Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet
Debate Rounds (5)
Eating meat is harmful to the environment. In order to save our environment and feed a growing population we need to switch our diets to become vegetarian. We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop. Nearly 30% of ice-free available land is taken up by livestock . One billion people go hungry every day but most of our crops are consumed by livestock. This madness needs to stop. In order to feed the world we need to switch from meat to vegetables.
"In order to save our environment and feed a growing population we need to switch our diets to become vegetarian." In what way is the environment dying off? I know that meat comes from cows, chickens, and pigs, but it's not a non-renewable resource. Just get it from farms, which let the animals breed. Also, it's not like there's only 3 farms inn a state holding only 4 adult pigs at a time. As for the vegetarian part, we eat meat because it has protein. Fruits and vegetables don't contain protein.
"We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop." This statement needs to be backed up. Also, are you referring to all of Earth's population eating twice the meat as from 30 years? Because population DOES grow, and that would make sense. If you're referring to a single person eating meat, give proof of this.
"Nearly 30% of ice-free available land is taken up by livestock." livestock is animals on a farm. Thank you for showing that we have a sufficient amount of livestock to feed us humans.
The next part makes no sense. "One billion people go hungry every day but most of our crops are consumed by livestock." My opponent's saying to stop eating the livestock, and eat the crops, but the crops get eaten by livestock. Therefore, we eat the crops. What does that do for Pro's case? And, again, it doesn't make much sense.
Now for my argument. (Yeah, I often get into these debates and argue with new people, but take it easy.)
I'll bring up the food chain as my argument: Corn -> Pig -> Human
The pig eats the corn, and we eat the pig. But, we also eat corn. It's not like we're carnivores. We're omnivores; we eat both plants and animals! (and candy) Here's a food web (multiple food chains):
/ Corn -> Pig
l l V
Cow -> Human
This is a food web of cows, chickens, pigs, corn, and humans. The energy from the various locations are distributed nicely, I'd say.
A tip to Pro: Do not forfeit Round 2. There's a glitch running around this site. If you forfeit a round, the entire debate is on hold until the glitch is fixed.
I would like to add that I am a meat eater and love meat. I am not vegetarian. My argument is not that eating meat is wrong. My argument is that meet eating is harmful to the environment and that to stop climate change we need to switch to a vegetarian diet.
Con's argument of the food chain does not help his argument. Con states "The pig eats the corn, and we eat the pig. But, we also eat corn. It's not like we're carnivores. We're omnivores; we eat both plants and animals! (and candy) "
If the pig eats the corn and we eat the pig aren't we eating the corn through the pig? The corn gets its energy form the sun. The pig then eats the corn and then we eat the pig. However the corn will use up some of the suns energy so by the time the pig eats the corn, the pig is not receiving as much of the energy as the corn did. Then the pig uses up some more energy so there is less energy when we eat the pig and so it is ineffective and we should just eat the corn not the pig.
Con then uses the argument that if we take out humans from the food web the chicken, co and pig will increase in population however this is not true as humans provide the habitat for these animals to live in. Take out the humans from the web and the chicken, pig and cow decrease in population and the corn increases.
Now for my argument:
If you turned vegan you will cut your carbon emissions by 50%. In a world where the climate is getting hotter it is time we started getting serious and one of the best ways to cut our emissions is to switch to a vegetarian diet. 80% of the deforested amazon is now used for cattle pastures. Deforestation destroys precious habitat for animals and releases harmful greenhouse admissions stored in the rain forest. Forest are the lungs of the earth and by deforesting them for livestock gets rid of earths lungs (trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen).
Now you may say that producing vegetables uses just as much of the world's resources as meat does. Wrong. One pound pf meat uses 12 times as much land as one pound of soy. It uses 13 times as much fossil fuels to make meat over soy and it uses 15 times as much water to produce meat over soy.
Con's first paragraph talks about the Energy Pyramid, which says Species A (Plant) has 100% energy, Species B (Herbivore) has 10% energy, Species C (Animal which eats Species B) has 1% energy, etc. In the Pyramid, we are "Species C", but we don't need to go on a veggie diet because the lack of energy. I'm not even sure there's a heavy lack of energy in the first place.
Con's 2nd paragraph talks about increase and decrease in population? Where did that come from? Nowhere did anyone bring up a population declining or increasing.
Actually, now that I think about it... none of this is relevant to the environment being harmed, which is the resolution, isn't it? Let's just move on.
"If you turned vegan you will cut your carbon emissions by 50%." Can you back this up? How are we emitting carbon dioxide when eating meat? Anyways, a source is nessicary here. Also, Pro needs to clarify if our bodies are exhaling more carbon dioxide, or deforesting which releases smoke into the air, as he talks about later on.
"Deforestation destroys precious habitat for animals and releases harmful greenhouse admissions stored in the rain forest." I thought this debate was about becoming a vegetarian, not deforestation. Pro's argument is not really supporting the resolution of "Eating Meat harms the Environment". Sure, we're making farms on that land, but it's not eating the meat which is harming the forest, it's destroying the forest that's harming the environment.
As for resource consumption, I would like a source as well. "12 times as much land" seems like an awful lot, maybe too much? I don't think a meat factory takes up that much space. Actually, how much space does it take? It's not that much if farms take up 1 to 5 kilometers. Anyways, source is required.
Anyways, now that my rebuttal is done, I currently have no arguments myself. Let's fix that, shall we? (I concede the food chain didn't help my case at all.)
Us humans aren't the only ones eating other animals. Tigers, Alligators, Lions, Hawks, Sharks, and Wolves are all carnivores; they only eat meat! These animals, as well as the human race, ate meat all of their lives. And yet, I assert that this does not affect the environment in the slightest, other than we're eating other animals. You may be thinking "But they're Lions, Sharks, Hawks... How does that relate to us humans?" Answer: The resolution is "Eating Meat is Harmful to the World". I don't see how me eating beef is much different than a Lion eating a cow. We're both eating a cow. Albeit I'm eating a cooked cow, but does this change anything? We've eaten meat all our lives, yet how has it harmed anybody, except the poor cow I ate?
Now, the (other) big question is: "Does me eating McDonalds harm the Amazon forest?" I see not how saying 'yes' to that question makes sense. I eat a Double Cheeseburger, in my room. The Amazon isn't affected at all. Manufacturing the meat, however, would indeed release smoke, carbon dioxide, into the air. But that's not EATING the meat, is it?
Conclusion: Pro might have the resolution mixed up. He's talking about the manufacturing of the meat which harms the environment. That's not eating the meat. I've shown that eating the meat a) isn't manufacturing it, and b) it doesn't harm the environment.
And with that done and said, let's hear what Pro has to say!
In Con's argument he states that by just eating a cheeseburger it will not harm the environment. However a cheeseburger cannot exist without an intelligent life form creating it. Now how does the modern day world make a burger? The burger will come from a cow. The cow will need water, grass and other food. They will needed to be herded into different fields. They will need a factory to make the burger and will need a McDonalds to put the ingredients together and to sell the item. If Con hunted a wild , then killed the cow with stone/wooden. Before finally making a burger on a wooden fire this would not create enough fossil fuels to be a concern. However this is inefficient as he/she would use up more energy making the burger than he would get back by consuming the burger. Also who does that in a modern age.
Now for my argument. If I ate a burger produced using fossil fuels then that would not cause a problem but there 7 billion people on the world. Most people in the western world eat meat that would have been produced using fossil fuels. This puts dangerous greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This causes global warming and harms the environment.
Now for my response.
The validity of both our arguments rest solely on the resolution, which doesn't seem to be correctly defined. The title is "Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet". Normally, this introduces the resolution, but Pro talks about the manufacturing. Unless Pro has an objection to the current resolution of "Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet", that will stay the resolution for the debate. We are talking about the eating of the meat, not the manufacturing.
Defense 1; Pro's rebuttal means nothing with the current resolution.
I have shown, without a doubt, that eating does not harm anyone. Pro's rebuttal states "However a cheeseburger cannot exist without an intelligent life form creating it." and talks about how we need to make my Double Cheeseburger. As far as the resolution of "Eating meat is harmful to the environment" goes, that's irrelevant. Eating the meat harms nothing. Pro's argument is just nonsense. If Pro wishes to object, explain how eating meat harms the Amazon Rainforest. And I mean EATING the meat, not cooking the meat.
Defense 2; 2nd half of Pro's rebuttal.
"If Con hunted a wild , then killed the cow with stone/wooden. Before finally making a burger on a wooden fire this would not create enough fossil fuels to be a concern." 'm not eating my Cheeseburger yet, I'm still cooking it. Cooking is NOT eating.
"However this is inefficient as he/she would use up more energy making the burger than he would get back by consuming the burger." So? How is me wasting energy harming the environment? As far as I'm concerned, Pro's just avoiding my argument altogether. My argument is what the resolution suggests. "Eating the meat does NOT harm the World."
Pro, clarify the resolution for us. What are we debating? Anyways, now for my rebuttal:
Rebuttal 1; Pro's round 3 argument.
"If I ate a burger produced using fossil fuels then that would not cause a problem" It was produced by fossil fuels, but is the eating of the burger harming anyone? It is not.
"Most people in the western world eat meat that would have been produced using fossil fuels." So is it the eating of the meat that's harming the world? This isn't what Pro's suggesting. Pro's talking about the fact that the world cooks and manufactures meat via consuming fossil fuels. That is NOT the resolution.
Rebuttal 2; Dropped arguments and unsourced statements.
Back in round 1, I asked for the statement of "We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop." to be backed up with a link to a website. Pro has not done this, and if it is true, eating still harms no one. If it's false, then it means nothing.
In round 2, Pro states that a vegetarian has 50% less carbon emissions than an average person. This needs a source, or it's just a baseless assertion.
He also states that we require more land with meat factories than with a place that manufactures soy. This needs to be sourced with a link. It's a grand statement. Grand statements need proof, or it's just nonsense.
Pro also ignored the resolution. We have stated "eating meat harms the environment". Now he's talking about making meat harms the environment. But in Round 1, and the title, he has confirmed that the resolution stands as "Eating Meat Harms the World". This makes Pro's argument invalid. Correct me if I am wrong.
Argument; Eating meat does NOT harm any environment.
Again, if I eat beef, does it harm the lions? It does not. Pro is unable to counter this claim. Plain and simple. If this argument is irrelevant, or needs to be backed up, Pro needs to say so. Otherwise, it's true.
With this done and said, Pro needs to back up what needs to be backed up, and give relevant examples of why he's correct that Eating the Meat Harms the World.
jammy202 forfeited this round.
Anyways, for this round, I will summarize my argument, as well as Pro's argument, and what he must show when his round 5 argument comes.
The resolution is "Eating meat harms the planet". This is false, because A) Not eating meat reduces the amount of protein you would get in your average diet, therefore not eating the meat would harm us (<- new argument here). And B) What harm is eating a cow going to do to the Amazon Forest? None, obviously! Why would it?
Pro talks about meat factories release smoke, and cause pollution, but this isn't the resolution. Unless Pro confirms the resolution as being "Manufacturing meat harms the environment", the resolution stands as it is. What Pro needs to do in round 5, is confirm what the resolution is.
If it's "Eating Meat is harmful to the World", then his previous arguments mean nothing, and must make a brand new argument for round 5 stating why eating the meat is harmful to the world.
If the resolution is "Manufacturing the meat harms the world", then he mislead everybody to think that was the resolution since Round 1.
These are NOT valid reasons for the resolution to be "Manufacturing Meat harms the Environment" , and why:
"Con misinterpreted the resolution" will not work, since the resolution was "Eating Meat harms the world" (I'm getting bored of typing that over and over again.) since Round 1, as Pro clearly pointed out this is what we'd be debating.
"My other arguments are this, so this was the resolution" is invalid, as this is special pleading to move the goal posts to Pro's advantage. We've already established in Round 1 that the resolution is "Eating Meat harms Environment".
"I have stayed on the topic of the resolution" would be okay, but a sufficient explanation is required as to why Pro has debated off of the current resolution. If it's not sufficient, I will show why, and the victory will be mine.
And with that, vote Con on this one.
jammy202 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.