Question: Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: Milk is good for you.

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk is extremely healthy for people because it contains vitamin D

Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: R2 Rebuttals"Milk is good for you." nathanw2002I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I think I've adequately defeated this bare assertion made by my opponent already in round one. This is a bare assertion by nathanw2002 because the statement "milk is good for you" is true only because my opponent says so.12. http://fallacies.findthedata.com...

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: As con had only argued one point my original arguments still stand. Milk is not really healthy for you.

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk contains vitamin D which as everyone knows is essential to bone growth and strength, maybe there isn't much evidence to support the fact that milk makes your bones stronger because we already have more than enough to support it. The fact that your even arguing whether or not milk is healthy for you shows that you shouldn't even be debating this topic. When babies are born all they drink is milk, and that's because it is essential to life

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Milk has been a part of the human diet for centuries. It is the best drink to consume for re hydration besides water. Milk deficiency can lead to osteoporosis. Milk supplies the body with a good source of calcium and vitamin B and D. Milk is good for the skin which is why it is an ingredient in most lotions. In addition, it provides protection for the enamel on teeth and prevents decay.

Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: Resolution:Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Bop:Burden of proof will be upon the instigator. Structure:R1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 Defend your argument against opponent's round three rebuttalDefintionsCow "cow 1 (kou)n. 1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos." [0]Milk" 1. A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young." [1] Thanks in advance for accepting. Sources0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: Dairy milk typically consists of carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. None of these are particularly harmful to humans. According to milkfacts.info, "milk is 87.7% water, 4.9% lactose (carbohydrate), 3.4% fat, 3.3% protein, and 0.7% minerals (referred to as ash)." Yes, milk is 88% water, and there is nothing else in milk that is specifically harmful. The USDA claims that milk is prime source of potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. Each of these is very important for bone health. (webMD.com)

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Great debate, Pro. Let's begin: "Drinking milk is healthier. .. " Well, juice is actually healthy. You can find many dairy products, but there is not much citrus fruit in the world. Therefore, juice is more healthier than a milk. 87% is milk. My round two arguments have not been refuted. Therefore, my argument stands. You did not refute about allergies, sugar, and saturated fat. In response to the cholesterol argument, this was from rense. com. Technically speaking, bacon does not have more cholesterol. I believe that you are confusing it with sodium. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agree before: Pro Agree after: Pro Conduct: Pro Spelling and Grammar: Con Convincing Arguments: ? ??

Title: Should we drink milk Content: Drinking milk can cause osteoporosis.

Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Chocolate milk is healthy because it contains the same 9 nutrients as white milk. Chocolate milk drinkers are not heavier than non-milk drinkers. You can find an explanation video to support this at youtube.com and type in Midwest Diary Chocolate Milk nurse. This topic is well known and many people say that yes, chocolate milk is healthy... under 2 conditions. If the chocolate milk is LOW FAT and that you do not drink chocolate milk too much. Thank you and please comment on this topic! If you have any suggestions please reply to this comment. If you may know me, please also reply too.

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Counter Argument... 1)Cow milk may have active hormones, but so do other things that we eat such as burgers and chicken. It may be disgusting to you but that doesn't automatically correlate to any means of harm to the body. 2)Milk does have magnesium along with vitamins A and B, zinc, riboflavin, carbs, and protein. 3) Milk high content of water molecules actually makes it beneficial for it is a good source of re hydration. Drinking milk is healthier than drinking unnatural juice, soda, and iced tea. 4) Cow milk has feces and bacteria that is destroyed during the pasteurization process. Milk is not supposed to be placed at room temperature to begin with because to much time out of the fridge can cause the milk to be tainted. Milk should always be in the preserved in low temperatures which is why supermarkets always have milk in the cooler. 5) The claim that the cholesterol in mil is equivalent to 53 slices of bacon is far fetched. Eating two strips of pork bacon is unhealthier than consuming three glasses of milk. Milk contains about 20mg of cholesterol. 53 strips of bacon far exceeds that. In fact the Teagasc Dairy Products Research Centre has conducted recent research on the utility of milk in neutralizing the cholesterol content in the body. Sources 1)organicfacts.net

Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: Hello - I have accepted this debate, topiced "Is milk Chocolate good for you". My opponent has begun by saying that chocolate milk is good for me. My position is that Chocolate milk is not good for me at all, and I look forward to seeing why my opponent thinks I am wrong about myself.

Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: i think chocolate milk is good for you. debate with me and you will find out why

Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: hello everyone here is my opinion... i think chocolate milk is good for you because it's healthy for your body and teeth

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: "One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there"s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures," Willett tells WebMD. (1) This is the biggest thing I hear about milk, is that if you drink milk you will help strengthen your bones. With their being little evidence that this is actually true I will toss this up to hype. This has always been on TV and in magazines. And think of all those adds with stars and the "milk mustache", this is just s ploy to sell something plain and simple. "But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow"s milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones." (2) How ironic is it that the very thing people tell you to drink to increase your calcium intake is actually causing you to lose calcium. This is a precious thing that is needed in our bodies and if drinking milk causes you to lose it, then I would say stop drinking milk. Milk acidifies in the body. Our bones/calcium in our bodies work to get rid of that. So instead of helping our bodies do that it is forced to neutralize the acidity of the milk that we just drank. After looking at some of these facts I would say that there are other ways to get calcium in our bodies than just drinking a glass of milk. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://saveourbones.com... (3)

Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: StructureR1 ArgumentsR2 RebuttalsR3 Defend your R1 argument against opponent's R2 rebuttal Bad to the bone = immoral. Full resolution: Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma. Burden of proof will be on me to prove that drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. OutlineI. IntroII. Animal ethicsIII. HealthIV. EnvironmentV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroWe shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable. II. Animal ethics"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare." [0]Animals on so called "humane" farms don't fare much better. [1][2] "Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals “humanely” is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today’s business standards." [3]Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.III. HealthMilk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins. "These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. " [4]" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. " [5]"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population." [6]As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk. "These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates." [7]Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes. “Total protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. “ [8] “" Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found. Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ."” [9] “The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. “ [10] Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards. IV. EnvironmentInherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. [11]V. ConclusionIn conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.VI. Sources0. http://www.aspca.org... 1. http://humanefacts.org... 2. http://humanemyth.org... 3. http://freefromharm.org... 4. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... 9. http://www.webmd.com... 10. http://www.webmd.com...11. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: It seems my opponent has not read my arguement. In R1 I clearly laid out my full resolution: "For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. " I would have liked to fit this resolution into the field given when starting a debate, but space was limited, so I resorted to fully explaining my resolution in R1. In my resolution I stated that beer was beneficial to an "average, healthy person. " Average is defined as "typical; common; ordinary" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Since the ordinary person is not allergic to beer, Kleptin, then you are not the "average person" that I was referring to. Also the word "you" can be defined as "one; anyone; people in general" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Earlier I specified "you" to be the average person, the general public, which would exclude my opponent. I assume that my opponent accepts the definition of milk to be: "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc" because in R1 he says "I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. " Cow and goat's milk have lactose in them, which leads me to believe he agrees with this term. Dairy milk also contains casein, which breaks down into beta-Casomorphine-7, an opiate. Other examples of opiates are morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Opioid is defined as a "drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives" (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Some reactions that people have to opiates are: nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, itching, dry mouth, and constipation (Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd ed. ). There has also been studies showing that casein can aggravate, if not cause autism. It has also been linked to cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and diabetes. Since casein is a drug, it is addictive (especially cheese, because of the high concentration of it) and can even affect a person's personality, causing depression and overeating (. http://danmahony.com...). Beer however, has a positive effect on blood vessels, decreasing the risk of clotting or rupturing. People who drink beer in moderation also have less of a risk of dementia and can even increase cognitive functions (. http://www.forbes.com...). It can also increase metabolism, lower calories and reduce stress (. http://www.menshealth.com...). Kleptin, sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition, but in my resolution, you are classified as an exception. I said in R1 that, for the average person, beer is healthier than milk and you have yet to prove otherwise.

Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I will be arguing that consuming dairy products is bad for your health. Con will be arguing that either dairy is entirely good for your health or that its benefits outweigh its health risk.

Title: Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical Content: Milk is not 100% factually intended for human consumption is it? because milk is intended for feeding calfs to survive in the years before able to create memories or move about. Human do produce enough milk for the same thing. If it was solely intended or human consumption then i would accept the made by God for the us to be the best we can. But it is not. The milk is perfect to keep a mother child into the taste and riches of nutrition but it is of no interest of making human design any better

Title: Chocolate is good. Content: First off, my opponent looks at a possibly biased source to defend his argument, instead of looking and comparing the benefits and unhealthy consequences of chocolate. This shows that his rebuttal is invalid because he did not focus on the real evidence on hand, which is the pros and cons of chocolate. I don't understand your second rebuttal. You mention that you've stated, "milk does give benefits," but I cannot find where you have said this throughout our debate. In response to your third rebuttal, I am saying that there are other better alternatives to chocolate, so therefore chocolate is not good because it is not the best option of food to choose from. For example. vanilla is a healthier and more beneficial food so chocolate is not a good option in comparison. As you can see, I have clearly won this debate because I have rebutted many of my opponent's points, and I have come up with a counterexample to refute his points. Please vote the the Opposition (Con).

Title: chocolate milk should be wiped out Content: No. Cholate milk sucks, And it has more sugar than you are supposed to drink in a day! The vitamins you get ARE important-but milk is not the best place to get them!

Title: choc. milk in schools Content: Chocolate milk contains more sugar and calories than regular milk, and in today's day and age there is an overwhelming percentage of kids struggling with obesity. A lot of people prefer the taste of white milk to chocolate milk, so any argument about flavor can be left out of it. If a kid won't drink milk otherwise and a parent is concerned about a calcium deficit, they can easily supplement with vitamins. My opponent has not shown that kids who drink chocolate milk are better at pull ups. It seems absurd to say a kid drinking chocolate milk can do more pull-ups than one drinking white milk. There are also a lot of vegans who are great athletes, so milk seems to not have any effect on athletic ability or energy.

Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: Many children refuse to eat or drink healthy things because of the way they taste, adding sugar is just fine with me if it gets kids to drink milk. I believe that chocolate milk is not as unhealthy as my opponent makes it sound. If anyone has too much of it, it may become unhealthy, but that's with anything. If all they have is the little 1 cup then it will be perfectly fine for their health. In conclusion, schools should not remove chocolate milk. Thank you for debating with me.

Title: Chocolate milk should be served in school!!! Content: When you think of chocolate milk, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? The soft, creamy taste? The happy kids having fun while drinking it? Well, you would be suprised to know that, chocolate milk is in fact, healthy for kids too. First of all, chocolate milk has all 9 essential ingriedients. It has calcium, which makes the kids grow taller, and also the sweet taste, unlike white milk which some kids can call "yucky" or "too plain". I know what you are thinking, that it causes obesity and stuff, but then, kids are kids. They run around the playground at lunchtime, so there is not a big chance that they will turn suddenly obtuse just because they drink chocolate milk. Now, you night think that there are too much sugar, but the truth is, The little bit of sugar is what keeps them going during the day and keeps them energetic and healthy. There are more reasons, but for now, this is it. I hope you vote for me!

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Here is why milk is bad for your bones : Point 1 : Milk depletes the calcium from your bones The milk myth has spread around the world based on the flawed belief that this protein and calcium-rich drink is essential to support good overall health and bone health in particular at any age. It is easy to understand that the confusion about milk's imaginary benefits stems from the fact that it contains calcium, around 300 mg per cup. But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow's milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones. Here's how it happens. Like all animal protein, milk acidifies the body pH which in turn triggers a biological correction. You see, calcium is an excellent acid neutralizer and the biggest storage of calcium in the body is - you guessed it. .. in the bones. So the very same calcium that our bones need to stay strong is utilized to neutralize the acidifying effect of milk. Once calcium is pulled out of the bones, it leaves the body via the urine, so that the surprising net result after this is an actual calcium deficit. [1] 2 : Milk increases fracture risks Many scientific studies contradict the conventional wisdom that milk and dairy consumption help reduce osteoporotic fractures. Surprisingly, studies demonstrating that milk and dairy products actually fail to protect bones from fractures outnumber studies that prove otherwise. Even drinking milk from a young age does not protect against future fracture risk but actually increases it. And the 12 year long Harvard Nurses' Health Study found that those who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely drank milk. This is a broad study based on 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 years of age. [1] Conclusion Milk is bad for your bones because of those reasons. I have more sources that can strengthen my argument. [2][3][4][5] 1. . http://saveourbones.com... 2. . http://www.news-medical.net... 3. . http://www.care2.com... 4. . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... 5. . http://www.sott.net...

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: The resolution for this debate is "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk". Thus, my opponent's burden is to prove that Beer, in moderation, is healthier for me than milk is. I personally, am highly allergic to alcohol and cannot break it down. It gives me gastro-intestinal upset and at one point, hideous diarrhea. However, I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. Beer is, by definition, "an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste. " . http://dictionary.reference.com... The presence of alcohol in anything I consume will have great negative impact on my health and thus, I must assert that Beer, in any amount, is less healthy for me than milk. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: Since my opponent forfeited, I'll try to give two possible arguments for the health benefits of dairy and rebut them. Dairy is High in Calcium ". . .animal protein, including that from dairy products, may leach more calcium from the bones than is ingested, said Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project, the most comprehensive project on diet and disease ever conducted. 'This phenomenon could explain why Americans, who ingest much higher levels of calcium, have much higher rates of osteoporosis and hip fractures compared with many Chinese and other Asians who consume few dairy products and ingest low amounts of calcium,' Campbell said. Hip fractures in the United States, for example, are approximately five times more frequent than in China. . .increased levels of animal-based proteins, including protein from dairy products, 'almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss,' Campbell reported. This view is consistent with evidence comparing bone fracture rates among different countries, which shows that countries having the highest calcium intakes also have the highest fracture rates. It is also consistent with other studies on nutritionally rich 'Western' diets and 'Western' diseases showing that low-calcium, vegetarian diets are associated with increased bone density; that casein, milk's principal protein, is a well-established contributor to high blood cholesterol in the Western world; and that casein significantly enhances the development of tumor growth in experimental animals" (http://www.news.cornell.edu...). Not only is the calcium component of dairy undermined by its casein component, which causes a loss of calcium from the bones, especially over long term consumption, but the risk factors associated with dairy, such as high blood cholesterol, far outweigh the benefits (https://www.drmcdougall.com...). There are plenty of safe, healthy sources of calcium in the plant kingdom: broccoli, kale, spinach, bok choy, soybeans, okra, watercress, and the list goes on. Dairy is High in Vitamin D Since I have already pointed out a few risk factors with dairy consumption, it should be obvious that one vitamin component does not outweigh the health risks associated with dairy. Almond and soy milk tend to be fortified with both calcium and vitamin D; they're a great alternative to dairy. Certain mushrooms such as portabella and maitake have more than five times as much vitamin D than a cup of cow's milk. Juices and cereals also tend to be fortified with vitamin D. It should be pointed out that vitamin D is produced naturally in the skin when exposed to sunlight and is a much more efficient source as 15-30 minutes of exposure to the arms and legs can give you more than six times as much vitamin D than an 8oz glass of milk (http://www.sunshinevitamin.org...). You would have to drink six glasses of milk, or 48 ounces, to get the daily recommended amount of vitamin D as proper sun exposure would give you (approx. 600IU)! And consider that 4,000IU is considered a safe upper-limit for adults (http://ods.od.nih.gov...). Milk is definitely not a healthy source of calcium and vitamin D. Here is a letter by Dr. Robert M. Kradjian warning people about the health risks associated with dairy that the prospective reader may be interested in (http://www.notmilk.com...).

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: A very good round by my opponent. I will begin by addressing some issues I left unresolved since I wanted to do more research. So first, a few counterarguments for my opponent's points so far: A. Milk does not cause Osteoporosis. My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones. It says absolutely nothing about high protein levels. Even if so, my opponent is severely misinformed and drawing the wrong conclusions. What my opponent is confusing himself about is that during kidney failure, high protein levels in the blood change the charge of the ion flow in the nephrons of the kidney and calcium is excreted into water that leaves as urine. the body contains a massive number of proteins in the blood in the form of albumin and red blood cells. The protein in milk is digested and broken down into amino acids and never gets into the blood in the first place. B. Milk is not "loaded" with pesticides or antibiotics. According to the following links, The FDA has done numerous studies, all of which show that the trace amounts (if any) of hormones, pesticides, or possible antibiotics in milk are safe for human consumption even taking into account the fact that people drink it daily. There are also many regulatory procedures that ensure the safety of milk. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu... http://www.organic-center.org... http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org... C. I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders. D. Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylatic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly). E. My opponent is also wrong in citing his own source. There is no mention about pesticides causing cancer, rather, the insulin-like growth factor present in cow milk. However, in the links above, it is shown that pasteurization destroys the already minuscule amount present and the rest is destroyed in the stomach as IGF-1 is a protein. Furthermore, the citations that my opponent cites are heavily biased. The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word "milk" appears a total of 0 times. F. My opponent connects many dots using bad logic. While it is true that Casein breaks down into casomorphines, that is just an intermediate step in the stomach. Casein forms a micelle in the stomach that clots and gets slowly dissolved. The casomorphines are just potential chains that Casein might get broken down into, and even then, the stomach eventually reduces that protein down to base amino acids where it has no effect in the bloodstream. Proteins get broken down in the stomach but the majority of protein digestion takes place in the intestine after the pancreas releases the proteases that ensure complete reduction to amino acids. http://www.wisegeek.com... Furthermore, this link above states that the presence of casomorphines and their action as opiate-like molecules only takes place in autistics, who may have an inability to break down the casomorphines. http://en.wikipedia.org... This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable. G. Cutting milk can reduce obesity, but my opponent is comparing 1 glass of beer to 1 glass of milk. You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage. In addition, there are plenty of non-fat varieties of milk but nonalcoholic beers may be a little harder to knock back. Acne is more likely due to excess oil and fat. Non fat milk is a viable option for those who are focused on cosmetics. However, the experiment that I found, the one that allegedly "sparked" the controversy, only showed results in polling people who consumed 3 or more servings a day, and we are arguing a 1:1 comparison, making this point moot. http://www.healthcastle.com... H. As for arthritis, my opponent's claim is due to reading too quickly. The source he provided claimed that most arthritis is due to allergen response and most food allergies are caused by milk. THis is misleading as most arthritis is caused by an allergic response to self, when the body's own white blood cells attack joints, causing joint pain. This is why Glucosamine and Chondroitin help with arthritis: they contain the same material in the joints that the white blood cells attack, leaving the actual body parts unharmed. I. My opponent's source regarding mucus is also biased and premature, connecting the wrong dots. Fact, milk is the most common food allergen. Fact, allergies can manifest into mucus production and cough. Lactose intolerance is categorized as a milk allergy and accounts for it being the most common food allergen. However, we know that the symptoms for lactose intolerance are not related to these, so by elimination, we can estimate that a far lower percentage of milk allergies is due to things other than lactose intolerance. J. In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate. Also, as a Pharmacy student, I can say that my opponent's assertion ("Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse") is also misleading and faulty. My opponent's sources lead to a term specifically for excessive medication use. However, we are speaking about legitimate prescriptions that are required for maintaining health. It is not uncommon for a person to be on a cholesterol medication, a blood pressure medication, and another medication (such as an asthma medication, an antihistamine, a sleeping aid, pain medication, antibiotic) at the same time. To simply categorize it as abuse and unhealthy is simply manipulation of data and language. Regardless, it it is a fact that prescription medication use is as high as it is. Whether or not it is healthy is outside the scope of the debate. What is important is the fact that my opponent's description of an "average" person is either unrealistic or harmful to his case, as moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages would interfere with drug metabolism and the imaginary health detriments that my opponent is conjuring can and will become a reality. K. Ranitidine actually raises blood alcohol levels because it inhibits the enzyme responsible for the 3 step metabolism of alcohol. The "asian flush" does disappear, but only because the alcohol isn't being digested at all in the beginning and because the antihistamine effects of the two drugs decrease the flushing. However, when the drug effects wear off, alcohol is metabolized at the same mid-way speed, allowing for an increase in the toxic acetaldehyde intermediate. This puts excessive strain on the liver because not only is the liver busy metabolizing the drugs, but it gets the added load of the unmetabolized alcohol to follow suit. Famotidine, though slightly safer, also harms the liver over long periods of use. L. My opponent brings up the topic of lactose intolerance. Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free. I don't see how lactose intolerance is an issue in this debate because although non-alcoholic beer is hard to find and probably not healthy, fat-free or lactose-free milk is readily available and usually fortified with vitamins. Soy milk is also very healthy. There are many varieties of milk free of the chemicals my opponent mentioned. I will allow my opponent to address these first and conclude at the end.

Title: Should we drink milk Content: I have drank milk most of my life and although as mace says it doesn't help your bones it tastes good lol

Title: Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk Content: Stating that chocolate milk tastes better is purely opinion. People do indeed drink chocolate milk more than "that other milk" you describe it as, but this does not make it healthy to humans. To be complete with this debate, I'll be covering all aspects of chocolate milk, including: Its elemental buildup, its usage today, and how it influences the human body. After graphing the general overview of chocolate milk, I will then compare it to the overview of "that other milk". Sound good? Good. The most common way chocolate milk is made, is by taking regular whole milk (or "that other milk" by your preference) and blending that whole milk with a powder (typically cocoa) and sweeteners such as sugars. Both "that other milk" and chocolate milk come from the same cows, contrary to some people's beliefs, but the key difference between the two is that chocolate milk is richer in sugars and carbohydrates than whole milk is. Yes, we are taught that carbohydrates are used as the basic unit of energy storage, but there are different types of carbohydrates, the most unhealthy being sugar. A small amount of consumption of these sugars won't have a significant amount of harm to your body, but large amounts can lead to obesity and diabetes in its consumers, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Source: http://www.self.com...) While most people from the Pro stance of this topic do think that flavored milk is tastier, it is not healthier, similar to most things we eat. We can continue to drink chocolate milk, but this will only damage us as time passes. It is much safer to drink the regular whole milk, with a little less flavor, but removing those excess sugars that grow to harm us in the future, than to drink chocolate milk, which has been shown to have those influences on the human body.

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Yes when you are a baby you drink milk all the time, but it is milk that is packed full of other things that are not already in it. They can't just drink straight milk when they are born because it would do more harm than good at that point. Babies need certain things until they get older so they can develop how they should. There is not a lot of evidence to support that vitamin D helps bones because it has not been completely scientifically proven.

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Good luck, Pro! Counter Arguments 1) Okay. .. what you basically said is true. No counter arguments can do that. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) However, cow milk, what we drink, has 59 active hormones, which is very disgusting to think about. 2) Cow milk is useless because they lack magnesium. 3) 87% of milk is water, which means there are less than 13% of real milk. 4) Cow milk has feces. The feces are a major source of bacteria. The bacteria doubles when you leave it at room temperature for 20 minutes. 5) The cholesterol in three glasses of milk is equal to 53 slices of bacon. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) . http://www.rense.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments Good luck, Pro! This might be your first win, but I'm still going all-out!

Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Definitions : Milk : The milk of cows, goats, or other animals, used as food by humans.[1] Bones : The dense, semirigid, porous, calcified connective tissue forming the major portion of the skeleton of most vertebrates.[2] Rules : 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. No spamming 4. No profanities The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that milk is actually good for your bones, feel free to join. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk has been directly related to destressing people. It is really insane to fight over it... if you love milk and it really suits you - i.e you are tolerant to it and you love the taste and there is no allergies related to it as some may have, then go ahead and enjoy this yummy and health giving drink.on the other hand if you hate it don't have it. it is simple as that. and if you think that milk isn't beneficial to you're health you must be on the wrong planet or thinking of some other kind of milk

Title: Chocolate is good. Content: First and foremost, my opponent says that my rebuttal is false. This is an unnecessary argument because I just shortened what my opponent said. She begins with "Chocolate is not a healthy food no matter how my opponent says it," in round 2. I then said in my rebuttal that she said that chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what. This is literally the same meaning. In addition, this has nothing to do with the topic! Overall, this rebuttal is clearly useless. My opponent then says that milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. This may be true, however this does not bring down the fact that the two chocolates still give benefits! Lastly, my opponent says that her counterexample is valid and acceptable. As I said before, her vanilla example does not bring down the fact that chocolate is still good! Both are good and both give benefits. This is debate is not about one is better than the other.

Title: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. Content: . http://www.youtube.com... Explanatory Power and Burden of Proof Because no explicit of burden of proof was stated in the rules and neither me or my opponent claimed the other had burden of proof, we must assume a shared burden. This is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent does attempt to show the superiority of Soy milk via his offensive. Therefore, considering his argument versus mine, we must consider the merits of it as an argument itself. My argument naturally follows to it's conclusion albeit with an implicit premise and therefore my argument has great explanatory power, that is, if my argument hold strong no matter if my opponent likes it or any one does we have to concede the argument. My opponents argument however, has no explanatory power at all. Even if we grant all the premises he brings forward(which we will not be doing if you were wondering), it doesn't naturally follow that Cow's Milk isn't superior. At best it shows that Soy Milk has some advantages which I in fact never argued wasn't the case. My opponent offensive therefore really doesn't hurt my case at all, but nor does it strengthen his own. Hence even if you say my argument is completely invalid at best you should award us a tie in the arguments portion of the debate. The Protein Issue While I was mistaken on the protein portion of the contest, it was because of an oversight of serving size, in which I deeply apologize. However, my opponent drops my portion of the argument about biological values and different types of protein and therefore concedes that even if they have the same amount of protein, Cow's Milk is still far superior in types of protein. He also never addresses the fact that Soy is a plant protein and therefore not a complete protein. I will consider this dropped. The Vitamin Issue So I mention 4 vitamins are essential for the growth and development of human beings as well as the maintaining of a healthy lifestyle and my opponent mentions two. Furthermore, Vitamin B-12 and Vitamin A are both essential nutrients and without them you will die. So his folate argument really falls short here. Furthermore, there are many many sources of folate. You don't need Soy Milk at all to get folate. Anyway you look at it, four is still more than two. The Price Tag My opponent breezes past this point but he fails to say what he is saying. I would ask my opponent, are cigarettes of higher quality and importance(emphasis) than say his Soy Milk. Because it would seem that it costs more. We could also ask if a Big Mac is better Quality than Soy Milk. Quality isn't determined by market value. Quality is determined by comparing characteristics and benefits of one thing over another, while the market is determined by what people are willing to pay for. While some things that are more expensive are of high quality, it does not follow that everything of a higher price is of higher quality. To illustrate this point I will further elaborate, a experiment was preformed by a youtube channel called Brad Hensen did a taste test of In-N-Out versus Five Guys. There was obviously slight bias here, since it was out of California nonetheless the In-N-Out fries taste test was near even with In-N-Out only winning by one point. When it came to burgers however, In-N-Out blew Five Guys out of the water with a score of 18 to 1. However, the price of one In-N-Out burger was much much less than Five Guys(about 5.39 versus 3.80). So my opponents argument is invalid and my premise stands to support the argument. Most people are not lactose intolerant Anyone who clicks on his source will see even if you read the entire case study it never ever says that most people are lactose intolerant, what the case study shows is that if you eat excess lactose foods( 33 grams a day! !) you will suffer negative effects. There are only 5 grams of Lactose in a serving size of Cow's Milk. So unless you drinking 6 glasses of Milk a day, then this study is irrelevant. Another problem with the study was that it was only 21 days long and the short term effects were only shown. We don't know if there bodies would have adapted in the long term to this diet. If you change your diet dramatically in anyway you bound to have some negative effects. This includes with Soy. My opponent is being dishonest when he says that Soy Milk can be drunk by everybody. There two distinct groups that cannot drink Soy that can drink Cow's Milk. People who are allergic to Soy. Plus people who are bodybuilder because it lowers testosterone and raises estrogen. This is because it reduces muscles gains. And even if that were true that most people couldn't drink it, it would be irrelavent because we could only compare these two things in the realm of people who could drink both. Also steroid rage, only applies to the small number of people who take steroids and even then it's never been scientifically proven that steroid rage actually exists. The only cases of evidence are anecdotal not scientifically studied claims. Carbs versus Fats I would like point out he never argues aganist my points explicitly for carbs being worse he just says because it sounds like fat is what makes us fat therefore it must be what makes us fat. Obviously this is a vast oversimplification and he consequenitally drops my carbs portion of the case, so he must concede Soy Milk does contain more carbs even if he doubts the importance which I will explain is a mistake below. My opponent says bodybuilders eat tons of carbs. While many bodybuilders do eat many carbs and no one would argue they don't , however they are referring to complex carbohydrates with a high glycemic index. My opponent just completely drops the point about carbs and only tries to punish me on fats. Nonetheless, just because nobody says "your a carbo" doesn't prove anything as my opponent fails to understand. It is laughable that they show the California governor instead of the bodybuilder Schwarzenegger to support their point. A analysis of 21 studies published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that "a diet filled with saturated fat was not associated with increased risk. .. . [ of coronary heart disease, stroke or coronary vascular disease]". The problem with carbohydrates is that it's very easy to binge on them because they satisfy us often more than the fatty counterparts, for example cheesy puffs versus pork chops(pork has more fat, cheesy puffs more carbs). Fat is actually the preferred fuel of the human body. Evolutionarily speaking, we have been eatting fat heavy fat foods for thousands of years and we only(relatively) recently started eating all these carbs. I mean meat naturally contains a decent amount of fat. Another problem with carbs is that they are hard to digest in comparison to Fat. If you are still doubting my position, think about this. We absolutely need fat to survive, lipids are absolutely required for making ATP while the body can produce it's own glucose. In fact, carbohydrates are the only macronutrients we can completely cut from our diet and be completely fine, eliminate fats or protein and eventually you will die from a nutrient deficiency.

Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Instigator has claims set the chocolate milk is healthy. However, Instigator has not taken a few things into consideration:Studies show that in 8 oz of chocolate milk, there is approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar is added to chocolate milk.[1] That's almost as much as soda, which the example I'll use, Cola, has 11 teaspoons in a 16 oz soda (44g of sugar), which is 4.5 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 oz soda.[2] Also, even if the chocolate milk was low-fat, fat is not the same thing as sugar.Why is sugar a big deal, you ask? Well, sugar is high in fructose, or fruit sugar. Too much of it can overload your liver, can also give you Type II cancer, raises your chorestrol level (giving you a higher risk of heart diesese), among many other things. And since it also releases dopamine, a "feel good" chemical, sugar is highly addictive.[3]Point: Chocolate milk is much less healthier than normal milk, since it contains much more sugar that normal lactose milk. Some thing as sugary and addicting as chocolate milk can cause one to contract many dieseses/cancers.I await Instigator's next argument.Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://authoritynutrition.com...

Title: Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life Content: I believe that water is always be the best choice as a healthy drink. Although there are many healthy drinks such as herbal tea,goat milk,and even coffee. But, water still be the best choice because it is calorie-free and no additional sweetener. Besides,we cannot avoid the fact that H2O is one of the major element in human body. It is about 50-65 % in adult, and in infants is about 75-78%. So,we need more water in our daily life. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://chemistry.about.com...

Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Vitamin D is in the sun. That is a fact. Vitamin D is in Milk. Also a fact. You need Vitamin D. Most people don't get enough Vitamin D from the sun, so you must drink milk to obtain those Nutrients. Vitamin D is also in all bones and their marrow so you tell me why we don't need milk in our bodies which as stated previously, has vitamin D

Title: Chocolate is good. Content: First and foremost, my opponent says that I stated "chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what." However, this rebuttal is false because in my first speech I clearly stated, "He says that, 'Chocolates have some health benefits.' This is true..." This shows that I do agree that chocolate does have health benefits. Therefore, his first rebuttal is false. Secondly, he says that white chocolate can give calcium and milk chocolate has a high or medium level of cacao. I disagree with his white chocolate rebuttal because milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. As you can see, white chocolate is one type of chocolate that should not be praised, as its benefits can be achieved with healthier means. In addition, I also disagree with his milk chocolate argument, because he does not clearly explain what cacao is and how cacao affects the body. Therefore, his rebuttal is invalid. In my opponent's third rebuttal, he mentions how a counter example is irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, I disagree, my counterexample is valid and acceptable. The opposition's job is to knock down all of the proposition's arguments; the opposition is not arguing the opposite of the proposition. To sum up, my opponent's rebuttals are invalid, and you should vote for the Con/Opposition.

Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: This chocolate milk has a lot of bad things for health. This is a very big problem to occur in your life, of you going to be not healty. Well drink Chocolate milk please.www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4wGDl56Zg

Title: Veal Content: Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal

Title: Breastfeeding in public Content: Breastfeeding improves health of mothers

Title: Breastfeeding in public Content: Breastfeeding is best for the health and development of babies

Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: Pro i hope this will be a learning session for you regarding the benefits of Chocolate Milk vs Milk (Normal Milk as you call it). First let me state that Milk can be 1%, 2%.3.7% fat or powedered. All of these affect the Nutrition Values. But for the sake of the argument we will use the Milk 1% and the Chocolate Milk (not reduced fat). Chocolate Milk Nutrition Values Calories 83 % Daily Value* Total Fat 3.4 g 5% Saturated fat 2.1 g 10% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 1 g Cholesterol 12 mg 4% Sodium 60 mg 2% Potassium 167 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 10 g 3% Dietary fiber 0.8 g 3% Sugar 10 g Protein 3.2 g 6% Caffeine 2 mg Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 1% Calcium 11% Iron 1% Vitamin D 12% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 5% Magnesium 3% Milk Nutrition Values Calories 42 % Daily Value* Total Fat 1 g 1% Saturated fat 0.6 g 3% Polyunsaturated fat 0 g Monounsaturated fat 0.3 g Cholesterol 5 mg 1% Sodium 44 mg 1% Potassium 150 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 5 g 1% Dietary fiber 0 g 0% Sugar 5 g Protein 3.4 g 6% Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0% Calcium 12% Iron 0% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 8% Magnesium 2% As you can see from the above tables taken from google (just google search Milk or Chocolate Milk) you can deduce that Chocolate Milk has more Vitamin C, More Iron, more Magnesium, more Vitamin D (12% more) and more Vitamin A. Milk has 5g less sugar than Chocolate Milk (has 10g) in a 100g sample. If fat is a problem for you then choose reduced-fat Chocolate Milk. Therefore Chocolate Milk is far more nutritious than Milk. Drink Chocolate Milk pro. Its good for you :)

Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: Greetings. I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. With that out of the way, let us proceed: In today's case, I (as the CON) will strongly negate my opponent's resolution that concerns Milk as being nasty. To counter this position, I advocate that Milk MAY be nasty. I define this position as being a position that takes the subjectivity of "taste" into account. Thus, I advocate that milk can taste "good" and "bad", but is not objectively nasty (as is my opponent's implication). It is the job of my opponent to conclusively prove that milk is objectively nasty. He has yet to provide an argument for this and I doubt he would be able to provide a valid one during the round. I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.

Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: Is chocolate milk okay to drink? I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn"t let your body absorb it. One reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed in schools is because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk has 20% more. For example if you take 25 and add 20%. You would have about 30 grams of sugar in one 7.5 ounce glass of chocolate milk. Also, when you drink chocolate milk all of the sugar that you get from it is really bad for your body. In addition, chocolate milk is drank a lot. So, if you drink a lot of chocolate milk then you are getting a lot of sugars, therefore wrecking your health. Another reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed at school is because most children don"t get chocolate milk except in school. "Many children only get to have chocolate milk at school"but they get to drink a lot of it there. Some children consume as many as 10 or even 15 cartons of chocolate milk in a week at school." Says Jonathan Smith, writer of Chocolate Milk: More Harmful Than Healthful. This is not a good thing! Because of this, kids might get... FAT! The final reason that schools should not allow chocolate milk is because yes, chocolate milk has calcium and other nutrients but all of the added sugar doesn"t let your organs absorb it. There is just so much sugar that all the good things in it will not be absorbed because of the sugar. Even if you drink fat free, you still get all the sugar and not enough nutrients. I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn"t let your body absorb it. So please don"t let kids have chocolate milk at Mapleview.

Title: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Content: Kids who drink plain milk will indeed absorb more calcium than those who drink chocolate milk:According to my opponent’s link, a child who consumes one carton of plain milk will absorb 6 more milligrams of calcium than a child who consumes a carton of chocolate milk. This difference may be insignificant in the short-term; however, it can make a big difference in the long run. If a student drinks a carton of plain milk every day, he or she will absorb an additional 2,190 milligrams of calcium every year. Banning flavored milk will not decrease overall milk consumption in the long-term: My opponent mentioned a study which found that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. As it turns out, this study was funded by the Milk Processor Education Program (MPEP), the dairy industry’s national marketing group (1). The MPEP has spent over a million dollars to promote chocolate milk in schools. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor (2-3). Therefore, the results of this research article should not be weighted heavily. When we consider only objective research, we realize that banning flavored milk will not lead to decreased consumption in the long-term. For example, let’s examine the implications of limiting the availability of flavored milk in New York City schools. Beginning in 2006, flavored milk could be purchased only three days a week (4). In this year, most NYC schools also stopped serving whole milk. Initially, there was an 8% decline in milk purchases following the implementation of these new policies. Several students were probably not accustomed to drinking low-fat, plain milk. As a result, some kids may have initially avoided drinking milk altogether. However, by 2009, milk purchases had actually increased by 1.3% (4). This proves that children will eventually learn to accept unsweetened, low-fat foods. As Dr. Marlene Schwartz concluded, “It is probable that, immediately following removal of flavored milk from schools, children will drink less milk. Who really is surprised that, given the option, children prefer the taste of flavored milk to unflavored milk? Research with both animals and humans show that we all like the taste of sugar. However, examining what happens in the short-term is inadequate; the relevant question is what happens in the long-term when children are only served unflavored milk” (5). Conclusion: By serving our children flavored milk, we’re only training them to prefer, and eventually over-consume, sugar-sweetened beverages. Scientific studies show that banning flavored milk does not decrease overall milk consumption. Thus, all of our schools should stop serving flavored milk. I urge everyone to vote pro!References:(1) http://yaleruddcenter.org...(2) http://www.bmj.com...(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(4) http://journals.lww.com...(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: Well chocolate milk has more sugars than cola, which is very surprising for, me. It says that this much sugar can be very bad for your health and could cause very bad health problems, inside your body. So I am guessing that this chocolate milk should be banned in school and also this chocolate milk has a very bad thing that it also makes you go fat and does not have that much nutrition such as vitamin C has only 4%. Does this tell you that chocolate milk is bad for your body? This milk also does say that it would be better to be buying or drinking this good old normal milk. They say that milk that is normal has a vitamin D and other good things for your body, which is I am thinking that this drink of the chocolate milk is just bad. I am also thinking that this choco milk also you will think, what this does not make sense. But I have a good backup for that. you can read that this chocolate milk can be a unhealthy drink that will only cover your body up with sugar. It can also be covering your body up with many calories. So please be kind and say yes and vote for me.

Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I look forward to a good response! I will list the problems with dairy below in no particular order. Lactose Intolerance Dairy is comprised primarily of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and water. One of these primary carbohydrates is lactose. As infants, mammals can process the lactose using an enzyme secreted from their intestinal villi called lactase. This breaks the lactose down into two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Most people in the world (approx. 65%) have a drastically reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy, and increasingly so as the get older, resulting in the condition known as lactose intolerance. Mammals normally have a decrease in the gene expression which results in lactase production after infancy, as this enzyme is no longer required to digest mother's milk . http://www.google.com...). Some people groups, such as those of European decent, have inherited a change in a regulatory element which regulates this gene expression, allowing for sustained production of lactase in their small intestine (. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...). For much of the world, lactose will cause gastrointestinal problems (. http://www.medbio.info...). For this reason alone, dairy is bad for the health of at least 65% of the world. Cardiovascular DiseaseSaturated fat is well known to be correlated with cardiovascular diseases (. http://www.plosmedicine.org...). Dairy products are typically rife with saturated fat which raise the level of LDL (bad) cholesterol in your blood resulting in an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (. http://www.heart.org...).CancerDairy consumption is strongly correlated with prostate cancer. While several mechanisms are possible, the correlation remains clear (. http://www.pcrm.org...). "Consumption of dairy products has also been linked to higher risk for various cancers, especially to cancers of the reproductive system. Most significantly, dairy product consumption has been linked to increased risk for prostate and breast cancers. The danger of dairy product consumption as it relates to prostate and breast cancers is most likely related to increases in insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which is found in cow’s milk. Consumption of milk and dairy products on a regular basis has been shown to increase circulating levels of IGF-1. Perhaps the most convincing association between IGF-1 levels and cancer risk is seen in studies of prostate cancer. Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-1 concentrations and prostate cancer risk. One study showed that men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer, compared with those who had the lowest levels. In the Physicians Health Study, tracking 21,660 participants for 28 years, researchers found an increased risk of prostate cancer for those who consumed ≥2.5 servings of dairy products per day as compared with those who consumed ≤0.5 servings a day. This study, which is supported by other findings,also shows that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium, and not just the fat associated with dairy products, could be a potential threat to prostate health. In addition to increased levels of IGF-1, estrogen metabolites are considered risk factors for cancers of the reproductive system, including cancers of the breasts, ovaries, and prostate. These metabolites can affect cellular proliferation such that cells grow rapidly and aberrantly, which can lead to cancer growth. Consumption of milk and dairy products contributes to the majority (60-70 percent) of estrogen intake in the human diet. In a large study including 1,893 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology Study who had been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, higher amounts of high-fat dairy product consumption were associated with higher mortality rates. As little as 0.5 servings a day increased risk significantly. This is probably due to the fact that estrogenic hormones reside primarily in fat, making the concern most pronounced for consumption of high-fat dairy products. The consumption of dairy products may also contribute to development of ovarian cancer. The relation between dairy products and ovarian cancer may be caused by the breakdown of the milk sugar lactose into galactose, a sugar which may be toxic to ovarian cells. In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer. A similar study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of developing ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day" (. http://www.pcrm.org...).While this surely is not an exhaustive list of potential healthhazards faced by those who consume dairy, what I have included so far should be adequate for this debate's discussion.

Title: Chocolate is good. Content: To start off with, I will refute my opponent's first argument. When I said chocolate should not be considered a healthy food, I meant this as chocolate has too many major unhealthy conditions that outweigh the healthy benefits, so it should not be called a healthy food. I believe that there are healthy parts of chocolate, do not misinterpret my words, but there are still too many downsides. Although the milk chocolate does have a benefit, it is still not the best option. You also did not refute my milk chocolate point, so your statement, "the two chocolates still give benefits," is false. As I have stated before, the opposition's (Con's) job is to refute everything that proposition says. Obviously, my counter example proves that chocolate is not good because there are other, healthier, and better options to chocolate.

Title: choc. milk in schools Content: i think that choc. milk should be allowed in schools because it contains vitamins, minerals, and other objects that will get us through the day without falling asleep in class (trust i have done it the consequences are not good)

Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: Taking it out of schools won't help, a lot of parents only buy chocolate milk and so the children will get it anyway. Besides, it's a good way to get children who refuse to drink white milk, calcium. It does have a lower concentration of calcium, but it's better than nothing.

Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Hello ladies, gentlemen, judges I am Forever 23 and I am on the behalf of the premise which is that we CAN NOT ban eggs, dairy and milk worldwide. So allow me to first refute my opponents claims and then rebuild on my own points. Their first claim was that dairy, meat and eggs are unhealthy. However, meat has a lot of proteins. Proteins are necessary for cells and overall growth of the body. http://www.healthyeating.org... Cheese contains a host of nutrients like calcium, protein, phosphorus, zinc, vitamin A and vitamin B12. Calcium is one of the nutrients most likely to be lacking in the American diet. According to government statistics, nine out of 10 women and six out of 10 men fall short of calcium recommendations. The high-quality protein in cheese provides the body with essential building blocks for strong muscles. For a complete listing of the nutrients in cheese, see the table below. If you are lactose intolerant, many cheeses, particularly aged cheeses such as Cheddar and Swiss, contain little or no lactose and are often well tolerated. For the past 30 years or so, saturated fat""found in meats, eggs, cheese, butter, whole milk, lard and some oils""was considered a primary cause of heart disease. New research, however, is showing that saturated fat has a minimal impact on heart disease risk, which is changing the "saturated fat is bad" paradigm and allowing people to enjoy more cheese and other favorite foods. Further research is needed showing significant scientific agreement. Even if saturated fat is less of a concern, calories still matter. To reduce calories, you can grate or sprinkle harder cheeses over your dishes or use small amounts of aromatic and sharp cheeses for their delicious cheese flavor. Many reduced-fat varieties of cheeses are also available. This 2014 article in the Food and Nutrition Magazine provides more information on the Charms and Challenges of Cheese. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that individuals ages 9 and older consume at least 3 servings of milk, cheese or yogurt each day; children aged 4-8 years need 2-1/2 cups per day. One serving of cheese is one and one-half ounces of hard cheese, one-third cup for grated cheese and two ounces for processed cheese. Their second claim was that meat dairy and eggs productions are unhealthy for the environment. However, cars are too! Do you see a ban on cars? No. But to get more topical, lets go over on the unhealthy production of vegetables and different herbs. I am sure that you know that pesticides are used to grow vegetables and fruits. http://www.toxicsaction.org... When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, she raised public awareness about the effects of pesticide use on our health and our environment. However, almost forty years after Carson drew attention to the health and environmental impacts of DDT, use of equally hazardous pesticides has only increased. And all the time there is more evidence surfacing that human exposure to pesticides is linked to health problems. For example, in May 2010, scientists from the University of Montreal and Harvard University released a study that found that exposure to pesticide residues on vegetables and fruit may double a child’s risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition that can cause inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children. Acute dangers - such as nerve, skin, and eye irritation and damage, headaches, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, and systemic poisoning - can sometimes be dramatic, and even occasionally fatal. Chronic health effects may occur years after even minimal exposure to pesticides in the environment, or result from the pesticide residues which we ingest through our food and water. A July 2007 study conducted by researchers at the Public Health Institute, the California Department of Health Services, and the UC Berkeley School of Public Health found a sixfold increase in risk factor for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) for children of women who were exposed to organochlorine pesticides. Pesticides can cause many types of cancer in humans. Some of the most prevalent forms include leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, brain, bone, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular and liver cancers. In February 2009, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a study that found that children who live in homes where their parents use pesticides are twice as likely to develop brain cancer versus those that live in residences in which no pesticides are used. Studies by the National Cancer Institute found that American farmers, who in most respects are healthier than the population at large, had startling incidences of leukemia, Hodgkins disease, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and many other forms of cancer. However, the pro doesn't just want to starve the planet... I wonder why? So judges, you should really consider how illogical it would be to ban the production of all meat, dairy and eggs. Their third point was that farming is cruel. However, farming is not cruel. It is true that many factory farms can be cruel to animals. However, the family, mom and pop farms treat animals with kindness and even respect. Perhaps instead of completely banning animals and all animal products, we could come up with a much more radical solution. An example of which could be to lower how much we rely on factory farms. Their fourth assertion was about production agitating world hunger. He said that we should feed humans what we are feeding animals. However, lets assume it like that. We will now replace the animals in this food chain. We will eat all the grain and will the poverty issue be solved? NO! Now to quickly repeat my arguments. 1. The three food are extremely healthy. 2. They help the economy 3. This plan is not feasible. Now, as promised in my last speech, I will point out the health factor of each category. Second up, we have dairy. http://www.healthyeating.org... "Milk and dairy foods are healthy foods and considered nutrient-rich because they serve as good sources of calcium and vitamin D as well as protein and other essential nutrients. They provide phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and vitamins A, B12, and riboflavin1. The calcium in milk, yogurt, and cheese is significant yet most people don't get enough calcium or vitamin D each day2. Getting the recommended three servings of dairy per day can help build bone mass, leading to improved bone health throughout the life cycle. To meet daily calcium requirements, most people should have two to three cups of milk or servings of dairy foods each day. There are many ways to ensure you are eating healthy and getting enough milk and milk products each day. Start with a healthy breakfast of cereal, milk and fruit or a yogurt parfait, include cheese in your lunch or afternoon snack and consider pudding or hot chocolate made with milk as an evening dessert. To learn more about the amounts of food to eat each day, use the Healthy Eating Planner. Some Key Benefits of Dairy Foods The calcium in milk is easily absorbed and used in the body, which is why milk and milk products are reliable as well as economical sources of calcium. A diet rich in protein and vitamin D contributes to bone health. Due to their high protein, vitamin D, and calcium content, dairy foods are a good choice for maintaining strong bones. A diet rich in fruit, vegetables and low-fat dairy foods, with reduced saturated fat, is as effective as some medications in reducing blood pressure in people with increased blood pressure. It has also been shown to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes1. Cultured dairy products like yogurt contain probiotics which provide a wide array of health benefits. Probiotics in the diet can enhance the good bacteria in the gut, improve health and reduce the risk of certain diseases" I just want to have a closing statement about one particular very healthy example of dairy. Yogurt. http://www.webmd.com..., "First off, your body needs to have a healthy amount of 'good' bacteria in the digestive tract, and many yogurts are made using active, good bacteria. One of the words you"ll be hearing more of in relation to yogurt is 'probiotics.' Probiotic, which literally means 'for life,' refers to living organisms that can result in a health benefit when eaten in adequate amounts. Miguel Freitas, PhD, medical marketing manager for Dannon Co., says the benefits associated with probiotics are specific to certain strains of these "good" bacteria. Many provide their benefits by adjusting the microflora (the natural balance of organisms) in the intestines, or by acting directly on body functions, such as digestion or immune function. (Keep in mind that the only yogurts that contain probiotics are those that say "live and active cultures" on the label.)" Vote pro for health problems. However, if you don't want to loose your meats and dairies, vote con. A vote for con, is a vote for health. Thank you.

Title: Chocolate is good. Content: My opponent says that chocolates has too many major unhealthy conditions that outweigh the healthy benefits. I disagree, because according to http://cocoasymposium.com..., the website says that chocolate is not bad for your health. Because this is clearly stated, this means that they do more good that harm. Chocolate is good and gives benefits. After, my opponent says that I didn't refute her milk chocolate point. This is false, because I said that milk does give benefits- but so does the two chocolates! This means that she just gave another thing that gave some same health benefits. The two chocolates are still.. good! Lastly, my opponent says that there are better and healthier options to chocolate. This may be true, but it DOESN'T PROVE THAT CHOCOLATE IS BAD! Water is good for you, and apples are good for you. If I was talking about how water is good, and you put in a counterexample that apples are good, this doesn't mean that water is bad! This is what you are saying right now about chocolate. You are saying that milk is also good for you, but that doesn't mean that chocolate is bad. Your arguments are useless, and I have rebutted all of them. Overall, chocolate is great. Vote for the proposition side.

Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: I think that chocolate milk should be banned from all schools because I think that schools and kids are getting poisoned. By what you ask? CHOCOLATE MILK!!!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT HOW JUST KEEP READING HAHAHA!!!!! I think that you should stop serving chocolate milk at lunch are Health problems, Too much sugar in chocolate milk, and how much you serve it Health problems Everyone thinks chocolate milk is good but did you know it can have major health problems for kids who drink it. Some might say that chocolate milk has no health problems but trust me it does. Some of those health problems are Cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.According to the American Institute for Cancer Research,"Chocolate milk contains added sugars and therefore more calories that can lead to more overweight and obesity." In other words, it can lead to you dying and not being able to live a long life of playing sports and seeing the new technology.So those are the health problems of chocolate milk

Title: my milk shake is better than yours Content: Thanks and good luck to my opponent. Since the resolution isn't clear, I'll be arguing for both "milk shake" and "milkshake. " Definitions:Milk: "a white liquid produced by a plant or woman to feed her baby or by female animals to feed their young; especially : milk from cows or goats that is used as food by people" [1]Shake: "to move sometimes violently back and forth or up and down with short, quick movements" [2] Milkshake: "a thoroughly shaken or blended drink made of milk, a flavoring syrup, and often ice cream" [3]Better- "More useful, suitable, or desirable" [4] Therefore, to win this debate, Pro must prove that her milkshake is more useful, suitable or desirable. Refutations:1. SourcesPro commits a logical fallacy. The graph she provides says, "My milkshake. " However, she did not define "my. " "My" is "he possessive form of 'I. '" [5]Pro did not provide her sample population nor did she provide a location for "the yard. " For all we know, these boys (if we can call them that because we don't know if they really do exist) could be moving to another yard to get away from Pro's milkshake. 2. IrrelevanceI would like to enquire what the second picture has anything to do with this topic. Contentions:1. Chocolate MilkshakeSince we're arguing which is better, I shall argue for a chocolate milkshake. <img src=". http://www.debate.org/ESocialBookworm/photos/album/3722/25386/ " height="300" width="300"/> P1: Chocolate milkshake is made from chocolate. P2: Chocolate has many benfits. C: Chocolate milkshakes have many benefits. This proves its usefulness, which is part of the definition of "better. " Chocolate has cardiovascular benefits and helps to lower blood pressure and risk of heart attack. [6]. I will get more onto why the chocolate milkshake is better in the next round. 2. My milkshake brings everyone to the milkshake stores to get one. My opponent has alleged that her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard. As seen in my defintion above, "better" refers to "more desirable. " Just because ALL the boys (which has not been proven yet) goes to Pro's house does not mean that her milkshake is more desirable or better. Again, she has failed to show that ALL boys are at "the yard (which she failed to define or locate. )Sources:[1]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[4]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[5]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[6]- . http://www.womenshealthmag.com...

Title: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Content: I'd like to apologize for my lateness. I didn't have a lot of time to write this up, but, I assure you, next round I'll be completely focused. Thank you for being patient. "The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk. These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever." A 2005 study by the New York City (NYC) Department of Education found that by removing whole milk and replacing it with low-fat to fat-free chocolate milk, students were served an estimated 5,960 fewer calories and 619 fewer grams of fat per year.(1) "Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. " ï¿½It is present in small enough amounts that the effect on calcium absorption is negligible(2)(3). ï¿½As chocolate contains relatively small amounts of oxalate, it is unclear to what extent chocolate consumption affects healthy people who eat calcium-rich diets. "Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so. Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods." Of course, not everyone likes plain milk(4), so by only offering plain milk you're depriving a certain amount of kids their calcium.ï¿½Flavoring milk ï¿½is the only way to get students to drink it. Milk provides a host of nutrients, including calcium, protein and vitamin D, which recent studies show is deficient in about three-quarters of teenagers and adults. To simply claim that, under verbal prompts, students will defy their taste buds is ridiculous. The experiment given here is invalid. "It's better for them to have some milk with some flavoring and a little added sugar than to go without milk," said Ms. Pratt-Heavner, whose organization last month helped release a study that showed that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. Conclusions: While chocolate milk isn't exactly on par with non-flavored milk in terms of calories, the benefits still outweigh the costs by drinking chocolate milk. There are some students who simply won't drink plain milk, and prefer flavored milk instead. What about those students? Won't someone think of the children? Sources: 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2.ï¿½http://www.ivillage.com... 3.http://www.mayoclinic.com... 4.http://www.facebook.com...

Title: Comment a Topic! Content: In reference to my experiences, I have always found the majority of people prefer vanilla ice-cream and white milk not only for of its succulent taste but also because it is a healthier option. Moreover, if there was a magical cow that solely produced chocolate milk, what's to suggest that people won't grow tired of chocolate milk with their coffee and cereal? In addition, wouldn't this cause a proliferation in health problems for the vast population?

Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: Boom? is all you got! White milk is OfficeMax better. she it has no taste but its more nutritious you can become obese and get chronics people die every 10 mints because of chocolate milk!

Title: Soy is Detrimental to the Development of Young Men Content: In this debate, my opponent has not shown any correlations. He has not understood what phytoestrogen even does, contradicting himself three times in three rounds. He is no longer making a big case out of the notion that if a lot of a food is bad for you, then eating that food in moderation must be bad for you. Apparently he's "not conceding the other points", which is problematic since he refuses to engage with them. Instead, he wants this to be all about the science, even if he cannot provide a coherent mechanism to explain it, and if he cannot show any other data to correlate it with.I find it amazing that my opponent can bring up 18 all-new pieces of evidence and about a dozen entirely new arguments in the final round, but I'll roll with it. Please don't penalize me if I bring up new evidence in response to totally new evidence.Scotland studyThis is where I proved that soy milk presents zero harm to adult men. When my opponent agreed with this, I extended that by saying the receptors in children are no different from adults. My opponent has failed to show why kids would react differently from adults.I also provided an excellent study showing that if anything, kids react BETTER to soy because they cannot metabolize phytoestrogen so well. This has been where my opponent has directed his attention. To "counter" this study, he cites a different study conducted around a decade earlier, saying that they are "more susceptible" to the sex hormones. First, that relies on them actually metabolising them, which they cannot do so well. And second, we now have empirical evidence that they are not "more susceptible", because just like adults, kids who drink soy don't turn out any different than kids who drink milk [1]. The differing results come about because pro's study looks at concentration, mine total absorption. Moreover, there is convincing evidence collected at the same time as my opponent's study that the isoflavones have the opposite effect in children's estrogen levels [2].The authors of that study concluded:"In the absence of practical examples to support adverse effects of soy-based infant formulas, despite their use for > 30 y, it could be argued that long-term benefits may ensue from infant exposure to soy-based formulas containing isoflavones because this could confer protection later in life against hormone-dependent diseases. In this regard, we speculate that the low incidence of hormone-dependent diseases in China and Japan, where soy is a staple, may in part be a consequence of a lifetime exposure to phytoestrogens from the traditional diet." [2]Oh, and Fallon's article? She doesn't have any credentials at all (anyone can legally call themselves a "nutritionist"), other than that she wrote a book which presents more or less the same evidence as pro has in this debate. She's never done any primary research herself.Ultimately the question is whether studies on human adults or lab rats are better suited to determine the effects of soy on youth. Remember that I've also shown a number of meta-analyses that show where the preponderance of evidence really lies.Ohio Studyaka #9. Pro says it doesn't measure hormone stats. True, but that's not the only aspect of sexual development. The Ohio study basically proves that they did not have stunted growth or any other outward signs of retarded development.If "during puberty" is the only time my opponent thinks it's bad to eat soy, then that's a huge limitation on when it's apparently "detrimental" in some way that we haven't seen before. However, this also disproves my opponent's animal studies being relevant to humans, such as the one about muscle protein in pigs pro cited two rounds ago, since humans did NOT have the same effects.Italy studyaka #10. My opponent is right that it didn't measure hormone levels. What it measured was SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT independent of hormone levels, and it found that it's the same with and without soy. While it did not relate to soy consumption in adolescence, it proves that childhood consumption has no effect on adolescence. That's probably because adult hormone levels don't set in until after adolescence. If anything, hormones usually get stuffed up in adolescence, so hormone regulators like soy can help keep them under control.While a survey, it also checked their medical records [4] so the participants couldn't exactly lie..77 correlation is not huge, it's tiny. Lower is better for p-values, and anything above 0.05 is not normally considered significant [3]. Although this conclusion my opponent draws about T-levels is wrong, my opponent has yet to show ANY harm of a low T-value outside of sexual development (which soy does NOT affect), nor can he explain why soy would even affect T-values, since it only regulates estrogen.Italy study #2aka #11. I do have access to this study, and it's pretty good. However, my opponent concedes what it proves: young boys are not feminized. If he thinks the SERMs will stick around until puberty and then magically activate, he better provide some evidence. So far he has provided none.He claims "the evidence we do have in infant soy feedings suggests negative effects." Not even his source claims that - in fact, his source ends by suggesting soy isn't even bioactive. This study directly contradicts that.Infant Marmoset StudyAfter I proved that infants develop normally and my opponent tried to restrict the debate to just adolescents, he cites a study about the infant development of chimps. If human babies fed soy develop normally at least until adolescence and monkey babies do not, then that proves what I've been saying all along - different species interact differently with SERMs.Dr MercolaDr Mercola is the very same guy who relies on "slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics" to make "unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations" [6]. My opponent speaks of this guy like he's ever done any research into soy at all. He has not - even Dr Phil is more qualified to speak about soy. He published this article right before promoting his own artificial breastmilk alternative.EliteFTSThis meta-analysis found that soy is no worse than whey at building muscle. While it did make some conclusions about T-levels, since soy doesn't hurt an athlete's ability to build muscle, this isn't detrimental either.Pro also does not show why not being a top athlete is "detrimental." Taking vitamins won't build muscle, but that doesn't mean they're detrimental.SummaryThis debate is not all about the research, although it's the only thing pro has anything on at the end of the debate. But let me explain why I think the research supports me.I gave you six independent, peer-reviewed studies, including two meta-analyses of over 30 other studies, proving that soy is safe in people. Pro has given no reason why this should not be true for children.Pro gave you many studies that soy is harmful to animals. I showed in depth WHY these studies cannot be applied to humans.The question we should be asking is - what animal is a human child most close to? A human of course! Which is why despite the fact that we've had soy for 50+ years, soy-fed kids are developing normally. And it's why all the studies on human children support my position.And teens? That's a crazy hypothesis my opponent had. He presented no research to back it up, and not even a reason why it might be true.The actual science is still very much on my side.If that's what matters, then I think it's clear where the evidence is. If not, then pro has essentially conceded.Vote con.Sources1 - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...2 - http://ajcn.nutrition.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://jama.jamanetwork.com...5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: My opponent has stated that milk is nasty in his original round as well as in the resolution. Thus, it is still his job to counter my case which referred to milk "tasting nasty." As for milking being nasty due to its origins, this argument suffers from the same flaws. To some, make me seem nasty due to the fact that it can come out of cow's utters, but to others, it most certainly doesn't. Thus, the flaw in my opponent's case is still the matter of "subjectivity." Furthermore, his argument goes about assuming that milk can only come from cows, but this is false too. Many of you may realize that milk is produced by other living creatures, but it can also be artificially produced. Furthermore, even in cow milk, milk producers put it through the process of pasteurization (a process which eliminates all harmful bacteria) before selling it to the market. I now stand ready for my opponent's final rebuttal.

Title: should chocolate milk be served in school Content: Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamin

Title: choc. milk in schools Content: choc. milk tastes better and is better then white milk because it can get u through the day with some energy left for gym. plus some people cant do a single pull up without the energy from choc. milk

Title: Should you be consuming caffeine Content: I would argue that it is not best for humans to be consuming anything that is not naturally occurring in nature. To be more specific, I believe in the Paleo ideaology which believes that if humans weren't consuming certain things 15 thousand years ago, They shouldn't be consuming it today as our bodies have not yet effectively addapted to using these foods, Drugs, Or chemicals for energy. Just think of all of those people who can't consume milk because there bodies reject or cannot tolerate it. Humans should not be consuming painkillers as painkillers are very hard on our bodies and inhibit our bodies natural ability to sense pain in response to an outside stimuli. Any drug that affects your brain chemicals should not be taken unless absolutely necessary. Thousands of people die every year as a result of accidents with prescription pain killers and prescribed medication. Bringing attention back to caffeine, Caffeine I'll admit for most people is ok as in they will not be debilitated by it at least in the present. But that does not mean that caffeine is safe on our bodies long term health. The effects of caffeine on our bodies in the long term is unknown and therefore should be avoided.

Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: chocolate milk is so much better though. i asked a teacher and a friend and a couple of other people. they would prefer to chug down a whole container of chocolate milk in a milk drinking contest than drink regular milk. so BOOM!

Title: It is unethical to legalize marijuana for recructional use. Content: I accept. Milk and tea are marvellous things. A cunning mix allow one to pretend that one is not drinking scotch before 9.

Title: Breastfeeding improves health of mothers Content: Nancy Solomon. "Breastfeeding in Public Is a Basic Civil Right." WEnews. August 7, 2002: "breastfeeding offers significant health benefits to nursing mothers, including reduced risks of breast and other types of cancers, as well as osteoporosis."

Title: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Content: The Los Angeles Unified School District is taking a stand against child obesity by banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk. In the past few years, schools in the District of Columbia, Boulder Valley, Colorado, and Berkeley, California have also banned flavored milk. The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk (1). These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever. Children under the age of 9 should not take in more than 120 empty calories a day (2). By drinking a carton of chocolate milk, young children are consuming nearly 50% of this daily limit. For this reason, the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity strongly discourages serving flavored milk (3). Opponents of banning flavored milk argue that all flavors of milk contain the same quantities of important nutrients. While this is true, children will absorb more of these nutrients if they choose to drink plain milk as opposed to chocolate milk. Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. One study found that a single 100 gram dose of dark chocolate increased calcium excretion by 147% (4). According to another study, “Higher frequency of chocolate consumption is linearly related to lower bone density and strength” (5). Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so (6). Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods (7). Based on these conclusions, students who drink plain milk on a regular basis should develop less of a preference for chocolate milk. This has several important implications for schools. Administrators may feel that it makes sense to serve chocolate milk to increase children’s initial acceptance of milk. However, this strategy will actually result in decreased long-term acceptance of unsweetened foods, including white milk. Conclusion: Our society has a responsibility to help students develop healthy eating habits. Banning flavored milk in our schools is an excellent way to accomplish this task. References: http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.choosemyplate.gov... http://yaleruddcenter.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ajcn.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.yaleruddcenter.org...

Title: All children are entitled to a healthy start in life Content: The World Health Organisation, a collection of internationally qualified doctors state that breast milk naturally contains all the nutrients that a child could need for the first 6 months of its life [[http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/exclusive_breastfeeding/en/index.html]]. From iron to zinc, calcium to protein; everything that is vital for a healthy young life can be found in these natural given milk ducts. The Government should make it compulsory for mothers to breast feed to ensure that every child is allowed to benefit from this. Not one child should ever be disadvantaged due to their mother’s selfish choice or lack of effort. To make breast feeding compulsory is the only way to ensure this fairness. If we want equality, this is what we must do.

Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: thank you for embarking on this discussion with me. human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. the sophisticated library of terms that modern science uses to explain our nutritional needs are just elements of raw data that is only relevant to the persons in which the effects were observed. nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. the reality of the situation as is the case with most matters is the influence of financial profit. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren indeed plant life is also living. and its possible that plants feel just as much pain by our disturbing their natural life cycle. however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. ----------------------- apologies for any incoherent parts...........or any missing formalities..............im new to this but keen to improviing ------------------

Title: Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk Content: I think chocolate milk is better because it tastes better and people drink it more than that other milk.

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: I thank whoever accepts this debate. *Note: I would like to say that I am not encouraging excessive use of alcohol. It is important to recognize that beer can also have a significant impact on your health if abused. I will clarify that "moderation" is one or two drinks a day, and half that for women (because of their ability to break down alcohol), not consumed one directly after the other (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...). Resolution: For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. I will start by attempting to reproduce a nutritional table showing beer and milk: United States Department of Agriculture Nutritional Data for Milk and Beer ------------------------| MILK (I cup, 2% milk)----- | BEER (1 cup) ----------- Fat (g) ----------------|------------ 5---------------- | --------- 0 ---------------- Fiber (g) --------------| ----------- 0 ---------------- | --------- .5 -------------- Sodium (mg) -------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 12 ------------ Cholesterol (mg) ---- | ---------- 20 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- Calories -------------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 97 ------------ Calories from fat (%)-| ---------- 37 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- I don't think this posted properly so here's the link as well. (. http://www.milksucks.com...) Beer has no fat or cholesterol but does contain less calories and ten times less sodium than milk. Milk is found to actually cause osteoporosis because dairy products have high levels protein. When protein levels in the body are doubled, but no other nutrient levels are changed, the levels of calcium in the urine increase by about fifty percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993). Milk is also loaded with pesticides and antibiotics, because cows are producing ten times the amount of milk they would normally produce, their udders get swollen and drag on the ground. Pus and blood have been foound in milk as a result. Antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation and trace amounts have been found in milk, pesticides are also found in the dairy product. These chemicals can build up and negatively effect the immune system, reproductive system and central nervous system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer as well (. http://www.pcrm.org...). In the book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, consuming alcohol in moderate levels "protects against heart disease and ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence [shows] that it protects against diabetes and gallstones" (Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, 2001). Alcohol reduces the risk of strokes and heart attacks and increases brain function as well. (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...) Also, if you have time, read this : . http://www.guardian.co.uk... OK, that's all for now.

Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: R2 ArgumentsI. IntroII. Point by pointA. FatB. Saturated fatC. IGF-1D. CholesterolE. CaseinF. LactoseG. Bacteria endotoxinsIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroMilk is detrimental to human health for many reasons. Excess fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, and bacteria endotoxins.II. Point by pointA. FatFat contains 9 calories per gram. Protein and carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram. [0] Fat due to its high caloric content can lead to over eating and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Excess dietary fat can also lead to intramyocellular lipid buildup, which in turn can lead to insulin resistance. B. Saturated fatSaturated fat can increase blood viscosity forcing your heart to work harder and leading to lethargy. Furthermore, saturated fat can break down into the bad cholesterol, LDL, low density lipoprotein. C. IGF-1IGF-1, insulin like growth factor 1 increases risk for cancer by promoting cancer cell growth.D. CholesterolCholesterol is associated with degenerate disease.E. CaseinCasein can cause an immune system response that destroys pancreas cells and leads to type I diabetes.F. LactoseMany people of the world are lactose intolerant. G. Bacteria endotoxinsBoth alive and dead bacteria release endotoxins which can cause an immune system response. III. ConclusionFor many reasons, milk is detrimental to human health. IV. Sources0. http://www.mayoclinic.org...

Title: choc. milk in schools Content: Regular milk provides the same benefits, without the excess sugar.

Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: What does the research say about sugar and flavored milk? Sugar is a contributor to the health problems that are harming our kids. Sugary drinks are often called “liquid candy”, and are an easy way for kids to consume large amounts of added sugar. Several studies have shown that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity and risk for chronic disease;8 it seems to be the one part of kids’ diets most linked to increased weight.9 Flavored milk is a sugary drink, along with soda, sports drinks and many juice drinks, but the majority of these studies did not include it, and there has been very little research to directly investigate the effects of flavored milk on children’s health. The few studies that have been conducted were sponsored by the dairy industry. How much sugar is too much? Recommendations for sugar consumption vary depending on age, gender, and level of physical activity. Health experts recommend that sugar should come from our daily “budget” of discretionary, or spare calories. For example, girls between 9 and 13 who get less than 30 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, only have 130 calories to spare.10 The American Heart Association recommends that no more than half of your discretionary calories come from added sugar,11 so in this case, just 65 calories. One serving of flavored milk provides 64 calories of added sugar, which would equal a whole day’s allowance. What about using cane sugar or non-caloric natural or artificial sweeteners? Replacing high fructose corn syrup with another sugar, such as cane sugar, does not reduce the added sugar content. Cane sugar is similar in composition to high fructose corn syrup (it’s 50% fructose), and neither is beneficial for children’s health when consumed in high quantities. Some processors are considering adding non-caloric sweeteners to milk, but adding any kind of sweetener teaches kids that foods need to be sweeter or flavored in order to be enjoyable, rather than encouraging them to appreciate the taste of whole, natural foods, such as plain milk. Furthermore, not enough research has been conducted to assure the safety of giving children alternative sweeteners on a regular, prolonged basis. If we take away flavored milk, will kids get less calcium and other essential nutrients? Isn’t it worth giving them the extra sugar to make sure they get these? A Dairy Council sponsored study reported that children who drink flavored milk consume more servings of milk daily.12 However, in the majority of age groups, the flavored milk drinkers did not have a significantly higher intake of calcium, or other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium than kids who just drank plain milk. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. Exercise also contributes to good bone health. MORE AND MORE SCHOOLS ARE MAKING THE MOVE TOWARDS PLAIN MILK Pioneering school districts – New Haven, CT; Boulder Valley, Colorado; Washington, DC; Ventura, California – have replaced flavored milk with white. They say that although selection drops initially, once the kids get used to it, the selection goes back up again. Many more districts are following suit – more than 50 in all, led by places like Los Angeles and Minneapolis this year. WILL SCHOOLS LOSE MONEY IF THEY SWITCH OUT FLAVORED FOR WHITE? Schools can still receive their full federal reimbursement for school lunch by offering just plain milk. Generally flavored milk costs more than white milk for the schools to purchase, though suppliers may vary. So school meal budgets should not be impacted by the switch. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FAQS: Why is the Food Revolution focusing on flavored milk? Jamie’s position on flavored milk is that it has no place in schools, and right from the start of the Food Revolution, he has advocated going back to plain, white milk. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are highly processed and contain unnecessary sugars and additives which don’t add any nutritional value. How can we encourage kids to choose white milk? Chef Ann Cooper, better known as the “Renegade Lunch Lady”, serves only white milk in the Boulder, CO schools. She says that it is important to serve the milk cold, and preferably in a glass as opposed to a carton.7 Kate Adamick, who has led the same change in districts in central California, says that educating the cafeteria staff and teachers around the sugar math helps them to explain the reasons to the kids. In Washington, DC, Jeff Mills started fresh in the fall and got very little push back. Switching at the start of a new semester is always going to be less controversial than half way through. Flavored milk can still be served on special occasions only, so the kids come to view it as a treat. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are a processed food product, and contain unnecessary sugars and additives, which don’t add any nutritional value. The food industry has convinced many schools and parents that they need to serve flavored milk to ensure kids get essential vitamins and minerals, and is backing chocolate and flavored milk with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign, led by “Raise Your Hand for Chocolate Milk.”4 Science and common sense don’t back that position up. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. All that’s needed is to invest those marketing dollars behind good old, white milk. We know that with the right backing from the school community to promote plain milk, kids are happy to drink it. An 8 oz carton of flavored milk typically has about 4 teaspoons (64 calories) of added sugar. 1 Industry claims that beginning this school year chocolate milk will average 2.5 teaspoons (40 calories) of added sugar.2 Milk always has 12 grams (about 3 tsp) of its natural sugar, lactose.* If a child drinks flavored milk at breakfast and lunch they are getting 5-8 teaspoons of added sugar, 80-128 extra calories, every day. An 8oz serving size of Coca-Cola has just under 7 teaspoons of sugar. Over a 180-day school year, that adds up to almost 8 pounds of unnecessary sugar (and at least 14,400 calories!). Imagine if they drank it all 365 days… *Calculate your added sugar at www.jamiesfoodrevolution.com/MilkAction *Formulations and sugar content varies by school district. Read your labels! KIDS ARE DRINKING A LOT OF FLAVORED MILK AT SCHOOL About 70% of the milk consumed in schools is flavored.4 Low-fat chocolate milk is the most popular choice.5 80% of flavored milk sold in America is to schools. It’s the place kids get flavored milk. “Flavored milk is not the nutritional equivalent of unflavored milk. It is significantly higher in calories, sugar, and sodium, and usually contains artificial colors and flavors.” – Marlene Schwartz, PhD, Deputy Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesityat Yale University

Title: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. Content: “Because no explicit of burden of proof was stated in the rules and neither me or my opponent claimed the other had burden of proof, we must assume a shared burden. This is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent does attempt to show the superiority of Soy milk via his offensive.” So I've taken some of your burden proof onto my own shoulders just because I provided both rebuttals and offensive arguments? That doesn't make sense. Your position is that Cow's Milk is superior to Soy Milk; I merely need to prove that Soy is at least equal to win this debate. “Hence even if you say my argument is completely invalid at best you should award us a tie in the arguments portion of the debate.” So if your argument is completely invalid, and mine isn't, you deserve a tie? That makes even less sense! “I was mistaken on the protein portion of the contest” Thank you. “However, my opponent drops my portion of the argument about biological values and different types of protein and therefore concedes that even if they have the same amount of protein, Cow's Milk is still far superior in types of protein.” Both Cow's Milk and Soy's Milk contain all the EAAs and have individual traits thought to offer a unique advantage for muscle growth.1 “He also never addresses the fact that Soy is a plant protein and therefore not a complete protein. I will consider this dropped.” According to a 2009 paper called Soy: a complete source of protein,2 “Soybeans contain all of the essential amino acids necessary for human nutrition”. It goes on to clarify that Soy actually “is a complete source of protein”. (emphasis mine) “Furthermore, there are many many sources of folate. You don't need Soy Milk at all to get folate.” And you don't need Cow's Milk at all to get any vitamins. “I would ask my opponent, are cigarettes of higher quality and importance(emphasis) than say his Soy Milk. Because it would seem that it costs more. We could also ask if a Big Mac is better Quality than Soy Milk.” That's the fallacy of False Analogy; comparing a Big Mac with Soy Milk is like comparing apples and oranges. I compared two types of milk, and it's a perfectly valid analogy. People pay more for Soy Milk because it's superior to Cow's Milk. I won't waste time rebutting your YouTube experiment, since you already did that by clarifying that it was biased. “Most people are not lactose intolerant[...] Anyone who clicks on his source will see even if you read the entire case study it never ever says that most people are lactose intolerant” Sorry, I must've cited the wrong source. Here is the source I meant to site: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... You will find that this government page agrees that most people are, indeed, lactose-intolerant, as the number of those with reduced lactose digesting ability is “65 percent of the human population”. The Nottingham Institute of Genetics backs this up, stating that “Most people cannot drink milk as adults without the symptoms of lactose intolerance”.4 “My opponent is being dishonest when he says that Soy Milk can be drunk by everybody. There two distinct groups that cannot drink Soy that can drink Cow's Milk. People who are allergic to Soy.” “Overall, soy is well tolerated”.2 Furthermore, according to this graph from EuroPrevall, an EU-funded project about food allergy, it's clear that far more people are allergic to Cow's Milk than Soy Milk5: “Plus people who are bodybuilder because it lowers testosterone and raises estrogen. This is because it reduces muscles gains.” That's a myth. Soy Milk has never been shown to reduce muscle gains. Also, you are completely ignoring the fact that Cow's Milk has estrogen too. According to the Harvard News6: “Among the routes of human exposure to estrogens, we are mostly concerned about cow's milk, which contains considerable amounts of female sex hormones”. The paper goes on to say that Dairy “accounts for 60 percent to 80 percent of estrogens consumed.” So most of the estrogen that you are worried about actually comes from Cow's Milk, not Soy Milk. “[Con] must concede Soy Milk does contain more carbs even if he doubts the importance which I will explain is a mistake” I do not doubt the importance of the presence of healthy carbs in Soy Milk, which Cow's Milk does not have. That's because, as I already pointed out in the previous round, Soy Milk has fiber, a type of carbohydrate needed for healthy digestion.7 Cow's Milk doesn't have any! “My opponent says bodybuilders eat tons of carbs. While many bodybuilders do eat many carbs and no one would argue they don't , however they are referring to complex carbohydrates with a high glycemic index.” No, they are not only referring to complex carbohydrates, and you've given no reason for anyone to believe that's the case. Besides, I already showed a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger consuming a massive pizza, which is composed almost entirely of simple carbohydrates with a high glycemic index! “It is laughable that they show the California governor instead of the bodybuilder Schwarzenegger to support their point.” It's laughable that you think that Governor Schwarzenegger and bodybuilder Schwarzenegger aren't the same person. Mr. Schwarzenegger is still bodybuilding, as evidenced by this photo taken this year8: “Another problem with carbs is that they are hard to digest in comparison to Fat.” Completely wrong. “Almost all carbohydrates[...] are the quickest to digest and absorb […] Fats take the most time to fully digest and absorb because they are the largest molecules”.9 Cow's Milk is not superior to Soy Milk. Vote Con! 1http://www.dartmouthsports.com... 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 4European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 267–269. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201297 5http://www.europrevall.org... 6http://www.news.harvard.edu... 7http://www.sciencedaily.com... 8http://www.shockmansion.com... 9http://woman.thenest.com...

Title: Cows Are Evil Content: May i respectfully say to my opponent that this debate is over whether or not cow are evil and in no way over how we should treat them. Next, i will refute my opponents argument. I will speak in first person. Cows, your argument is invalid. Milk does not come out of the cow's penis, it comes out of the utters, obviously. To continue, cows like splattering us with their white milk. They know that milk contributes to the development of facial acne and also that some people will die if they drink it. Also, cows are huge. Obviously, if cows are huge then they want to roll over us and destroy our organs so that they can reclaim all the grasses and then form a milk republic founded under the principles of the ancient Bovan republic, so if we start feeling for these cows they will take advantage of that and kill us all. Yes, you too you fat cow. Who do you think you are raping my sexy wife and then eating my children to contribute to you obesity? Your Turn.

Title: Chocolate is good. Content: My opponent says that chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what. I believe that this argument may be correct, but it still gives benefits. Chocolate, like any other food, is bad if you have to much. However, this does not mean that it is bad. For example, if you have too much water, it would be bad. Though that may be true, water is still good for you. About the same goes for chocolate. Chocolate may not be a food you want to eat too much, however it does give benefits. Chocolate is still good. In addition, she says that chocolate can cause headaches, however, according to http://www.everydayhealth.com..., coffee can do the same. Yet people still drink it! Thus, chocolate is still something good you can enjoy, like coffee! My opponent then says then says that not all chocolates have the same health benefits. Though this may be true, the chocolates each do have at least one thing. White chocolate, for example, can give calcium, while milk chocolate can give a medium or a high level of cacao. She then gives a counter example, which doesn't really relate to the topic. Vanilla and chocolate are both good, and we are arguing about how chocolate is good! She believes that chocolate is not good, and I believe it is. This is not chocolate vs vanilla. Thus, this counter example is useless. In conclusion, chocolate does give health benefits.

Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: Yeah but you are not drinking chocolate milk 24/7! That doesn't mean that . im saying that it is better because it has that sweet taste for every person who has a sweet tooth and want that taste instead of eating candy like crazy!

Title: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. Content: Resolution: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. This seems to be a giant debate over the value of Soy in the bodybuilding community as well as in the average population. I have come to bring us from the chains of our Soy overlords :) 1. No direct plagiarism 2. No intentional fallacious arguments 3. General Debate etiquette 4. Have fun! No exceptions :) Violation of the rules will result in a 7 point forfeit.

Title: Tea making. Milk should go in after and not before the tea. Content: I assume my opponent has come round to the idea that tea is best made milk last. Good luck and more importantly good tea in the future!

Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Pro says that eating meat and dairy products is wrong because we can live on a vegan diet..I Con disagrees. Con believes eating vegan is not healthy.For example a study stated that 83% of vegans are b12 deficient..And this can cause many problems including. amenia,neurological and psychotic problems,and fatigue...Here's the linkhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... There are lots of studies that say vegans have deficiencies for many nutrients. I'm out of time,will be back for round 5.

Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: Too much sugar in Chocolate milk There is too much sugar in it and some may think it is healthy milk but it is not it has disease teaspoons of added sugar and 27 total grams of carbohydrates.According to Michigan State University Extension"In fact, when sugars are added to otherwise nutrient-rich foods, such as sugar-sweetened dairy products like flavored milk and yogurt and sugar-sweetened cereals, the quality of children"s and adolescents" diets improves, and in the case of flavored milks, no adverse effects on weight status were found." So those are my reasons and quote on There is too much sugar in chocolate milk.

Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: Thanks Kleptin, good luck in the final round. "My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones" My source was the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993. It does not have a link because it's not on the Internet. The research was done by Dr. Robert P. Heaney. I did find the excerpt that I was referring to on the Internet however: (http://www.ecopolitan.com...) (scroll about halfway down). In the text he says: "The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent." The other article that I cited was referring to my claim there was pesticides and and antibiotics in milk. I will take a paragraph directly out of the source that I used in round one: "Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow's body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.27 Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer." (http://www.pcrm.org...) In regards to my opponent's sources, one source says: "The newly approved tests detect only four, or at most, five beta lactams. What about the several other families of antibiotics currently available for use?" (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...). Another source, when looking at the "Human Health" section, is one big "citation needed" after another(http://en.wikipedia.org...). His third source says: All 739 milk samples tested contained residues, and in fact the average sample had 2.88 residues – a HUGE jump from the testing just eight years earlier." and it also says "The good news is that the levels of DDE, DPA, and other pesticides found in milk in 2004 were very low. Most fell below one part per billion (ppb). The highest residue levels found were, at most, one-quarter of the applicable EPA tolerance (the maximum allowable limit of a pesticide in a given food)." (http://www.organic-center.org...). These pesticides build up in the body. The samples that contained high amounts of pesticides could easily build up to harmful levels. "I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders." Not EVERY cow has swollen udders, but there are cows that do, here's a picture. (http://www.milksucks.co.uk...) "Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylactic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly." I probably did mix up the words antibiotics and anti-inflammatory, but when cow's udders drag on the ground (see above picture), they are sure to be cut. Those cuts may also come into contact with the manure left on the ground in the cow's living space, and can infect the udders. "The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word "milk" appears a total of 0 times." Again, you must have missed a part in my article. In my source (http://www.pcrm.org...), it says: "Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I). IGF-I is found in cow's milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis. Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow's milk." In the section labeled "Cancer," the word "milk" shows up five times. "This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable" The Wikipedia article? I didn't see that in the article anywhere. "You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage." Moderate Drinking does not cause liver damage. (http://www.liverfoundation.org...) "In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate." It is relevant, because although those numbers are high in the US, other countries may not take nearly as many drugs. Since we are dealing with a worldwide scale here, those figures may not be nearly as high. Ranitidine is also known as Zantac, and famotidine is know as Pepcid, both are over the counter prescriptions. These can be taken with alcohol, how many other prescriptions can be taken with alcohol as well? "Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free." That is true, but in R1 you defined beer to be "an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste." and in R2 I defined milk as "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc." You did not alter my definition of milk and I accepted your definition of beer. Your definition of beer says it is an alcoholic beverage and my definition of milk says it is a liquid secreted by animals like cows and goats. Cow's and goat's milk has lactose in it. So to bring up non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks is irrelevant. Even if we were to argue non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks, who says non-alcoholic beers aren't healthy? And they are not hard to find, I can walk down to my local grocery store and a buy a 24-pack if I wanted to. Granted, lactose-free and fat-free milks probably remove some of the health problems that arise from milk, it isn't just the fat or lactose in the milk that is the problem. It is the casein and the chemicals too. Also, my sources are not biased, they are merely compilations of evidence that have found milk to be detrimental to one's health. If I wanted to read a book on communism, it isn't biased because it doesn't mention fascist ideas as well. I was researching how milk is unhealthy for a person, and that is what I found. So, in conclusion: Beer has no fat, ten times less sodium, no cholesterol and less calories then milk. Beer can protect against diabetes, strokes, heart disease, dementia and lower stress. Milk has small amounts pesticides and antibiotics that can build up in the body that can effect the immune system, central nervous system and reproductive system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer too. Milk has casein, which breaks down into casomorphine, which can aggravate autism. My opponent has misread my sources, claiming they are saying something completely different that what they are actually saying. He has gone so far as to twist my resolution and say my restriction was on people who drive, which is not what I said. Cow's milk is made for baby cows, not humans of all ages. We do not need milk to maintain a healthy diet beyond the age of 12 months old. Thanks to Kleptin for the great debate.

Title: Lowering US drinking age from 21 to 18 Content: Drinking is healthy in moderation.

Title: Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets/diets with animal products Content: Why? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating "well-planned diets," not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.

Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: White milk has more Vitamin D than Chocolate milk and kids love it because there's sager! Kids love Chocolate and they wanted for kids to drink more milk so they made it together!

Title: Compulsory breast feeding will reduce the level of child pain. Content: Breast milk not only contains nutrients, it also contains many of the immunities that the mother has accrued in life. This means that upon being breast fed, the child will begin to become immune to many the things that the mother is immune to. This will prevent the child being sick. Given that babies are weak and are susceptible to illness we should try and reduce their pain by making breast feeding compulsory. This will ensure that the child is ill less often. This is the most human thing to do, to stop child pain and suffering.

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

Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: This basically summarizes my arguments and counter arguments: "Dairy foods can be high in fat and, therefore, calories. Low-fat dairy foods, such as skim milk and low-fat cottage cheese, have had most of the fat skimmed off and they can still be good choices for calorie counters. But all the good stuff, like cheese, ice cream, and butter, can be diet-busters. " "In higher fat dairy products, most of the fat is saturated fat. Diets high in saturated fats can raise your cholesterol levels and increase your risk of heart disease. " "Dairy products contain lactose, a type of milk-sugar that many people have difficulty digesting because they lack the digestive enzyme lactase. If you can't digest lactose, eating dairy products can give you a rumbley tummy or worse. Lactose intolerance affects between ten and twenty percent of the population. You are much more likely to be lactose intolerant if you are of African, Asian, or Native American heritage. Lactose-reduced dairy products or lactase tablets can allow lactose intolerant people to eat dairy with fewer difficulties. " "Although cow's milk allergies are fairly rare in adults, many babies and small children are allergic to milk, and experience symptoms including ear infections, skin rashes, and digestive problems. Avoiding dairy products can alleviate symptoms. " _________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com... www. formerfatguy. com/articles/dont-drink-milk.

Title: Chocolate Milk Content: Chocolate Milk is a sugar itself. It is full of fat, and cholesterol. I hope this argument will provoke a spark of awareness, for people who are not aware of this hot topic issue.

Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. Your examples are of omnivore diets; eskimos eat fish, and game, amazons insects, fish, livestock, and game. Being omnivores is what allows us to eat such a wide range of nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. You are right. You could eat 33 cups of baby spinach, or 5 to 6 cups of cooked spinach to get the same calcium as 8 oz of milk. My point was more that no one really eat this much. You would have to eat all day long. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' Most of them never make a peer viewed study. They are not scientist because they are not trying to change the minds of scientist only the general public. if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. Actually there has been scientist that have claimed this; as a reason behind lactose intolerance. There was not much of a rebuttal. The rebuttal is we are getting used to it, because we have drank goat’s milk and not cow’s milk though out most of human history. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren Can you site a source for even one Indian tribe that is vegan? however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. Did you know talking to a plant makes it grow more? That there is a field of science that are studying plant this kind of stuff, it is called plant neurobiology. Also plants have a perceivable pain response. Many plants will recoil when you hurt them. http://www.discovery.com... My opponent as locked them self into it has to be livestock or plants. There are more options than just these to. The best argument on my side currently is that insects solve all of my opponent’s arguments so far and still have humans not being vegetarians. My opponent as yet to give a rebuttal to this point.

Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Outline I. Summary of Con's arguments and flaws II. Line by line rebuttal III. Links I. Reading Con's arguments Con seems to focus on undernutrition. That meat and dairy has x, y, and z nutrients and these are essential to health. Which is true, undernutrition can cause many dilemmas. "A form of malnutrition resulting from a reduced supply of food or from inability to digest, assimilate, and use the necessary nutrients."[16]. "This undernutrition starts early in life"more than a third of African children under the age of five are stunted in their growth and must face a range of physical and cognitive challenges not faced by their better-nourished peers." [17]. "overnutrition [-noM3;oM3;trishR42;ən] a condition of excess nutrient and energy intake over time. Overnutrition may be regarded as a form of malnutrition when it leads to morbid obesity." [18]. When eating meat in moderation, the problem is not undernutrition but overnutrition. Overnutrition of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal proteins. [19]. There are plenty of ways to get the nutrients Con mentioned through a plant based diet, without over consumption. II. "Their first claim was that dairy, meat and eggs are unhealthy. However, meat has a lot of proteins. Proteins are necessary for cells and overall growth of the body." Con This statement is true. Meat has a lot of protein and the body needs a lot of protein. Yet, Pro has already proven that a person can get enough protein through a plant based diet. Con's claim is no longer relevant to the discussion. "According to government statistics, nine out of 10 women and six out of 10 men fall short of calcium recommendations." Con Please provide a source for these statistics Con. Pro contends its unfair for a debater not to list his or her source. Adequate calcium can be gained from a plant based diet as seen in round 2. Con's argument on undernutrition and calcium is irrelevant. "The high-quality protein in cheese provides the body with essential building blocks for strong muscles. For a complete listing of the nutrients in cheese, see the table below." Con Another undernutrition argument that is irrelevant. "If you are lactose intolerant, many cheeses, particularly aged cheeses such as Cheddar and Swiss, contain little or no lactose and are often well tolerated." Con Lactose is a sugar without fiber nor phytonutrients. Lactose therefore is unhealthy. Cheese has lots of fat, thus overnutrition. [20]. Only one cup of cheddar has 532 calories, 72% from fat and only 2% from carbs. 28g of Saturated fat. 139mg of cholesterol, that's nearly 50% of your daily cholesterol intake. Not to mention the sodium. "For the past 30 years or so, saturated fat""found in meats, eggs, cheese, butter, whole milk, lard and some oils""was considered a primary cause of heart disease. New research, however, is showing that saturated fat has a minimal impact on heart disease risk, which is changing the "saturated fat is bad" paradigm and allowing people to enjoy more cheese and other favorite foods. Further research is needed showing significant scientific agreement." Con Con makes a strong argument. Not strong enough though. Con gives no reference to outside sources. There are many ways to mislead information. For example, trans fat is considered to be more unhealthy than saturated fat. If the two are compared one might receive the illusion that saturated fat is healthy. Also, medium chain triglycerides saturated fat found in coconut oil tend to be much healthier than long chain triglycerides found in animal products. " A new study suggests dietary substitution of saturated fat in the form of medium chain triglycerides (MCT) for polyunsaturated fats can prevent progression of NAFLD-associated liver injury and that MCT containing oils could be a new NAFLD therapy." [21]. Even so, saturated fats increase LDL levels, increase blood viscosity, and gut permeability. Higher blood viscosity forces the heart to work harder. "A diet high in saturated fat is linked to an increase in low-density lipoproteins"[22]. Saturated fat increases blood viscosity. "Eating saturated fat has been linked to viscous blood and risk for high blood pressure, according to the World Health Organization"[23]. Gut permeability "A single meal of meats, eggs, and dairy can cause a spike of inflammation within hours that can stiffen one"s arteries. Originally this was thought to be the result of saturated animal fat causing our gut lining to leak bacterial toxins into our blood stream leading to endotoxemia." [24]. Con then discusses pesticides. Pesticides that are sprayed on grain that livestock eat and then the pesticides are transferred to humans via consumption of animal products. "Their third point was that farming is cruel. However, farming is not cruel. It is true that many factory farms can be cruel to animals" Con Factory farming is cruelty incarnate. All factory farms are cruel. Here's a video to demonstrate. [25]. "However, the family, mom and pop farms treat animals with kindness and even respect. " Con The mom and pop farms do not treat animals with kindness and respect. Is slavery kind or respectful? No! Is the killing of an innocent sentient being kind? No! [26]. Watch the slideshow for [26] and tell me that mom and pop farms are kind and respectful. "Perhaps instead of completely banning animals and all animal products, we could come up with a much more radical solution. An example of which could be to lower how much we rely on factory farms." Con Pro refuses to compromise. "Their fourth assertion was about production agitating world hunger. He said that we should feed humans what we are feeding animals. However, lets assume it like that. We will now replace the animals in this food chain. We will eat all the grain and will the poverty issue be solved? NO!" Con Although poverty won't be solved, a partial solution is almost always better than no solution. This is a Nirvana Fallacy on Con's part. "8. The Nirvana Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when you reject a partial solution because it is not perfect. Obamacare doesn"t cover all Americans, but it does get most insured. It would be a Nirvana Fallacy to say, "because it doesn"t cover all Americans, it should be rejected." A partial fix is better than no fix; something is almost always better than nothing. "[27]. "Now to quickly repeat my arguments. 1. The three food are extremely healthy. 2. They help the economy 3. This plan is not feasible." Con 1. Pro has already proven that these foods are unhealthy. 2. Yes, but morals take precedence over money. 3. How so? This isn't about feasibility, this is about morals. It might seem unfeasible to try to save every human life, yet we have to try. Pro deliberately left the implementation broad. Change doesn't have to happen overnight. Non-vegan foods could be banned slowly over the next ten to fifty years. This would give plenty of time for people to adjust. Think of incandescent light bulbs and how they are being phased out. The same could be done for meat, eggs, and dairy worldwide. Con's arguments become redundant about receiving enough calcium and vitamin D. Yogurt and bacteria. This is a good argument. In fact the best argument Pro has seen in this series of debates. Yogurt's health benefits are a lie "We think it is one of the worst fake diet foods on the planet. There are so many foods out there that are healthier, tastier and far more filling than a tiny cup of lactose. If you are a yogurt addict wanting to drop those last five pounds, here are some things to think about next time you're in the dairy section. " [28]. If you want bacteria they are plenty in the Earth. Bacteria are just about everywhere. In conclusion, Con has failed to make an effective counter-argument. Pro has further proved the benefits of a plant diet and adverse health effects of consuming animal products. Meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide. Vote Pro. III. Links 16. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 18. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 19. https://www.youtube.com... 20. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 21. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 22. http://www.livestrong.com... 23. http://www.theatlantic.com... 24. http://nutritionfacts.org... 25. 26. http://www.humanemyth.org... 27. https://docs.google.com... 28. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Title: we should make chocolate our president Content: well you see as long as we have cows there will always bee chocolate milk so we should keep our dairy cows in good health and the supply of milk flowing. As the milk spoiled we could replace it with more

Title: Vegan Diets are Healthier Content: We are getting into the meat of this debate. Things are sizzling. A Low-Meat Diet is Best for Health My claims at the end of the last round have gone unrebutted. Studies show that people who consume modest amounts of meat or fish have better health than vegans. The National Institute of Health, American Heart Association, and World Cancer Research Fund all recommend a balanced diet that includes meat. The longest-lived populations consume meat. Pro persists in comparing unplanned diets having meat with a theoretically optimum vegan diet. The planning for the idealized vegan diet is beyond the average person. Also, comprehensive studies show that in practice vegans have no better health than indiscriminate meat-eaters, and that the best health is achieved by those with low-meat and low-fish diets. Vegetarians who consume dairy are somewhere in between in overall heath. Pro responds that he will get to the planning issue in the next round, but indicated no intention to dispute the rest. The Cancer Study Controversy Pro's Case is Negated if the Study is Accurate. Suppose the WCRF/AID study is 100% correct. Pro's case is still negated, because the Study did not recommend the vegan diet that Pro advocates. They recommended a low-meat diet. The American Institute for Cancer Research summarizes, "Studies show we can eat up to 18 ounces a week of red meat without raising cancer risk. Research on processed meat [preserved by smoking, curing or salting] shows cancer risk starts to increase with any portion." http://www.aicr.org... A vegan diet also extrudes white meat, fish, and dairy not subject to the claimed risks. The dispute is about whether there is proved causal relationship between meat consumption and cancer above the 18 ounce threshold. It's About the Science, not the Authors The review of the WCRF/AID study was done by Exponent. Exponent is an independent organization of 900 professionals. Their website http://www.exponent.com... notes "Our multidisciplinary organization of scientists, physicians, engineers, and regulatory consultants performs in-depth investigations in more than 90 technical disciplines. We analyze failures and accidents to determine their causes and to understand how to prevent them. We evaluate complex human health and environmental issues to find cost-effective solutions." Their reputation depends upon their integrity. Pro objects that Exponent was paid by the Cattlemen's Association. Suppose you are accused of a crime, and you believe that you can be proved innocent by showing that someone else's DNA was at the crime scene. What you do is hire an independent forensic expert to investigate and report. That's what the Cattlemen did. It plays out in Court by each side presenting the evidence they uncovered. Arguing that the defendant paid for his defense does not dispose of the evidence, the evidence must be examined directly. If the hired expert finds nothing, the defense fails. In Pro's ref R3.14, a professor summarizes the Exponent findings: The report omitted a comparison of several groups of socially matched meat-eating consumers and vegetarians in which there was no difference in mortality from colorectal cancer between the two groups; The WCRF/AICR report omitted 13 cohort studies involving 1.6 million people -- including a large study conducted by the American Cancer Society -- in which 11 of the studies found no significant association between eating red meat and cancer; The report did not refer to follow-up work by certain of its research sources that drew different conclusions, and The report did not refer to recent work by researchers that involved more subjects and reached different conclusions. The full Exponent report is on the US Department of Agriculture web site. According to R3.14, the results of the exponent study were discussed non-confrontationally with WCRF/AID who agreed to make revisions. Pro objected that the website I cited reporting the Exponent study was inadequately qualified. Pro's R3.14 has the same info, plus more detail. At some point, WCRF complained that they couldn't comment because the report had not been published and was not publish. However, WCRF was soon given a copy of the report and it was published on the USDA website. That makes who made the initial summary irrelevant. WCRF/AID ultimately responded by making corrections to their report, posted at http://www.dietandcancerreport.org... While they admitted errors, they said that the errors did not substantially change their conclusions. Exponent did not back off. Keep in mind that the WCRF/AID study was a metastudy. Neither WCRF/AID or Exponent generated the underlying data, both are analyzing data collected by others. In WCRF's fervent denial of having made significant errors (Pro's ref R3.16) they show bias, saying "Our 2009 Report on public policy implications of our recommendations also points out that current industrial methods for meat production are very wasteful of scarce energy and natural resources such as water and diverts grain needed for human consumption into animal feed." They are assuming that conserving resources is more important than meat production. That's an anti-meat public policy agenda. (In the US, 40% of the corn crop goes to making ethanol, a value system that places fuel over food.) WCRF's bias does not negate their report. As with Exponent, their work stands on it's own. I think there is a good case that processed meat poses cancer risk. The risk for fresh meat above 18 ounces per week is in doubt, but since the most healthful diets are low-meat, it's not important for the present debate. A properly-planned diet with meat limits quantities and avoids processed meats, just as a properly-planned vegan diet avoids tropical oils, fried starches, and other things. Obesity, etc. Pro establishes that obesity is bad for health. We are comparing properly planned diets, and a properly-planned low-meat diet avoids overeating. I pointed this out in R1, and Pro has not responded. The planning for that is easy; the realization is more difficult because meat tastes good. Both the planning and the realization of a vegan diet are much more difficult. Iron Pro persists in comparing an unplanned meat diet with a perfectly-planned and executed vegan diet. The data shows that in practice vegans have no better health than indiscriminate meat eaters. It's important to understand why vegans fair so poorly, despite vegans having an easier time of reducing calories. The answer is that vegans have trouble maintaining the required intake of protein, iron, B12, and other nutrients. That relates to our debate because Pro must prove that the vegan diet can be correctly planned by an average person. B12 Pro claims that the B12-producing bacteria in animals are contaminants. I claim that the B12 bacteria are compatible with the human digestive system, which is loaded with bacteria. Pro has presented no data showing harm from consuming B12-producing bacteria is harmful. I presented data that avoiding supposed contamination too rigorously may lead to allergies and asthma. The resolution is negated.

Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Thank you judges for reading this debate. I really appreciate your feedback. So now, let me summarize the main points in this debate. I will then show why the con deserves the win and finally state some killer statistics to if you have any doubt clear the clouds. Now here are all prop points:1. Meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy to consume.2. Production of animal products causes excessive environmental damage.3. Production causes animal cruelty4. Production agitates world hungerDear audience, you have seen how I refuted all of these claims. Starting from their first assertion which I refuted by stating how many health benefits all of these foods have. Their second point, that production of vegetables is also harmful and that we are making animal production healthier. And ending with their last point that really, meat does not agitate hunger. Now onto my own assertions. And the PRO HAS FAILED TO REFUTE EVERY SINGLE ON OF MY OWN ASSERTIONS.1. Meat, eggs and dairy are required to maintain a healthy diet. 2. Most of the population consumes these products. 3. This is not feasible. 4. Meat has many health benefits.5. The use of pesticides in farming is also unhealthy.6. The right to body.7. Will take jobs of millions8. Yogurt, a dairy, is healthy.9. Eggs are necessary in the diet. Judge lets quickly weigh this round. On the con, we are trying to ensure jobs for everyone. We are trying to keep a safe, healthy environment. And that is what every single human being needs. On their side, we have the illogical, absurd, out of place assertions. They talked about ending world hunger with this ban. However, in my previous speeches, I have pointed out multiple times the TRUE causes of poverty. Not the lack of food, the lack of money. Now onto some killer statistics which will clear the clouds, if any for the judges. Thank you . http://www.medicaldaily.com.... Benefit 1: Since meat contains a large amount of protein, this could be beneficial to the body as the need for protein is an important one for the body. Since protein is said to improve the overall health and well-being of one’s body, there are other benefits such as the repair and building of body tissues as well as the production of antibodies that will protect the body from infections, thus strengthening the immune system as well. Most importantly, since meat contains all the essential amino acids, it definitely ranks as one of the best sources of protein. Benefit 2: Of the many nutrients that meat contains, it is rich in iron, zinc and selenium. While iron helps in forming hemoglobin that transports oxygen to different parts of your body, zinc helps in tissue formation and metabolism as well as selenium breaks down the fat and chemicals in the body. Benefit 3: Vitamins are also a big part of the one’s diet, and Vitamin A, B and D are commonly found in meat as well. Not only do these vitamins promote good vision, stronger teeth and bones but it also support the central nervous system thus promoting mental health as well. Another big benefit of eating meat is the maintenance of your skin’s health. Next onto supplying some points on the benefits of eggs and dairy. Thank you, . http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org..., Research has long shown that dairy’s nutrients are vital to the development of strong bones and reduce the risk for developing rickets and osteoporosis. In fact, the U. S. Surgeon General’s Report on Bone Health and Osteoporosis (2004) recognizes the role of nutrients in dairy foods that work together to help protect bones. See below for fact sheets, educational materials, and research that illustrate how the nutrients in milk, cheese, and yogurt help build strong bones. Thank you, . http://authoritynutrition.com... Studies show that eggs actually improve the cholesterol profile. They raise HDL (the good) cholesterol and increase the size of LDL particles, which should lower the risk of heart disease. Whole eggs are incredibly nutritious, containing a very large amount of nutrients compared to the calorie load. The nutrients are found in the yolks, while the whites are mostly protein. Whole eggs are incredibly nutritious, containing a very large amount of nutrients compared to the calorie load. The nutrients are found in the yolks, while the whites are mostly protein. Eggs are an excellent source of protein, with all the essential amino acids in the right ratios. Eggs are very high in the antioxidants Lutein and Zeaxanthin, which can drastically reduce the risk of Macular Degeneration and Cataracts. In one study, 30 overweight or obese women consumed either a breakfast of eggs or a breakfast of bagels. Both breakfasts had the same amount of calories. The women in the egg group felt more full and ate less calories for the rest of the day and for the next 36 hours (20). In another study that went on for 8 weeks, eating eggs for breakfast lead to significant weight improvements compared to the same amount of calories from bagels. The egg group (21):•Lost 65% more body weight. •Lost 16% more body fat. •Had a 61% greater reduction in BMI. •Had a 34% greater reduction in waist circumference (a good marker for the dangerous abdominal fat). Now let me just point out.

Title: Ayza Wine and Chocolate Bar West Village Content: My opponent makes two claims: (my opponent holds the BOP, he is making a claim in his argunment) A. Wine and chocolate is good for you B. Ayza Wine and Chocolate Bar is the best/is good Let's rebut this, then show my case. A. Wine and Chocolate is good for you Hundreds of lives could be saved if we cut alcohol consumption. One glass of wine might be too much, if all of the UK switched to only half a glass a day 4,600 deaths would be prevented [1]. And really? Who drinks half a glass? A standard US drink is 5 oz. of wine, which is more then one glass [2]. If this is the case then many lives are being lost to alcohol. Other studies have been looking into wine and its effect on teeth, it has been found white wine is extremely bad for ones teeth. They concluded, "In the lab, adult teeth soaked in white wine for a day had a loss of both calcium and another mineral called phosphorus to depths of up to 60 micrometers in the enamel surface, which the researchers say is significant."[3] Now is even chocolate good? Many people, a surprising amount actually, are allergic to chocolate. And many of the effects of eating chocolate can directly or indirectly lead to death [4]. Even Dark chocolate is bad for you, even if your not allergic, only 1-2 square a day are recommended [5]. --> I guarantee this bar thing causes people to have more then 1/2 a glass of wine or 1-2 small squares of dark chocolate (less is recommended for other types, and I doubt the bar gives you less). B. Its the best!! I would like to note the way my opponent phrased his argument here is against the terms of service. The TOS states, "Will not use the Service to artificially generate traffic or page links to a Website or for any other purpose not intended for personal, noncommercial use of the Service."[6] The way he phrased it then put the link under is saying come to the bar and look at the website. This argument is illegal and should be discarded. => Case <= Look at rebuttals [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.neatorama.com... [4] http://www.healthology.com... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [6] http://www.debate.org...

Title: Should chocolate milk be banned in schools Content: I think that schools should serve chocolate milk. Kids are attached to chocolate milk. Schools lose it they don't get the calcium and protein that they need. Also, milk gives kids strong bones and chocolate milk is milk with like 3 teaspoons of added sugar, not a lot.