharp, we gain weight more rapidly with meat than with vegetables (this is often twisted around to say that we aren't designed for meat but actually is was a warming mechanism that we developed in ice age where not many plants grew but there were mammoths to grab and kill), getting fat form meat meant some people could survive the cold better than others and live to have sex with the woman that the frozen to death man could not live to reproduce with. On top of that, only the females who had this attribute would survive to have babies. DOn't need to source this it's common sense, and irrefutable. Omnivore: An animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin.[1] Sources: [1] https://www.google.co.uk...

Title: Vegetarianism is good Content: I will be arguing that Vegetarianism is not always the right option and that we should not be enforcing Vegetarianism upon them. My first point is that in order to have a balanced diet one will require meat. Now I agree with 'Cloud's' statement that you can probably balance it out by eating other foods that are high in iron and protein. He uses the examples of 'nuts, seeds, and apricots. ' However, the things that he lists are all quite expensive. This point is more important than it first looks. When you are a family that is enduring crippling cuts and are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet, you have to prioritise what foodstuffs you buy. They have to be cheap and bring added nutrition for the right price. You have to eat a lot of nuts/seeds to replicate the benefit of a piece of meat. It is simply unrealistic to assume that these families will make great sacrifices to make sure that they get the right protein and iron intake. And meat is not only bad for your health. There are many benefits that can be drawn from eating meat. It is good for your muscle build up in a way which vegetarian foods can only do at a slower rate. One study found children who consumed two spoonfuls of meat daily in addition to their regular diet had an 80-percent increase in upper-arm muscle compared to other children in the two-year study, according to an article on BioEd Online, the website of the Baylor College of Medicine. [1] His point that meat is the cause of cancer and heart disease is irrelevant as meat is also a preventer of diseases. It is a high source of zinc and so can therefore help build up the immune system. I have proved that meat is not always a liability to a person's health and that 'Cloud' has not considered that those in our society are not very well of will not always be able to afford a stable diet if they are forced to spend a lot of money on other sources of iron and protein. This poses a serious health risk and needs to be examined in greater detail before we can claim that vegetarianism is the best option for every person. In the next round I will be tackling the morality of the issue and be examining the ethics of this debate. [1] Read more: . http://www.livestrong.com...

Title: Should Humans eat meat Content: I thank Con for extending the invitation to this debate. Opening Statement. I argue the Pro position, that humans ought to consume meat, as mankind is designed to subsist on an omnivorous diet. This diet includes the consumption of meat. How our teeth are developed is a clear indication of the omnivorous design of humans, as well as is our ability to digest and process meat into needed nutrition (1). I assume the debate begins in earnest in Round #2. 1 https://www.forbes.com...

Title: Vegetarianism is good Content: Thank you again, 'newspapers_are_cool', for your rebuttal labelled as arguments, and your actual arguments. This round as you kindly reminded us, is a round of rebuttal. Your first point was very passionate, but I feel you had ignored my points, and went over the risk of life threatening heart disease and cancer too lightly. I will not repeat myself, but I will say that meat needs replacing with minerals and proteins. You said that such a 'sacrifice' was too much to ask from the Dickensian families you described, who endure "crippling cuts and are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet". I totally disagree with this, as simple changes are easy to make, and very cheap. Proteins can be found in affordable eggs, milk and cottage cheese, and iron found in baked beans, lentils and oatmeal. Lentils are not, by the way, expensive, sold at about ï¿½1.50 per 100g. In fact, just a cup of lentils has more iron in it than a reasonable serving (3oz) of lean beef. Such changes are hardly a sacrifice, as they are morally good, healthy, and environmentally friendly. And if you are still worried about the human immune system, local pharmacists sell bottles of zinc tablets here in the UK at about ï¿½3 ($4.50 US) or cheaper. One might not want to promote a pill-dependent society, but frankly they have already become ingrained into the modern way of life, from aspirin to contraceptives. Sadly, your point didn't hold water. Admittedly, some will not be able to become vegetarians, due to defects or illness, but this does not mean that vegetarianism is not preferable, just not practical in some scenarios. As this was your only point I cannot rebut any more, but I look forward to your tackling of the morality issue, as well as my other two and my rebuttal in your next round. Thank you again.

Title: Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Content: Firstly, I can't see why you aren't supporting other kinds of eating styles, and only stating why I am wrong. Please say why you think other kinds of food choices can be good in the 21st century. 1. I would like to stand in the "Vegetarian is just the best choice,not the only choice." (Thank you for reminding me.) 2. Also, I agree with you on the fact that the choice is the person's decision, but if a lot of people don't turn vegetarian, big problems will come in the future. Would YOU like a future with huge air pollution, all the forests cut down, etc?

Title: Animals need to be abolished. Content: Ok so if we all go vegetarian then how are people like Justin Rivera sitting right next to you supposed to gain weight with out using the pills and shakes. huh? Also why don't we just get rid of all the unhealthy meats. All of them are not harmful to us so why go vegetarian because some meats are harmful to us? Then about people dieing from animals, if people weren't stupid and didn't swim with the sharks or try to pet bears then less people would die from animal attacks so therefore unlike what you think there are more benefits and animals then there are disadvantages.

Title: eating meat is wrong of course Content: As PRO has chosen not to make any further arguments, or to rebut mine, all of my arguments stand.First, PRO began his debate stating that humans shouldn't eat meat, but in his arguments, he only addressed beef. Even if all of his arguments stand, nothing translates to pork, poultry or any other meat. Secondly, PRO did not source any of his claims, therefore, it can be regarded as opinion.Finally, and most importantly, PRO has not tied any of his arguments to his initial claim. Even if cows can only be happy if they are not slaughtered, and even if humans can full obtain their nutritional requirements through a vegetarian diet, this still does not support his claim that it is wrong to eat meat. PRO has not met his burden of proof.

Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: Ben should become a vegetarian for three primary reasons: A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact than one which includes meat. A vegetarian diet will help him achieve his health goals. A vegetarian diet will decrease strain on our relationship. A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact.It's quite simple: eating 2000 calories from plants uses far fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, who had to in turn eat way more than 2000 calories of plants to create 2000 calories of meat. The reason is that not all of the food animals eat is converted to body mass, as much goes into heating the body and fueling its processes.The waste of water by animals is even greater: "The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef."Even if that calculation is on the high end, there is no way possible that the water ratio from plant to human is equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Physics denies such a conversion.Not only are land and water resources wasted, greenhouse gases are emitted into the air. "Shifting less than 1 day per week’s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers."I mean, check out this awesome chart: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier."The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes."Unlike the first point which is a moral obligation to promote public health, this one rests upon a personal commitment to oneself.http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...A vegetarian diet will make our relationship smoother.In a practical sense, this will benefit you more than me, because when I go shopping, I already purchase only vegetarian foods. Changing your diet to become more similar to mine will make it easier for you to shop for foods we can both consume, instead of focusing on "hirs and his". This benefit will be strongest when we eat out. As it stands, restaurants which cater to your tastes rarely do to mine, but vegetarian-friendly restaurants typically have meat options as well (which comes in handy when dining with friends).Also, there will be reduced moral strain. I'd know that we're trying to help make the world a better place together, as opposed to me bearing the load of not only my own choices but also trying to undo yours (which I can't avoid, as we live in the same house and our choices are tied to each other in many other ways as well).Ultimately, once we're on the same team diet-wise, then we can be That Couple who are so Totally Vegetarian, and further our goal of making our friends gag at how cute we are together. Aww!

Title: Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat Content: =Why would they get offered meat?= In reference to Pro's arguments against "religion" and "personal feelings/psychology"... Pro never limited the subject down to people who are being offered meat, so the subject is about any vegetarian even if nobody ever comes up to them and offers them meat. Maybe these people aren't being offered meat? Or maybe they went to a place that had meat in order to get non-meat items off the menu. Either way "not wanting it" is a perfectly good reason. =Recommendation for Arthritis= Pro says arthritis patients can just ignore the recommendation. This is true, but a person's health is not a "bad excuse" for something, it's a "good excuse". If someone has arthritis and finds the pain is reduced by not eating meat then that is not a bad reason. If even a few people have a "good excuse" to not eat meat then vegetarianism is not "just" a "bad excuse" to not eat meat. =Food Safety= Yes fruits and vegetables need to be washed, but that's much easier than the sorts of preparations needed for meat in many cases. Yes, people eat meat in ancient times when we didn't have modern technology. Regardless today we can make scientific estimates of risk when we eat. If a community is told their meat is tainted with salmonella but their fruits and vegetables are relatively safe it makes logical sense for them to switch to a vegetarian diet for the time being. =The Spoiling Argument= Meat may spoil faster, but other foods spoil too. Milk has an expiration date. Fruits and vegetables rot over time. As for the new people coming into the world the chance of a small number of them being vegetarians is actually quite high. For every single one of them to want to eat meat would be next to impossible. I'm sure the meat industry wants to maximize profits as much as possible, so they would try to predict the amount of "meat demand" in the next generation. In calculating this they would have to analyze vegetarianism and see how the population is going to grow or shrink in the future. Pro makes it sound like because only a small number of people will be vegetarian that therefore the meat industry can't take into account. That's absurdly ridiculous. Industries take into account the numbers and percentages of people's preferences all the time rather than just going on "which is bigger?" If they didn't niche markets would not exist. =Solution to Spoilage= There is an obvious solution to the problem of spoiled meat. Feed it to the poor before it spoils. Not only would it alleviate poverty it would give the meat industry good PR. That the meat industry forgoes this option is its own fault, not vegetarians'. =Political= There are laws, but they are not adequate. Animals are often confined in tight spaces. Some vegetarians might stop being vegetarians if the meat industry or the government would just fix this problem. In that sense the waste isn't the vegetarians' fault, it's the meat industry's. A few simple changes could make the problem go away. www.meat.org Furthermore there is now research into test tube meat and a lot of vegetarians say they wouldn't mind eating it if it was on the market. Vegetarians may be pushing ahead scientific research by abstaining from traditional meat. http://www.examiner.com... =Freedom!= I'll cap this off by saying this is America and in America people have choice, choice to choose what to eat. Vote Con! Vote for liberty!

Title: It is moral to use other creatures as resources. Content: "Without meat many people would starve and others would suffer deficiency diseases. This statment is very true as i hope most people already know. Meat is a main source of food for humans and without it much of the worlds population would decrease dramatically and drastically. Alot of people respond to this saying we could live as vegetarians, but this is not true. For one, several vegetarians die annually because they don't have meat whether its the lack of proteins or there body simply can't handle it. In conclusion, without meat millions if not more people will die. I do see this being a moral point to use animals as meat. "-Pro has brought up a topic which has nothing to do with morality- but health instead. Nonetheless, I will argue his point. Animal products have been proven many times to hurt, not help, the human body. The animals you get your meat, milk, eggs, and otherwise from are pumped with fat hormones and other unhealthy artificial chemicals. You can easily receive all the nutrients needed to support your body if you are a vegan. If the entire population of Earth was to stop eating meat, starvation would significantly decrease. This is because we could use the 2,500 gallons it takes to make just one pound of beef to grow crops and feed the hungry. No vegetarians or vegans have ever died because of a lack of meat. This information is entirely false and it has been undoubtedly made up. "Hides fur and feathers are environmentally friendly, man made fibers are not. This is an obvious point, this is in realtion to our clothing the hides and fur of animals should go to a good use since we already put them down for meat so how is it not moral? For those who still believe it isn't moral i shall point out there hides and fur cause no harm to our enviorment while man made clothing does. If we only used man made fibers then it would destroy the enviorment cause harm for all species not just humans. "-Once again, Pro has brought up an argument which has nothing to do with morality. You have not given any reason for why hides, furs, and feathers are environmentally friendly, which they are not. "Without animal research for new products and medicine many people will die or become ill. I believe this is where many people have problems with this issue and believe it is morally wrong to use animals for research, i disagree. How can we consider it moral to watch many if our own population die off when we could use a small portion of other species. Not only does this help save the human population but also there own we cannot come up with cures for animals aswell as ourselfes without them. "- Simply because our race would have to suffer if we did not use non-human animals does not justify us using other creatures as test subjects. If turkeys were as intelligent as humans and wanted to develop a cure for a disease only found in turkeys, would we say it is OK to use we humans as test subjects? Of course not! So why is it OK for us to use other earthlings? "Without zoos, circuses, and other performing animals people will lose their respect for wild creatures. This is another touchy point in this issue where i believe most people are mistaken. I would like to start off on this point by explaining these animals dont go through as much harm as people think they do. It's not to often that animals are abused or hurt is zoos,circuses,etc. .. . actually other than when performing these animals live rather pampered lives. That is not the full point though, if these animals weren't in entertainment many people would lose respect and care for the animals as they would see them as worthless. "- Firstly, animals actually go through more harm and more pain than many think they do. Circus animals are hit, slapped, whipped etc. when they do not do as told. These animals live the very opposite of pampered lives. If a human loses respect for other creatures simply because it does not ever get to see it enclosed in an area smaller than their bedroom or seeing a creature perform a magnificent trick at a circus, it is the human's problem. Why should an innocent being suffer because a child wants to see it do a trick after much pain and suffering? "i would have to disagree with this as if we stopped using animals for resources more humans and animals would suffer because of it so is it moral to save a few and kill many or the other way around? "Pro has posted a very false argument. No humans or other creatures would suffer if we stopped using them as resources. "I agree that we should maintain a form of equality between all species on earth but not in the way my opponent has used it. if one life is equal to another is 20 lifes equal to a thousand? No. at least not in moral speaking terms. His case in all makes sence but not in a moral standard, we do not violate the principle of equality we enhance it. Therefor, there can only be a pro side for this topic. Thank you,"-I never said that one life is equal to twenty. You are arguing on things that I never said. You have stated that by using animals as resources we enhance the principle of equality. How ridiculous! How does using other earthlings possible enhance the principle of equality in any way, shape, or form? Pro has not posted any firm argument for why it can be morally justified to use animals as resources.

Title: We should all be vegans Content: I never denied that humans are herbivores. That's correct. But we can handle cooked meat so there shouldn't be any problem with eating it. It all comes down to what we choose and wish to eat. We don't NEED to eat meat, but we do because we enjoy it. Bringing up the topic of lifespan isn't really necessary; people who eat candy and chips all day likely know it's unhealthy and that it will affect them negatively in the future but they do it anyways. "Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish." How so? Please give examples if you can. Overall, people should have the choice to be vegan or not rather than forced to do so. Encouraged, yes. Forced, no. You see, barely anyone except who agrees with you cares about your opinion. Unfortunately, that's how life works. So go ahead and wish all you like that people would change their diets, but a large majority of people won't care about what YOU want THEM to eat.

Title: Eating both non-vegan and vegetarian diet for ethical reasons is hippopotamus. Content: "I will not argue that a vegetarian diet is healthy or in practice attainable for human heath but, you fail to connect that such practice is ethical. Presently you tout animal ethics is preferable without regard to the cascading effects that would precipitate greater harm against the human that is also an animal." Con An interesting point of view. Indeed there is vested interest in the meat industry. Yet, this doesn't mean change has to happen overnight. A chaotic situation would arise if massive change happened over night. A more gradual change could be implemented. As for the economy there are some who think people are much healthier on a vegan diet. That health care costs would be reduced. I know in the USA health care costs keep rising. "$245 billion: Total costs of diagnosed diabetes in the United States in 2012" diabetes.org To stay on topic though the main point is vegetarians indirectly cause animal deaths. Vegetarians have animal blood on their hands. It annoys me that some hold their-selves on their high horses thinking they are so grand. If you want to save animals go vegan. As you can see eating eggs is one of the highest causes of animal deaths from the below graph in the animal visuals link. Milk is much higher than vegetables, fruits, and grains.http://www.diabetes.org...http://www.animalvisuals.org...

Title: To be suggested by the contender Content: My opponent has elected to be the instigator of this debate, and I shall respond accordingly. I say that vegetarianism is NOT the best diet one can take. Rather, a vegetarian diet that also includes fish and lean meat. I am a biomedical student, and I can very easily explain the misconceptions of my opponent's sources of health statistics. The statistics my opponent provided in all part 1 were valid, but my opponent's interpretation is an example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. Cutting out meat from the diet isn't the immediate cause of the morbidity and mortality, it's just that statistically speaking, those who exercise some form of diet control tend to be healthier. The majority of us who are omnivorous also account for a massive amount of the population that has chronic health disorders such as diabetes and hypertension. I propose it is not the actual diet that excludes meat, but the fact that vegetarians have a certain dietary control in GENERAL that leads to these health benefits. Therefore, my proposal that the diet also include lean white meat and fish is just as good as my opponent's proposal of pure vegetarianism. Unless my opponent can provide data where vegetarians are compared with those who also include lean meat and fish in moderate quantities, and that this data shows that the vegetarians are significantly healthier, there is no reason to assume that MEAT causes poor health. It's FAT that causes poor health. I will now explain why the inclusion of meat is a great benefit to our diet. Human beings, in order to carry out the biochemical processes that sustain life, require amino acids. These compounds come in 21 natural types that when strung together, make proteins. Proteins are the primary macromolecule responsible for our bodily structure, and also for the structure of other animals. The body produces many of these amino acids, but there are quite a few that must be consumed in the diet. A vegetarian diet is composed solely of plant life. The structural compound for plants is cellulose, an indigestible substance that goes in one end and out the other. We cannot derive amino acids from a purely vegetarian diet, this is why evolutionarily speaking, we need to eat meat. All meat is made up of nearly pure protein, and each protein molecule is made up of hundreds if not thousands of amino acid molecules of all varieties. So including just a little bit of lean meat in the diet can make up for whatever extremes you need to go through in order to get those nutrients from a vegetarian diet. As for my opponent's part 2, I believe that my version of the diet, which includes fish and lean meat, would be better as well. The meat industry would suffer greatly in my suggestion too, but not close down completely as my opponent's suggestion would force them to do. In fact, my proposal would select for a new meat industry that processes healthier meat, and instead of fattening up the animals, they would try to keep them as healthy and chemical free as possible. In addition, the fishing industry, which is a massive industry in and of itself, would be even more efficient with the high demand in fish. Thus, my proposal has nearly all the benefits of my opponent's proposal with none of the bad side effects.

Title: Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Content: Actually, growing the animals for meat IS becoming a huge problem. For example, McDonald's. To provide all that meat, they need several billion cows a year, and they need huge ares of land to grow all those cows. Also, there aren't much distinction between lands of nature and lands for growing animals. Forests, fields, and lots other places with the right conditions can be used for both growing nature and growing animals. Forests ARE pretty good for animals, since there is water, fresh air, basically everything an animal needs to survive. Secondly, vegetarianism might not the only way to save nature, but it may be the biggest way, don't you think? I said that you could be vegetarian, not forced to be. I meant that vegetarian would be the best choice. You can choose not to be vegetarian, but I think it's the best choice. Also, the other methods you showed me are for good lifestyles, and have nothing to do with the other problems of eating meat, so that doesn't really count (no offence), and can you suggest some things that might prevent the other problems of not being vegetarian? I think that vegetarianism is the only ethical choice because first, by eating vegetables, you can get all the minerals needed, like vitamin C, D, E, etc. Also, I don't think it's moral that all those animals are dying out only to give us food. Third, the minerals needed from meat can always be replaced by something else, like tofu or mushrooms, so meat isn't actually necessary.

Title: Argument for Vegetarianism Content: For my opponent to win this debate pro must prove all these point. first it is almost impossible to say that something like eating meat or not is morally better because morals are constantly changing from place to place and time to time. someone who lives in the desert where very little grows there main source of sustenance is live stalk, how would you possibly tell them that what they are doing is wrong. I will hold off on the health aspect till you make an argument as to why vegetarianism is healthier. How does eliminating a food source help stop world hunger. The environment is another topic I will hold off on till my next round.

Title: Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once. Content: In my opinion, kids born to vegetarian households should be allowed to try meat out. Because it is their decision if they want to eat meat or not. If they do, then when they go out to eat or over to a friends house they should be allowed to eat meat. I'm not saying that the vegetarian parents should cook meat on their grill, oven, etc. what I'm saying is to let the kid eat what he wants when He out to eat. And if the kid doesn't like meat or he truly does believe that meat us murder, then he can choose to live that lifestyle. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some parents would say that you can make your own decisions when your older. But by that time since the kid has never had meat. They will get sick from it everytime they try to eat it. Plus, kids can get bullied at school fir being a vegetarian. Or worse, kids could try to force them to eat meat. Which could mean a lawsuit. I will get into much more detail with each of these things as the debate moves on. And once again, I'm not against people being vegetarians.

Title: Vegetarianism Content: A strictly vegetarian diet can promote health problems.

Title: We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan Content: This debate is impossible to accept. Only want good debaters. This statement does not apply to primitive societies, nor force to achieve it. It is suggesting that if, as a society we became vegan, we would be better off from a selfish point of view. But also, that it is in my view, its the only moral option for us.

Title: We should all be vegans Content: Humans are mostly designed to be herbivores, but our system can handle meat as well, meaning we are omnivores. What you believe is right will differ from another person's view, so if you think that everyone should be vegan another will disagree. People should choose what they eat, not have it chosen for them.

Title: Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg Content: Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you!

Title: Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation. Content: I believe that global Vegetarianism would benefit our nation and bring back a sense of humanity again. I remember when I was told how meat was made and felt very disgusted at how we slaughter innocent animals although we have plenty of other food options and sources. Other food sources may include: grains, nuts, vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates and in certain Vegetarian diets dairy products and eggs are also consumed. Going Vegetarian benefits the animals as 2.5 million innocent animals are being slaughtered everyday in the UK alone and most are killed in extreme conditions and are treated with lack of respect beforehand. Between the years of 2010 to 2012 the numbers of Vegetarian adults and children, between 1.5 and 18, has increased significantly. In 2010, 583 children and 548 adults reported as being Vegetarian across the UK. In 2011 this figure increased to 1095 children and 1031 adults. Rising to 1582 children and 1491 adults in 2012, shows that Vegetarianism is becoming a more and more common necessity in people's diets. In this debate I will be arguing that Vegetarian is the way to go and the position of Con should argue that it is not. I hope this will be an interesting debate. Good luck. Sources: https://www.vegsoc.org...

Title: We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan Content: I accept. In Pro's resolution, "We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan," I find it necessary to define the term "should" so that the implications of the resolution are more clear. [1]*Using this definition of the term "should", the resolution claims that everyone in the world is obligated to become vegan. Since this is a positive statement, burden of proof lies with Pro.I shall present my arguments:Contentions:C1. Human Rights- Human Rights were created by the United Nations to have a global understanding of how to treat individuals. Fundamentally, it implies that human beings are free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not violate human rights. Of course this is not completely true, as individual nations have their own separate laws outside of the 30 Human Rights. However, since every nation has different laws, the only way to account for every human being in the world is through Human Rights, which is acknowledged globally. [2]--> Therefore, fundamentally, people are free to do what they wish as long as they don't violate the 30 Human Rights established by the United Nations. Their only obligation is to follow the Human Rights. And since not being a vegan does not violate any Human Rights, they are not obligated to become vegans.C2. Personal Preference and Right to Choose- There are many people in the world who don't want to be vegan. Why "should" they be something they don't want to? C3. Food is Not a Luxury (in many cases)- There are many people who cannot afford to be picky with their food and choose to be vegan. What if your in an emergency and you need to eat something or you'll die? I have a teacher who went camping once and got lost in the woods for 2 weeks and had to survive on squirrels and birds because there was nothing else to eat and many of the plants were poisonous. "Should" he have been a vegan then and died?C4. Food Reduction- Let's say there is x amount of food available in the world, and y amount of meat and vegan not-approved foods in the world. Should we adopt a worldwide vegan system, the amount of food available to us would be x - y. That means there will be less food available for mankind because we don't eat meat. This is tied to the previous contention.C5. Economic Crisis- Fundamentally, an economy is fueled by entrepreneurship and the buying and selling of products. Many products in the market are not vegan-approved, such as dairy products or anything with the slightest bit of meat in it. - If the world adopted a vegan system, many products would either be banned or not consumed. Many people would lose their jobs. - Take McDonald's for example. [3] McDonald's is a huge multi-million dollar corporation that provides food with meat in it. There are approximately 1,800,000 people working for McDonald's. If everyone was vegan, McDonald's would shut down and 1,800,000 people would lose their jobs. - And McDonald's is only one out of several mega-corporations that will shut down, resulting any many people losing their jobs. Every fast food franchise, every dairy company, they all get shut down. Rebuttals:"we would be better off from a selfish point of view."- From a selfish point of view, we would be better off not enforcing our own beliefs and (eating) habits upon others. There are people who don't want to be vegans. It would be selfish to want others to eat the same way you do, assuming you are vegan, even when they don't want to. "But also, that it is in my view, its the only moral option for us."- I request Pro explain this claim. How is this the only moral option for mankind? As explained in my last contention, millions of people would lose their jobs. Is it moral to lose them of their jobs and destroy the economy just so that everyone can be vegan?Sources:[1] https://www.google.com...[2] http://www.samaritanmag.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s

Title: vegetarian school lunches Content: Vegetarianism - the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. It costs 3.00$ to make a school lunch. the schools get 2.50 for the lunches. as i will continue to say, adding a salad bar would add .10cents, now I don't think that this will affect many people in the long run. As you may know, vegetarian foods have no cholesterol and lots of fiber; meat, eggs, and dairy products contain a lot of cholesterol and have no fiber. No wonder that meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are. Recent surveys show that about 2% of children under age 18 consider themselves vegetarians, about the same percentage as adults. With nearly 50 million children attending public schools, that means approximately 1 million children who don't eat meet line up for school lunches each day. "Less than 5% of the population are vegetarian, so there's a potential that the food will be wasted when students choose meaty items instead." Of the 50 million children in schools you are saying 1 millions choices would be "wasted"? And that is only 2% of vegetarians, as you can see my opponent cannot keep their facts correct. Schools in many areas have responded by adding salad bars as well as more fruits, vegetables and meatless entrees, according to Marcia Smith, president of the American School Food Service Association. Over the past five years, some schools have begun serving a vegetarian item every day, she said. Schools must also accommodate children who don't eat meat for religious reasons. To rebut your Hindi comment, my friends, Ravi Deasi and Swetak Pradhan are Hindi. His family finds it easier to go all vegetarian then no beef, in case you dd not know this hinds don't eat beef other meats are fine. Also if some of the schools can add vegetarian maels, even if it IS just a salad bar, they still can be respected. " "I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table AND for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines" This argument really has no impact for the pro side. That's great that you sat with vegetarians for a week and a half. I'm happy for you. I really am. However, what's your point?" If anyone would actually pay attention and read what I said iI would not need to restate myself. i did not say I had, i said and which means i continue to in the context of the sentence. i apologize for the off topic, but we do get points for things like that, and this my help you understand how that "point" of mine effects my topic. http://www.todaysdietitian.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.todaysdietitian.com...

Title: Humans don't need meat; eating it is an immoral choice Content: Humans might have the physical equipment to eat meat, but we do not have to do so. People should make a moral choice not to eat other creatures. In just the same way we know that men are capable of great aggression and physical violence, but society says that such behaviour is unacceptable.