The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
forty2oz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 408 times Debate No: 82346
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned on the planet Earth.

I Pro will contend for the resolution.
Con will contend against the resolution.

Meat " the flesh of an animal used as food" [1]

Dairy "Full Definition of DAIRY
1
: a room, building, or establishment where milk is kept and butter or cheese is made
2
a : the department of farming or of a farm that is concerned with the production of milk, butter, and cheese
b : a farm devoted to such production
3
: an establishment for the sale or distribution chiefly of milk and milk products "[2]

Eggs " the egg of a bird (especially a chicken) eaten as food"[3]

Ban "

: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done

: to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something
"[4]

Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
forty2oz

Con

Meat, milk, and eggs are natural phenomenon that occur in nature. Banning nature is absurd. You can't ban nature.

What you are talking about is forcing other people (via threat of violence) to refrain from eating these food sources. The best you can do is point a gun at someone and say, 'if you eat that egg, there will be consequences you cretin!'

So now that that is established, let's get to the crux of your ideology. The onus is on you to explain what this ideology is and why you think you are right. You need to defend your position by declaring why you want these food sources unavailable for human consumption. And I suggest you make a strong case because evolutionary biology begs to differ ... big time.

Your turn, go!
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Outline

I. Animal cruelty
A. Establishing sentience.
B. Suffering exists from egg, meat, and milk production.
C. Buying these products causes suffering.
D. Not necessary for survival to eat these foods.
E. Animal cruelty to eat these foods.

II. Health
A. Possible to be a healthy vegan.
B. Detrimental affects of consuming animal products.

III. Environment
A. Trophic levels
B. Amazon and ocean destruction.

IV. Rebuttal of Con

V. Summary

VI. Links

I. Animal cruelty

A. Establishing sentience

Without sentience animals are no different than trees. Alive, but unable to feel pain nor suffer. Therefore establishing sentience is of utmost importance. "Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."" [5].

"Fish Are Sentient and Emotional Beings and Clearly Feel Pain" [6]

"So some fish like massages. Most probably feel pain. Many have good eyesight, a great sense of smell, well-developed hearing abilities, and the ability to both create and detect electric currents in the water." [7]

I have now clearly established that animals are sentient and have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. I'm confident I covered all the animals that are normally eaten in 1st world countries. Mammals, birds, and fish.

B. Suffering exists from egg, meat, and milk production.

Look no further than factory farming. Factory farming constitutes over 99% of farm animals. "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."[8] The cruelty of factory farming is common knowledge. The burden of proof lies on Con to disprove factory farming cruelty.

As for small scale local farmers. The trend of several small farms becoming one large farm exists. Watch King Corn as proof. [9]. That being said measures for animal welfare and humane treatment have failed.

"For example, an animal farmer named Joel Salatin, famous for slaughtering chickens in the movie Food, Inc., recently said in the media that he is in the "healing industry" and called his farm a "sanctuary". Contributing to this confusion, some animal protection organizations now use romanticized imagery of animals on bucolic "humane" farms which can easily give the public the impression that voting for a given legislative initiative or purchasing the "right" kind of animal products will lead to a life for exploited animals not much different than that at a sanctuary. Many of us working in animal advocacy feel that this trend is disastrous, and represents an ongoing victory for the meat industry in its effort to co-opt animal advocacy by steadily shifting the public dialogue away from whether or not it is right to use and kill animals to what is the right way to use and kill animals. "[10]

The only logical recourse to end animal suffering is to ban all animal food sources. Ban meat, dairy, and eggs.

C. Buying these products causes suffering.

This is simple supply and demand. If nobody bought any of these products, production would grind to a halt almost immediately. The reverse is true. If demand suddenly doubled, supply would follow suit.

D. Not necessary for survival to eat these foods.

B12, protein, calcium, and omega-3s can all be ingested from plant sources. B-12 comes from bacteria. Protein is found in small amounts or greater in just about every food. Legumes have lots of protein. Calcium is found in leafy greens. Omega-3s are divided into three categories. ALA, DHA, and EPA. ALA is found in flax seeds. DHA in seaweed. EPA in microalgae.

"Microorganisms are the only natural sources of B(12)-derivatives" [11].

Kidney beans have 8g of protein and only 53 calories per cup. Also of note kidney beans contain some calcium.[12]

Kale has 9% of your calcium needs and is only 33 calories per serving. [13].

"Flaxseed is an alternative to marine products. It is one of the richest sources of the plant-based `9;-3 fatty acid, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)." [14].

"Vegetarian sources of DHA come from seaweed." [15].

"considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA." [16].

It should be clear that a person can meet his or her nutritional needs on a vegan diet. Thus it is not necessary to eat animal products to live.

E. Animal cruelty to buy these foods.

Since self-survival can no longer be used as an excuse, I now contend that purchasing animal products causes animal cruelty.

II. Health
A. Possible to be a healthy vegan.

As seen above its possible to survive as a vegan. Not only that but you can thrive. There are many healthy vegan celebrities this is common knowledge.

B. Detrimental affects of consuming animal products.

I could make this section very long. Suffice to say its common knowledge that cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat exist in animal products and are unhealthy. Since this is common knowledge the burden of proof rests on Con to prove animal products are healthy.

III. Environment

A. Trophic levels

"Three hundred trout are needed to support one man for a year. The trout, in turn, must consume 90,000 frogs, that must consume 27 million grasshoppers that live off of 1,000 tons of grass.

-- G. Tyler Miller, Jr., American Chemist (1971)" [17].
This quote illustrates the waste and indulgence of eating higher on the food chain. Instead we should strive to eat lower on the food chain.

B. Amazon and ocean destruction

Large areas of land are required for free roaming grass fed beef. "The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " [18]. Fishing practices such as dynamite fishing are destructive to ocean habitat. "Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows." [19].

IV. Rebuttal of Con

"Meat, milk, and eggs are natural phenomenon that occur in nature. Banning nature is absurd. You can't ban nature." Con

Pro: You know what I meant. I would rephrase this to ban meat, milk, and eggs sale, import, export, and manufacture.

"And I suggest you make a strong case because evolutionary biology begs to differ ... big time." Con

Pro: Bare assertion and I have evidence to the contrary. A ted video [20.] Christina Warinner explains that humans have no known adaptations to meat and only a few to dairy. This nytimes article explains tubers were eaten in paleolithic times. "But Mark G. Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London, and his colleagues argue that there was another important food sizzling on the ancient hearth: tubers and other starchy plants." [21].

V. Summary

I have provided a multitude of reasons to eat vegan and to ban consumption of animal products. Remember the USA pledge "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." [22]. Let liberty and justice extend to animals. Ban eggs, meat, and dairy. Vote Pro.

VI.Links

5. http://www.livescience.com...
6. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
8. http://www.aspca.org...
9. http://www.kingcorn.net...
10. http://www.humanemyth.org...
11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
12. http://nutritiondata.self.com...
13. http://nutritiondata.self.com...
14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
15. http://umm.edu...
16. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
17. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
18. http://www.greenpeace.org...
19. http://wwf.panda.org...
20. http://tedxtalks.ted.com...
21. http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.heritage.org...
forty2oz

Con

Okay we're only on round two, so before I begin decimating your faulty logic I want to ensure you are familiar with how evolution works. Let's agree on the following fact before continuing:


Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.

Agreed?


Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

"Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.

Agreed?" Con

Pro: I disagree on grounds of self domestication and living organisms being tough in general.

"The hypothesis that anatomically modern homo sapiens could have undergone changes akin to those observed in domesticated animals has been contemplated in the biological sciences for at least 150 years. " [23].

As you can see the concept of self domestication is recognized in peer review journals as seen in link [23].

"But it appears that some corners of the animal kingdom are becoming kinder, gentler places. Certain creatures may be domesticating themselves." [24].

"Wild rabbits and domestic rabbits have more or less the same genes. " [25].

"And here"s a comfort to children who have owned tame rabbits that have escaped.

"Tame rabbits released into the wild will adapt rather quickly genetically."

"The gene variants that are advantageous in the wild that have been under pressure in captivity will increase in frequency thanks to natural selection," Rubin says." [25].

"Biologist Raymond Coppinger, who has spent over 45 years working with and studying dogs, says that this story is nothing more than a romantic fairy tale. "I call it a "just so" story. Nobody who has ever trained a wolf had any success if they started after 19 days," says Coppinger, a professor of biology and animal behavior at Hampshire College in Massachusetts." [26].

"Animals with shorter flight distances will linger, and feed, when humans are close by; this behavioral trait would have been passed on to successive generations, and amplified, creating animals that are increasingly more comfortable around humans. "My argument is that what domesticated " or tame " means is to be able to eat in the presence of human beings. That is the thing that wild wolves can"t do."" [26].

The evidence is clear, humans did not domesticate wild animals instead, wild animals domesticated them selves. When set free into the wild, if the animal lives long enough it will change back into its wild self.

As for life being tough that is seen by the wide variety of biomes life has persisted on. From the polar bears living on polar ice caps to the scorpion living in the desert. Creatures live in the depths of the oceans and in the sky. Life is tough.

If all the factory farmed livestock was given a transition pasture to experience sunlight, fresh air, and rainfall they would adapt. Finally, after a transition time if they were released into the wild a portion of them would survive. I contend the genes for adaption into the wild exist for factory farmed animals and enough would survive that the species would persist.

Even so, every year 10,000 species go extinct. [27]. Part of this is caused by humans destructive methods of obtaining animal products. Ban meat, eggs, and dairy worldwide. Vote Pro.

Links
23. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
24. http://www.wired.com...
25. http://sciencenordic.com...
26. http://www.pbs.org...
27. http://wwf.panda.org...
forty2oz

Con

You disagree on grounds of self-domestication and living organisms being tough in general? This simply will not fly. You don’t get to just disagree with scientific fact. So I will disembowel your ‘evidence’ point by point.

First to your odd choice of a paper entitled ‘On human self-domestication, psychiatry, and eugenics’. This paper does not counter the fact of artificial selection, it supports it. You quote in the abstract:

"The hypothesis that anatomically modern homo sapiens could have undergone changes akin to those observed in domesticated animals has been contemplated in the biological sciences for at least 150 years. " [23].

A hypothesis being contemplated offers zero empirical evidence that it is true. Regardless, the paper then defines what it means by domestication in its introduction:

“The term "domestication" refers to a goal-directed process through which humans have changed physical features of plants and animals by replacing natural through artificial selection to adapt these species to specific human needs.”[23]

What we’re talking about here is artificial selection. Your article from WIRED (wow, what a great source for empirical studies) nails it:

“Starting in 1959 with 130 farm-bred but wild foxes and continuing until today, researchers allowed only those individuals most tolerant of human contact to breed. In less than 50 years, the fierce-tempered and untouchable foxes became playful, face-licking sweethearts who loved to be held. Those traits are typically seen in wild pups, but disappear as they grow up.”[24]

That’s artificial selection at work my friend.

And now to your sacred rabbit. I quote the very article you linked:

“Domestication of wild animals was one of the most important steps in the development of agriculture. Dogs, cows, sheep, goats and pigs were domesticated between 15,000 and 9,000 years ago, but the rabbit held out until 1400 years ago.”[25]

It is clear that these animals did not domesticate themselves and the article makes no attempt to claim otherwise. Darwin himself is even quoted in the article directly from Origin of Species. He used domestic animals as proof that it is possible to change the traits of a species through selection.

This is artificial selection.

Your PBS article doesn’t even touch artificial selection. Anyone who has been to the park to feed the birds and the squirrels can see this version of ‘self-domestication’ at work. But it says nothing to debunk the resounding fact that our livestock populations have been artificially selected over thousands of years to be suited for human consumption. It is no coincidence that you’d be hard pressed to find any example of self-domesticated animals (be they wolves or bonobos) on the shelf of a meat market. For reasons that should be more than obvious, humans prefer eating animals that were artificially selected for that purpose rather than animals that may or may not have ‘self-domesticated’ themselves. Big shocker, I know.

As for your final thought on the amount of species that go extinct every year, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything so I won’t bother wasting time on it.

So now let’s revisit the fact:


Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.

If you unfamiliar with how evolution works please check out the following link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

If it’s any consolation, artificial selection works equally well on the plants you so adore nourishing yourself with. But just as with the animals, seedless grapes don’t grow themselves. I am going to go enjoy a bacon cheeseburger with extra mayonnaise while giving you an opportunity to re-think your position on artificial selection and the fact presented above before continuing.

Links you provided for your own reference
23. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
24. http://www.wired.com......
25. http://sciencenordic.com......
26. http://www.pbs.org......
27. http://wwf.panda.org......

Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Con and Pro disagree on a curious paragraph Con posted. The paragraph is curious because there is no impact. In other words, Con fails to demonstrate how the claims in the paragraph impact upon the resolution.

Here's the paragraph:

"Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.

Agreed?" Con

Lets break down this paragraph into a series of claims. Claim by Con "Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption."

Pro Agrees the claim is correct.

Claim "The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock." Con

Pro agrees the claim is correct.

Claim "It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection." Con

Pro agrees with this claim.

Claim "Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not." Con

Pro disagrees with this claim.

Now lets clarify why Pro disagrees with the one of the four claims of Con. Specifically Pro disagrees that farm animals and wild animal are different species.

"
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. " [28]

Pro's claim 1 : Wolves and dogs are the same species.

Warrant : "Wolves, Coyotes and Dogs are the Same Species" [29.]

Impact: No clue as to Con has not provided an impact. Since I already made my argument I'm just disproving whatever Con states until he/she states how this subject impacts the resolution. If wolves, coyotes, and dogs are the same species then other farm animals must be the same species as their wild counterparts.

Pro's claim 2: There are only two species of cows

Warrant: "There are actually two species of "cows" or cattle, as is the proper term. The one most commonly seen around in the milking parlour and in pastures are Bos taurus species. These are what are deemed "European" cattle, originally descended from the now-extinct wild Auroch. The B. taurus species come in many colours, breeds, and sizes.

The second species is called Bos indicus." [30.]

Impact: Disproving Con claim that farm species would become extinct without human intervention.

Pro's claim 3: There are over 800 breeds of cattle

Warrant: Over 800 breeds of cattle are recognized worldwide" [31].

Impact: Clarifying the difference between breed and species.

Pro's claim 4: Farm animals species could survive without human interference

Warrant: "As time progresses, the hand-raised squirrel can be allowed to spend more and more time outside, but food and shelter must be provided. Some squirrels will gradually become more and more independent. Others will happily live outdoors, but will always require some degree of care when it comes to food and housing." [31].

Impact: Disproving Con's claim that farm animals could not survive without human interference by demonstrating orphan squirrels can be rehabilitated to be released into the wild.

Summary: Since Con fails to show how this subject of farm animals breeds impacts on the resolution Pro is just disproving Con notions. Pro does not know if the subject created by Con is a red herring or has an impact on the resolution. Either way Con seems to be confusing breed and species. Yes, approximately 800 breeds of cattle would revert back to their wilds selves without human intervention. Yet, no cow species would become extinct. Finally Pro wants to thank Con for the debate. The debate been most interesting and educational.

Links

28. http://dictionary.reference.com...
29. http://x-evolutionist.com...
30. http://www.quazoo.com...
31. https://suite.io...
forty2oz

Con

That was one tasty bacon cheeseburger with extra mayonnaise, but I digress.

Round Three was a weak attempt by you to utterly dismiss my ‘curious paragraph’ on the unsubstantiated claim that ‘self-domestication and living organisms are tough in general’ with cherry picked quotes from articles that either had nothing to do with the argument at all, or (within context) flat out contradict your refusal to accept artificial selection as a fact of nature. But I appreciate your integrity for recognizing this and re-focusing on the fact presented to you in Round Two.

We only have one discrepancy remaining, and it is the fifth claim you wasted your entire Round 4 on:

"Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not."

You disagreed with this, and you are correct here. This particular claim is fallacious as it conflates breeds with species. Allow me to modify to ensure we are both in complete agreement on all five claims within this ‘curious paragraph’:

Fact (modified for your approval): Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these breeds and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, these breeds would cease to exist whether their consumption by humans is legal or not.

Time to go down the proverbial rabbit hole! I look forward to your closing argument.


Debate Round No. 4
Stupidape

Pro

At this point Con has failed to expose the flaws of Pro's round two argument in any way. Pro's substantial round two argument still stands. Pro hypothesizes Con will attempt to expose the weaknesses of Pro's round 2 argument in round 5. Here's an outline of Pro's unchallenged round two argument. Since Con has failed to create any counter argument that relates to the resolution Pro's r5 will be brief.

"Outline

I. Animal cruelty
A. Establishing sentience.
B. Suffering exists from egg, meat, and milk production.
C. Buying these products causes suffering.
D. Not necessary for survival to eat these foods.
E. Animal cruelty to eat these foods.

II. Health
A. Possible to be a healthy vegan.
B. Detrimental affects of consuming animal products.

III. Environment
A. Trophic levels
B. Amazon and ocean destruction."

As for Con's round four, Con seems to want Pro to agree to a claim that Con has failed to demonstrate any warrant back to the resolution. Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned on the planet Earth.

Modified claim by Con. "Fact (modified for your approval): Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these breeds and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, these breeds would cease to exist whether their consumption by humans is legal or not." Con

Agreed, the breeds would cease to exist. Though Pro fails to perceive the relevance of this claim. Thanks for the debate, vote Pro.
forty2oz

Con

And now it’s time to expose the flaw of Pro’s argument in round two.

We can dismiss Pro’s afterthoughts outright:

II. Health
A. Possible to be a healthy vegan.
B. Detrimental effects of consuming animal products.

III. Environment
A. Trophic levels
B. Amazon and ocean destruction.

Everyone knows that omnivorous diets can be every bit as healthy as any other, and nobody reading this exchange honestly believes that banning meat will save the planet.

So let’s focus on Pro’s focus – Pro’s main argument. Pro spent the most time on this. It was the first thing on Pro’s mind and the first thing in Pro’s outline:

  1. ANIMAL CRUELTY

Pro is expecting to win this debate arguing that consuming meat, eggs, and dairy is an act of cruelty.

Cruel compared to what exactly? Read through the rounds of arguments above and you'll discover what Pro is trying to avoid.

Reality!

Pro lives in a make believe world where in the animal kingdom, predators ripping their prey to shreds is natural (and hence not cruel), but human beings doing the exact same thing is an act of cruelty. In Pro’s version of reality, human beings are not a part of the animal kingdom but rather somehow above it, but only sometimes. Other times we are below it. Never are we an equal member. This myopic ideology runs contrary to everything evolutionary biology has to teach us about reality.

This is why Pro tried to argue against artificial selection as the primary reason chickens (for example) are bred to be so fat they buckle under their own weight, yet somehow in the same breath wanted to convince you these same chickens would somehow last over a week with naturally selected predators in the wild.

The worst part is this, read the resolution again and truly digest it (no pun intended):

Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned on the planet Earth.

The entire planet? Are you serious Pro?

Conclusion:

Pro is a sociopath and an ideologue who thinks the rights of every animal on the planet are slightly more important than are yours. To make matters even worse, Pro’s resolution incorporates agents of an imaginary one world government to force you to be like Pro. No thank you!

Here is Pro’s summary from Round 2:

V. Summary

I have provided a multitude of reasons to eat vegan and to ban consumption of animal products. Remember the USA pledge "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Let liberty and justice extend to animals. Ban eggs, meat, and dairy. Vote Pro.


It goes without saying that this pledge was written by a homo sapien. Perhaps Pro might consider affording all homo sapiens the same courtesy and rights as Pro does to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Vote your conscience. Vote Con.

Oh and here's my afterthought Stupidape (love the handle by the way) ... back to evolutionary biology no less. It is pretty well established within the scientific community that the only reason you have the mental capacity to even ponder ridiculous ideas like banning nature, is because your ancestors ate meat. Cheers!

http://www.npr.org...

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
White rice has enough protein too. 5g of protein and 194 calories. White rice is really cheap. Oat also have enough protein and are very cheap. A little over two cups of oats will give you enough protein for the entire day. Around here white rice and oats cost about $.40 a pound.

http://nutritiondata.self.com...
http://nutritiondata.self.com...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
@rainbeau1019

"Kidney beans have 8g of protein and only 53 calories per cup. Also of note kidney beans contain some calcium.[12]"
http://nutritiondata.self.com...

Cooked kidney beans have 15g of protein per serving and 225 calories.

"How Much Protein Is Enough?

Adults in the U.S. are encouraged to get 10% to 35% of their day's calories from protein foods. That's about 46 grams of protein for women, and 56 grams of protein for men." WebMd Cari Nierenberg

In just four servings of cooked kidney beans you would have 60g of protein, that's more than enough protein.

http://www.webmd.com...
Posted by rainbeau1019 1 year ago
rainbeau1019
Fair enough. Though, there's still the factor of people getting enough protein in their diets. I know there are supplements out there, but theirs plenty of people that seriously mistrust pills, and protein shakes are insanely expensive.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
@rainbeau1019

Did I mention organic foods anywhere in the debate? No, I didn't.
Posted by rainbeau1019 1 year ago
rainbeau1019
Not everyone has the luxury to live on organic foods. They are expensive, and, as it stands now, I know for a fact that I would lose my apartment because I would not have enough money due to food expenses. This would work in a fictional utopia, but, unfortunately, we live in the real world. Unless the economy is fixed before this, then the homeless rates will skyrocket, as will the levels of HUMAN suffering. You are putting the comfort of lesser creatures over the survival of humanity.
No votes have been placed for this debate.