The Instigator
PowerPikachu21
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Paul-Atreides
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Eating Meat increases risk of Cancer

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
PowerPikachu21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 339 times Debate No: 84278
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

PowerPikachu21

Pro

I argue that there is sufficient evidence showing processed meat increases the risk of cancer.

Rules:

1. Round 1 is for acceptance only.
2. No kritiks, semantics, trolling, etc.
3. No new arguments in Round 4.
4. Forfeiting 2 rounds counts as a loss. Forfeiting Round 1 is an instant concession
5. Violation of these rules count as an instant loss.

Who accepts this debate?
Paul-Atreides

Con

I accept, and will argue against the notion that eating meat will increase the risk of cancer.
Debate Round No. 1
PowerPikachu21

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate, as well as joining the site. Even if you lose, I still wish you keep debating and not give up debate.org. With that, on to my argument!

Argument:

According to the American Institute for Cancer Research's findings, eating 3.5 ounces of processed meat increases risk of colorectal cancer by 36%. Eating 7 ounces of red meat increases risk by 34% [http://www.webmd.com...].

Con may ask questions as needed.
Paul-Atreides

Con

Just before I get into the 'meat' of the argument (pardon the pun), can we cite actual sources? Linking to articles is just silly, there were several scientific studies referenced in the article that you attached in your argument. Let's be honest, if we actually want to have a discussion about evidence, linking to blog posts and random articles from sites such a Web MD is unhelpful, linking directly to sources and studies as I will is a far more efficient and allows us to cut out the semantics and biases that these sites are prone to. It's really quite difficult to assess the claims of a Web MD post in the same way that you can analyse and interpret a study because it's clear to see where their information and numbers are coming from.

My main argument: While eating excessive amounts of meat will certainly lead to cancers such as colon cancer, everything should be consumed in moderation! You can consume meat, red, processed or otherwise without significantly increasing the risk of cancer(s), at least according to the current scientific literature.

Below I've linked a report from the UK government's independent dietary and nutritional board, SACN, this report was looking into Iron and the sources of Iron, one of the main ones in the UK being red meat. This is why the report talked about cancer in some detail and weighed the pros and cons of the increased risk of cancer and the valuable source of Iron for people in the UK. The report had this to say on the subject:

"After detailed consideration of the epidemiological evidence on the relationship between
red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer risk, the report concludes that red
and processed meat is probably associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Since
the evidence does not allow quantification of the amount of red and processed meat that
may be linked with increased colorectal cancer risk, SACN is advising high consumers of red
and processed meat to consider reducing their intakes. The modelling exercise suggests that
reducing red and processed meat intake to the population average for adult consumers
(estimated to be about 70 g/day cooked weight in 2000/01) would have little effect on
the proportion of the population with iron intakes below the lower limit of recommended
intake for iron."

So as you can see, consuming less than 70g per day of red meat would allow many people to maintain their healthy iron intake from the meat alone, and the risk of colon cancers as you mentioned, as far as we currently know, would be significantly lower. Therefore as it appears, you can consume meat without risking a substantial increase in cancers such as colon cancer.

The full report: https://www.gov.uk...

And according to the WHO who have published several reports detailing the dangers of eating meat and how it can lead to colon and other types of cancers had this to say following the media storm that their report generated:

"Our response focuses solely on the recommendation to moderate
consumption of red meat"

http://www.who.int...

It's clear that according to current scientific literature and recommendations from several national and international bodies that the consumption of red meat in excessive amounts will increase your chances of getting cancer(s). But overall it would be false to suggest that just eating meat would increase the risk of getting cancer, everything should be done in moderation and meat is no exception. Perhaps in the future the scientific stance will change and all meat consumption will increase the risk of cancer, but as it stands your overall claim is false.
Debate Round No. 2
PowerPikachu21

Pro

I thank Con for his argument. I will delve into my Rebuttal, and analyze Con's argument.

Rebuttal:

Con's beginning;

"can we cite actual sources?" Of course. After all, I didn't find only one site on the subject.[http://www.pcrm.org... :: Along with colorectal cancer, meat can increase risk of breast cancer.][http://coloncancer.about.com... :: This site says eating meat does increase risk of colon cancer.]

"While eating excessive amounts of meat will certainly lead to cancers such as colon cancer, everything should be consumed in moderation!" So do you concede that meat can increase risk of colorectal cancer? Sure, you can moderate how much you eat, but that doesn't change the fact that the meat does increase cancer risk.

Con's 1st source;

"After detailed consideration of the epidemiological evidence on the relationship between
red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer risk, the report concludes that red
and processed meat is probably associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer." Your source agrees that eating processed meat increases risk of colorectal cancer.

"Since
the evidence does not allow quantification of the amount of red and processed meat that
may be linked with increased colorectal cancer risk, SACN is advising high consumers of red
and processed meat to consider reducing their intakes." They are taking precautions to reduce the risk that these consumers of red meat get colorectal cancer. This part also indicates a correlation with red/processed meat and colorectal cancer.

Con's argument (Part 2);

"So as you can see, consuming less than 70g per day of red meat would allow many people to maintain their healthy iron intake from the meat alone, and the risk of colon cancers as you mentioned, as far as we currently know, would be significantly lower." Note he says "consuming less meat will lower the risk of cancer". He admits eating processed meat, as well as red meat, does in fact increase the risk of colorectal cancer.

Con's conclusion;

"It's clear that according to current scientific literature and recommendations from several national and international bodies that the consumption of red meat in excessive amounts will increase your chances of getting cancer(s)." Con concedes that processed meat increases cancer. Moderating how much meat you eat doesn't change the fact that eating it increases risk of colorectal cancer.

Conclusion:

My rebuttal showed Con's concession about meat increasing risk of colorectal cancer. I have provided sources of my own showing meat increases risk of colorectal cancer, as well as breast cancer. With that, vote Pro!
Paul-Atreides

Con

Paul-Atreides forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PowerPikachu21

Pro

My opponent forfeited round 3, and I assume he'll also forfeit round 4. Vote Pro, I guess. :/
Paul-Atreides

Con

Paul-Atreides forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 11 months ago
Max.Wallace
If it does, so what? Skinny vegans increase death by taxation, that is a more true statement.
Posted by Jonbonbon 11 months ago
Jonbonbon
@Paul: Well you're right about the statistical link, but I think most of that is the fact that as you get older your risk of cancer increases. I mean, if nothing else kills you, you will die of cancer. It's just because the body naturally degrades as you get older, and cancer is a degradation of a specific part of a cell. That's why I usually call out when sources say that, because even though there's technically a statistical link, if humans lived long enough, all humans would die of cancer eventually.
Posted by Paul-Atreides 11 months ago
Paul-Atreides
I agree with both of your comments, literally, having more than 6 oral sex partners increases your risk of getting oral cancer. It's pretty much impossible to find something that doesn't cause cancer in excess amounts, but I feel like there is a right amount of everything as I detailed in my round#2 response.
Posted by Cthrek 11 months ago
Cthrek
Yeah what jonbonbon said is true, mainly because ALMOST everything does incrase your risk of gaining cancer. So if the motion is taken as writen the Con cant win, since it is a fect that most of the scientific community agree on. Hence The burden should be to prove that eating meat is a significant contributer to the developement of cancer. (I know its shifting the goal post, but the science is more out on that question.)
Posted by Jonbonbon 11 months ago
Jonbonbon
Lol webmd? Webmd literally puts cancer on everything. Like almost every article has a section about how it's related to cancer. As far as webmd is concerned, everything causes cancer.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hayd 11 months ago
Hayd
PowerPikachu21Paul-AtreidesTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff so conduct to Pro. Con says that in moderation it doesn't, but since if you do OD it it does cause cancer, the resolution is affirmed and Pro wins.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
PowerPikachu21Paul-AtreidesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.