The Instigator
kukupser
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,970 times Debate No: 8813
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (7)

 

kukupser

Pro

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. I look forward to a fun debate with whoever decides to accept it.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and hope for a stimulating exchange.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
kukupser

Pro

OK, thank you Kleptin for accepting this debate, and may I ask, what component of beer are you allergic to?

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. I look forward to the second round of this debate and again, thank you for accepting.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

I must correct my opponent first of all, in that I did read his response. It was not specified in the first round as to how an average person is defined. In fact, the parameters he sets up are so strange that it becomes impossible to adapt them in any manner of coherency. I will illustrate the importance of this later.

I will start my response by saying that my opponent's failure is not in his presentation of data (which I believe to be faulty anyhow), but in his very resolution.

My opponent was simply wrong when he said that I am excluded from the realm of "average healthy person". In fact, I believe there are huge, blatant errors in his classification of an "average" person to begin with.

What my opponent lists as exceptions in proper detail are the following:

1. Pregnant women
2. Diabetics
3. People on prescription medication
4. People who drive or operate heavy machinery.

The percentage of pregnant women in the population is not negligible, but still a small percentage. However, my opponent's key argument about the "Average" person seems to conflict heavily with his resolution statement.

A. My opponent's restriction on people who drive.

http://wiki.answers.com...

The number of people who drive in America is roughly 30 million, an extraordinarily conservative calculation based on the following facts derived from my source:

1. There are roughly 60 million registered cars
2. There are roughly 2 cars to each person

This does not include cars which are functional and unregistered, or people who share cars/rent cars. As such, the most conservative would be 30 million out of 300 million or roughly 10% of the population. If my opponent is excluding drivers from his definition of an "Average" person, what will he restrict next? People who eat hamburgers? People who watch baseball?

B. Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics. There are currently 24 million diabetics in this country and not a single one of them is "average" according to my opponent. Diabetes is one of the most prevalent medical conditions today, affecting over 8% of all Americans. While this number may seem insignificant, please consider how many people in a room of 100 will suffer dire consequences from what my opponent proposes.

C. And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once.

http://www.medscape.com...

A key factoid for any Pharmacy student or medical student in general is the knowledge that alcohol interacts negatively with most if not all prescription medication. The physiology is complicated to explain, but generally speaking, both alcohol and prescription medications are processed by the liver, and simultaneous processing can lead to disastrous results.

Alcohol in moderate amounts may have a slightly positive effect on blood pressure if taken over time and regularly, but when combined with blood pressure medications they can have terrible side effects, amplifying the effects of blood pressure medications. Since most blood pressure medications work throughout the day, and since alcohol has a much shorter cycle, it can have unpredictable effects on people taking those medications.

Cholesterol lowering drugs, statins, interact violently with alcohol, with many being completely contraindicated since it could lead to liver toxicity and death.

http://askville.amazon.com...

Both Cholesterol and Blood pressure medications make up the vast majority of prescription drugs in America. It is absurd not to categorize them as "average".

How then, can my opponent continue to speak about beer being healthy for the average person, when he clearly has no idea what the average person is, and when he is heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen?

In addition to those issues, my opponent also has poor justification for classifying me outside the realm of "average". It would be acceptable for him to say that my allergy to alcohol is rare, but it should not discount me from his population. It would be more extraordinary for a person to not have any allergies at all than to react badly to alcohol. There should be no question that I am both an average person and healthy, because I am. It just so happens that I have a sensitivity to alcohol.

Though not exactly an allergy, my hypersensitivity to alcohol stems from the "Asian Curse", a lack of the enzyme Alcohol dehydrogenase that breaks ethanol down into acetic acid. The lack of this enzyme causes the toxic intermediate acetaldehyde to build up in larger concentrations for people like myself, leading to terrible side effects and exaggerated effects of alcohol consumption in shorter lengths of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Half of the Asian population is categorized as having this sensitivity, thus, amongst my fellow Asians, I am average. Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc.

Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an "average" person is absurd.

Not only is he restricting a massive number of "average" Americans (Americans who would be greatly harmed by beer as opposed to milk) from his resolution, but he also inexplicably wishes the audience to believe that the presence of an ethic trait is enough to categorize a person as abnormal.

Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by "you". When people say "hey you!" in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word "you" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise?

I did not understand my opponent's overly complicated explanation as to what is "average" or not, but I consider myself a healthy and average person. What law states that the average person must react well to alcohol?

As such, I must restate my argument:

My opponent is addressing me in both resolutions. I would have much more health detriment from drinking beer than from drinking milk. Thus, the resolution is negated.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
kukupser

Pro

Again, thanks to Kleptin for responding.

"My opponent's restriction on people who drive"

One of my restrictions was on people who are *driving*, not on people who drive. I was basically saying don't drink and drive, because that may seriously injure, if not kill a person. This would be incredibly detrimental to one's health.

"Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics."

This is one of my exceptions. Although you say that diabetes affects 8% of Americans (it is actually 7.8%), it only affects 2.8% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This number is a lot smaller than what you said and although it is large, it is not significant enough to be considered average.

"And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once."

About 3-4% of the World's population is abusing drugs 9http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org...). Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse, and there is a chance it can kill you (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, anywhere from 50 to 75% of prescription medications taken in America are prescribed and used irresponsibly (http://books.google.com...). Abusing prescription drugs is like using recreational drugs, which can harm someone more than help them.

"...heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen?"

US has 306 million people out of the 6.77 billion in the world. In the year 2000, the US had just under 5% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://nationalatlas.gov...). Although these statistics may be correct, they are US, not Worldwide, statistics.

"Asian Curse"

You say that about 50% of the the Asian population has the "Asian Curse", but you do not take into account how many people with this condition still drink beer despite the fact. You are implying that everybody who has this condition cannot have a drop of alcohol. In fact, some people who suffer from this condition take ranitidine or famotidine an hour before drinking to counteract the effects of alcohol flush, AKA the "Asian Curse" (http://www.steadyhealth.com...). Some people even drink moderate amounts of alcohol to build up concentration levels of Alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme they were lacking in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Your case of alcohol flush is extreme, not everybody with this condition is as sensitive to alcohol as you are. There are still numerous amount of people who suffer from this condition and still drink moderately, they just can't drink copious amounts. My resolution states that moderate amounts of beer can be beneficial for a person.

"Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an "average" person is absurd."

I was trying to avoid a semantic debate. You have even said that I said people who *drive* shouldn't drink beer when what I really was people who are *driving* shouldn't drink beer.

"Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by "you". When people say "hey you!" in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word "you" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise?"
Frankly, we can argue this point of "you" all we want, but it will be ultimately up to the voter to decide how they interpret the usage of the word "you" in this debate.

Many chronic health conditions in humans are caused by cow's milk. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and
Immunology says that this type of milk is also the most common food allergen. Cutting milk out of your diet can reduce obesity levels, arthritis up to 90% and even get rid of acne (http://www.collectivewizdom.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...).

Consuming cow's milk is linked to high levels of mucus in the body. This can lead to ear infections, difficulty breathing and runny noses, stomach problems and possibly even kidney problems. It is also believe that these high levels of mucus can line the intestine and harden, making absorption of nutrients difficult (http://www.milksucks.com...).

Roughly 70% of African Americans, 53% of Mexican Americans, and 74% percent of Native Americans and 65-75% of South Americans are lactose intolerant. 90% of Asian Americans, 98% of Thais and Southeast Asians, 95% of Chinese, 88% of Inner Mongolians and 80% of Central Asians are lactose intolerant as well (http://www.pcrm.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. It makes sense. We are the only species on Earth that drinks other animal's milk. As adults, we have decreased levels of lactose activity in our body because we no longer need milk, not even human's milk to maintain a healthy diet. How does it make sense that we need other species' milk, milk that was meant for that species' babies, to be healthy?

Thank you for your time.
Kleptin

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
kukupser

Pro

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.
Kleptin

Con

I have greatly enjoyed this debate and hope to engage in another one with my opponent in the future. As for now, let us finish up.

1. Providing the actual source now is inadequate. As I have said before, the research is being used out of context. Does calcium excretion increase if protein levels increase? Yes, because as any student who took anatomy&physiology knows, charged proteins maintain an ionic balance and charged calcium ions can flow differently depending on the amount of protein in the blood. However, animal proteins are broken down into amino acids and their net charge becomes neutral. This in addition to the amount of protein in the blood made up by albumin and blood cells, as well as the fact that Dr. Heaney is talking about extracellular calcium as opposed to the calcium in bones, makes my opponent's point negligible in terms of calcium loss. This is simply a propaganda ploy.

2. I have never said that there is no trace of those chemicals in cows. I have provided sources showing that they have been tested to healthy levels, my opponent is making a strawman argument. Furthermore, my opponent's source is flawed. Anyone who indicates that inflammation is treated with antibiotics is either an idiot, or is talking about a bacterial infection. As such is the case, we can assume that antibiotics are not given for long term prevention, but when the need arises. In such case, the presence of antibiotics would be minimal. And yes, the chemicals are linked to cancer, but the concentration in milk is nowhere near a cancerous dose in any way, shape or form. A point that my opponent's biased source cares not to mention.

3. In regards to testing for beta lactams: beta lactam antibiotics make up the most common types of antibiotics. The other families are not widely used in cows and many of them are heat labile or denature quickly in hostile environments outside body pH and temperature. Thus, they are a minimal concern.

4. My opponent in his next section, uses some pretty sneaky tactics. First of all, he puts my source into question by stating that a citation is needed. However, the citation is only needed on a statement saying that a panel agreed with the FDA's declaration that milk contained safe levels of animal hormones. The actual FDA statement contains a citation.

5. In addition, my opponent criticizes the "huge jump". Yes, while the jump is big, the numbers were still low, and as I have said before, the study DID take into consideration the fact that milk was widely used. The source even stated that as the reason the investigation was being performed.

6. In such case, how is my opponent to know that this cow's milk is actually going to be used? It seems to me that he just google-imaged a picture of a cow with swollen udders. Logically speaking, FDA moderated farms and centers for milk production would be mechanized such that this could be prevented.

7. As I have stated, I was referring to the original journal articles regarding the experiments that my opponent's site has cited as a source. In other words, the source of your source said nothing about milk. How are they connecting the dots? This is to show that my opponent's source is drawing information incorrectly. I have provided sources that show that IGF-1 is at safe levels in milk, and that the assumption that it causes problems in the body is founded on half-logic.

8. In reference to the biased and unreliable experiments/trials

http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent did not scan through well enough. See "Constroversies"

"none of the studies were performed in a manner to create an unbiased scientific opinion"
"indicated no statistically significant findings"
"Evidence for efficacy of these diets is currently unsubstantiated"

9. I was not declaring that moderate drinking causes liver damage. I was stating that those who are on prescription medication to allow for moderate drinking would be susceptible to liver damage.

10. It actually is not relevant. Number of "drug abusers" is irrelevant to this debate because your definition of a "drug abuser" is incorrect. However, the number of people on prescription medication is relevant. In developed countries, use of prescription medication is almost exactly the same as in the U.S. In underdeveloped countries, the benefits of beer that you list are of no consequence because the benefits are only good for a civilization with cardiovascular impairment. Developing countries would be more focused on sustenance, and milk would be healthier for them than beer in that regard, because their children are starving.

11. I am familiar with the generic and brand names of these drugs, but are you also aware that OTC does not mean "take as you please"? Have you ever tried the combination of alcohol and sleeping pill? Zantac should NOT be taken with alcohol, the fact that you are advocating it is like a stab to the professional side of me.

12. In that case, we will not discuss non-alcoholic beer because I find it ridiculous anyway. However, I accepted your definition of "milk" and apologize for including soy milk. However, I can very freely mention lactose-free milk if the milk simply has the lactose removed or cleaved. Things are added to beer and they can still be called beer. Simply adding lactase to milk destroys the lactose and makes lactose intolerance irrelevant. Removing the lactose or the fat is perfectly fine too, because the fluid itself came from the cow or the goat, but lactose is a sugar, a solid. You made no mention of the solid.

I would also like to note that while watching "Yakitate Japan!", an anime about making bread, I learned that goat milk actually has little to none of the controversial problems that cow's milk has, and have found verification online, since my opponent has mentioned goat milk several times.

http://altmedangel.com...
http://www.goatworld.com...
http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com...
http://www.crohns.net...
http://www.associatedcontent.com...

Goat milk is consumed more than cow milk worldwide, and those with lactose intolerance can somehow consume goats milk without any problems. In addition, goat milk is devoid of all the high-industry chemicals, has healthier fats and cholesterol that help rather than harm, has a different type of casein that people are insensitive to, and is responsible for nearly no allergies. Goat milk is widely used as a replacement for cow milk worldwide.

My opponent's burden in this debate is to show that beer is more healthy than milk. He himself has specified that the debate was limited to milk that comes from animals. I have not only shown most (if not all) of his sources against cow milk to be questionable, but also that his arguments for the "average person" show that the inclusion of alcohol in an average person's lifestyle will be more harmful than helpful. Furthermore, in my curiosity as to why my opponent has mentioned but not spoken about goat milk, decided to research it for my opponent, and found that it has absolutely none of the defects my opponent complains about in terms of cow milk. Thus, I have not only reduced my opponents points to the speculation that it is, but also provided an example of a milk that is far healthier than beer.

Thank you for the debate. I urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
Conduct- PRO. The use of semantics, while useful in some situations, seemed horrible inappropriate on CON's part given the vigor with which PRO produced his argument. Although both debaters began to take the debate more seriously halfway through, this was still poor conduct on CON's part.

S&G- Tie, not much difference in spelling and grammar between the two parties.

Argument- Con. Both debaters did extraordinarily well, but Con has a small but defining advantage in that Pro did not properly meet his burden.

Sources- Tie. Although PRO clearly had more sources than CON, CON's assault on the credibility of those sources brought a good balance.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Arguments and sources to Kleptin, as explained in-debate by Kleptin.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Pro - Con's exploitation of semantics pushed it for me. I was glad to see it didn't comprise his entire case.

Spelling/Grammar - Tie - On balance, both were readable and easy to follow.

Convincing Argument - Con - While I remain unconvinced that milk is healthier than beer, I am not any more convinced of the reverse. Both sides offered a lot of evidence that either beverage, in moderation, is no more or less damaging to your health than the other and any difference between the two seems to me marginal at best. However, since the resolution was that beer is healthier than milk, being convinced they are roughly equal means this point goes to Con.

Sources - Tie - On balance, both sides exploited and challenged each others' sources to equal effect.
Posted by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
RFD:

Conduct: Tied.

Spelling and grammar: Both were fine.

Arguments: Con -- It's close; I think both pro and con argued very well -- but I don't really think pro met his burden.

Sources: Con -- while pro seems to have more, I think con's did a better job of assisting his argument. So this one is rather close, as well, but con gets my vote by a hair.
Posted by Xer 5 years ago
Xer
RFD:
B/A: CON/PRO - I hate milk. I enjoy beer in moderation. I originally though milk was much healthier. kukupser convinced me otherwise.
Conduct: TIED - Both displayed great conduct.
S&G: TIED - No major infractions.
Arguments: PRO - Pro did a great job of affirming the resolution. I was pleasantly suprised. Con also did a great job, but I felt as though Pro simply had the statistics on his side.
Sources: TIED - I didn't bother counting them. You both used an abundance of sources to display your points.

I liked this debate a lot. Good job both of you.
Posted by Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
That was a fun one, I learned a lot more than I thought I would, both from reading kukupser's brilliant responses and from doing research myself. Thank you for the opportunity :D
Posted by kukupser 5 years ago
kukupser
Hmmm I ran out of characters to type, but I would, again like to thank Kleptin for the fun debate, indeed it was a stimulating exchange. And to the voters who read the whole debate. Please post RFD's when you vote as well.
Posted by kukupser 5 years ago
kukupser
Haha hmm... This should be interesting. I guess I'll find out soon enough lol.
Posted by Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
I too thank TurkeyProphet because I was banking on my opponent using that point ;)
Posted by kukupser 5 years ago
kukupser
Credit to TurkeyProphet for the help with that last point. Thanks!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
kukupserKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by FormAndTheFormless 5 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
kukupserKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
kukupserKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
kukupserKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
kukupserKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
kukupserKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Xer 5 years ago
Xer
kukupserKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30