Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 is for acceptance, definitions, and also a brief paragraph on position and beliefs (not hard evidence, just explain where you will be coming from).
I agree that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is unhealthy with it being a high fat, high sugar and low exercise diet. However I believe the health problems associated with meat are not because meat is inherently unhealthy, but because Americans simply over consume it. Meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's diet in moderation. In regards to the morality of meat production the process of raising and killing animals can and should be reformed to ensure it's not done in a tortuous manner. In short meat is not inherently evil.
With that I thank Bennett for this debate, and hope that it is a productive one. I, as the rules ask, accept this debate and will provide some definitions and a summary of what I may argue.
I will be arguing that eating meat is first immoral because animals are sentient beings, who are capable of making connections, and it is wrong to kill them, as it is wrong to kill humans. I will also argue that since humans can survive without meat, and that meat is often unhealthy, and unnecessary humans should abstain from eating meat.
Here are some definitions, which are should be clear, but I thought them worthy to mention:
1. meat: The flesh of an animal, typically a mammal or bird, as food (the flesh of domestic fowls is sometimes distinguished as poultry):
2. unhealthy: Harmful to health.
Also a tip, next time specify animal meat. I could have easily trolled you by using the definition of meat as human flesh and easily won the debate. May the best man win.
For your Round 1 comments I will wait for you to expound upon them in round 2 and rebuttal in Round 3. Please note my overall argument is not a rejection of vegetables, but merely to point out that meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's plate, nutritionally and morally. Humans are omnivores, as such we should eat meat too.
My First Round argument will be divided into main 3 parts:
1. Eating meat is not inherently unhealthy.
2. Eating meat is not inherently immoral.
3. A Beneficial Symbiosis.
Eating Meat is Not Inherently Unhealthy:
I begin with this because I believe it is the easiest to prove and I hope to make this case solid in Round 2 in order to devote more time to the morality of meat eating for the rest of the debate. My evidence in this section will appeal to Ethos.
Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced. For example asparagus is healthy, but when slathered in lard and fried it becomes more detrimental than beneficial (but infinitely more delicious). If you raise corn in a sewer the corn will be unhealthy. As such meat can be healthy provided it is not processed or cooked in an unhealthy manner [1 See: Point 3 "Bottom Line"].
With this in mind meat can be prepared in a way that compliments a balanced diet. According to the Mayo Clinic grass fed beef (high quality) has been shown to contain nutrients that are beneficial to heart health. Grass fed beef contains "More heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. More conjugated linoleic acid, a type of fat that's thought to reduce heart disease and cancer risks. More antioxidant vitamins, such as vitamin E. Lean beef that's 10 percent fat or less ... can be part of a heart-healthy diet." .
Fish meat is also highly recommended in ones diet. According to the Harvard School of Public Health; along with various vital nutrients "There is strong evidence that eating fish or taking fish oil is good for the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of 20 studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants indicates that eating approximately one to two 3-ounce servings of fatty fish a week -- salmon, herring, mackerel, anchovies, or sardines -- reduces the risk of dying from heart disease by 36 percent." 
Given this evidence I am confident in saying that eating meat can be a healthy part of a well balanced diet, and is not inherently detrimental as vegans would have us believe.
Eating Meat is Not Inherently Immoral:
This section is tricky to prove given the reality of the current mode of meat production. I acknowledge that currently meat farms treat their animals in immoral and inhumane ways such as keeping them in small cages, not allowing the animals to move, giving them "drugs to fatten them faster and keep them alive in conditions that could otherwise kill them", and "Genetically [altering them] to grow faster or to produce much more milk or eggs than they naturally would (many animals become crippled under their own weight and die just inches away from water and food)" . Under these conditions even I agree that supporting this tortuous system of food production is immoral.
However I propose that if we allowed these animals, cows and pigs especially, to live free range the mode of production would be morally permissible. The main arguments against the current mode of production come from 3 places; first it causes immense pain, stress and suffering to the animal, and second it deprives the animal of its natural environment and agency, third killing sentient beings in general is immoral.
Free range meat is a perfect solution to both of these critics. Allowing cattle to live on grassland has shown to improve the cattle"s health, "Advocates of pasture-raised beef say the reasons to switch go beyond nutrition. The animal is raised in a more humane fashion that is also better for the environment. And 100-percent grass-fed animals typically aren't given hormones or antibiotics."  With less hormones and antibiotics being introduced the cow is allowed to grow naturally. Plus living on grassland allows the cow to roam free, doing whatever cows do in their free time. When it comes time for a cow to die there has been much improvement ensuring the animal does not undergo stress or pain  (I suggest reading this source as it is the ideal in ethical meat production).
For the 3rd counter point I appeal to nature. First I will provide a definition for sentient via Google definitions: "able to perceive or feel things." Animals kill other animals to ensure their own survival. When a sentient bear kills a sentient salmon and we do not pass judgment. When sentient ants farm aphids we do not pass judgment. However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals. For example rape is common throughout the animal kingdom. When it happens in human society we reject the idea that it's simply a common occurrence and attempt (if incompetently) to punish the rapist for obvious reasons. There are obvious reasons we eat meat (see argument one). Just because we reject some aspects of nature does not mean we must reject all aspects of nature. Part of your counter will be to convince us that eating meat/animal bi-products is one aspect of nature we should reject.
Symbiosis can be Mutually Beneficial to Humans and Domesticated Animals:
This will be a short summary and conclusion paragraph explaining how ethical meat production (for example read source ) benefits both man and animal. To the benefit of humans: We are what we eat, raising our food in healthy ethical environments benefits us. If we allow our cows to grow in their own filth pumped full of artificial hormones and constantly stressed out then the meat produced is lower in quality and the damages are passed onto us. This is shown by the evidence that grass fed beef is healthier for us in general compared to the current factory like mass production model . Furthermore raising our food ethically can be a spiritual process. As an example I show an opposite circumstance, it is common knowledge that one sign of a serial killer is torturing animals. If we move away from torturing animals during the process of food production we can move away from the darker aspects associated with killing animals.
To the benefit of our Domesticated Animals: I know your initial thought may be "how can killing an animal be in its benefit?" Well in short it it's not, but not all symbiotic relationships are 50/50. However in an ethical scenario of meat production we provide our animals a safe, stress, and pain free environment away from natural predators. Given the option I'm sure a cow would prefer a stun bolt over being torn apart by wolves. In exchange for this protection we take sacrifices as needed. We allow the animal to live a natural life, and instead of them being picked off by predators we substitute this natural selection with human selection. Their deaths benefit humans instead of wolves or bears, which in the end is their purpose. Up until the end the cow's life would be its own.
Tier One: Eating Meat Is Unhealthy:
It is clear that eating meat has many risks. Whether it be the best meat in the world or the worst. Of the 1.3 billion people in this world who are overweight or obese (ranked by BMI) only 8% of them are vegetarians. Meat is also high in fats and cholesterol. Research has shown that countries which partake in meat have a much greater rate of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular, diabetes mellitus and some cancers. Meat is other than being extremely high in saturated fats, and cholesterol also dense in calories, produces heterocyclic amines which are carcinogenic, increases the chance of colon cancer by 12%, is hard on the stomach where it often causes IBS, stomach cramps, prolapsed colons, haemorrhoids, constipation and many other problems. Eating meat increases the chances of autoimmune disease by 16%, carries a 9% risk of fatal bacterial diseases, increases bacteria in the body, causes hormonal balance, and may cause blue tongue disease.
It is also untrue that one cannot survive without eating meat. Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all. I believe it is best summarized in the medical journal entry which I quote (links provided below): 'The American Dietetic Association states, "Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fats, cholesterol, and even animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, phosphate, folate and antioxidants like Vitamin C..."'.
It is also clear that vegetarians like nearly six to twelve years on average more than meat eaters. Meat also contains Polycylic Aromatic Hydrocarbons which increase the chance of breast cancer by an astounding thirty percent! It is also stated that: 'Harvard researchers recently conducted a prospective analysis of 90,655 premenopausal women, ages 26 to 46, enrolled in the Nurses" Health Study II and determined that intake of animal fat, especially from red meat and high-fat dairy products, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Increased risk was not associated with vegetable fats.' Other than that Colorectal cancer is increased by 18%, prostate cancer by 14% and pancreatic cancer by 3%. The point is when you can have an excellent diet with vegetables it is unhealthy to eat meat because it not only raises the cholesterol levels, and increases the risk of cancer but also increases the uric acid of a person causing great amounts of pain.
Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues.
Tier Two: Eating Meat Is Immoral:
Since there are more than statistics provided here I will first present a rebuttal to the arguments presented here. The first is that it may help the animals this is a blatant lie, I mean you are killing the animals! Also by slaughtering animals and/or domesticating them man has caused great amounts of environmental harm. A recent report by the Envireomental Working Group revealed lamb and beef to contribute greatly to greenhouse gas emissions. Producing one pound of pork creates on average a baffling 12.02 kilograms of CO2, which is only one third of the CO2 produced for one pound of beef, and only one fifth for that of lamb. Fishing and preparing aquamarine animals actually harms the oceanic life considerably.
Now moving on to the next part. I should like to inform the voters that an appeal to nature is the name of a logical fallacy. My opponent gives the example of animals. The Jacan birds kill of their infants, shall humans do so as well? Lions when they find a new mate, kill of the their stepchildren, shall we today ask stepparents to kill their non biological children. Pedophilia, psychopathy, sociopathy are all natural.
There is no benefit to animals. My opponent has not justified his burden. Lastly how can it not be immoral to kill off sentient life. Now the word meat is used. Many people like to eat monkey brains, or shark steaks. Do you realize that monkeys have their neo cortex built? They experience loss, pain, happiness and you or I would. Mamals have the spinal brain formed and take care of their young. Cows actually feel the loss of their children. Do you think it is still not immoral to kill of these animals?
The resolution collapses.
For the purpose of my rebuttal I will refer to my previous 6 sources as numerically cited and future sources will be cited as 7 & up. In citing your sources they will be referenced as [Con #]
Given that my arguments have been legitimated, your comment "Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways." can be disregarded. I understand that this is a bit unfair to you given that you decided to arrogantly brush off my arguments and supply your own. You will now have the chance to refute my Round 2 argument. I recommend you actually read it this time, because there is clear evidence in your rebuttal you did not.
Problematic Citation and Source Material:
I apologize for the mishap in my Round 2 source material; however you'll find that everything is properly cited and credible. However in your entire argument you fail to properly cite anything you said. I have no idea which comment corresponds to which source; if this were an academic setting you would be charged with plagiarism.
Your source material is also very questionable and contradictory, and some are irrelevant to the debate entirely. Because you did not openly disclose which arguments come from which sources I have to spend the majority of my rebuttal debunking your sources.
I ask that you re-read my Round 1 post. Source [Con 1] enforces my position quote "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers." [Con 1] is describing SAD, in my position statement I clearly acknowledge that SAD is not relevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equal inherent unhealthiness. If over-consumption was a true indicator of inherent negative health affects the 8% of obese vegetarians you mention would show that over consuming vegetables causes the negative health effects associated with obesity.
[Con 2] is problematic; the author is simply unqualified, her brief bio gives no indication of having a degree in anything, she is extremely biased and only provides one citation for her entire 15 point article. More importantly all of her points are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which as I've stated in Round 2 does not divert from meat being inherently unhealthy or immoral because there are healthy and moral ways of raising cattle [Con 8].
The findings of [Con 3] can also be refuted, Point 4 Source  quote "It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women. " This implies it is the process, not the meat that causes cancer.
[Con 4] is 42 pages long, I only read the first page and found that it, like [Con 1], was critical of SAD for its health effects. This does not prove meat is inherently bad, fish for example is low in fat and has positive health effects . Also [Con 4] says Chimps eat monkeys, if sentience is such an issue then why don't chimps respect the sentience of monkeys? (I'll address this in more detail later).
[Con 5] is from PETA an organization well known for its bias against eating meat. Like [Con 2] the arguments are almost entirely based on factory farming, which again is irrelevant in the face of free range farming [Con 8].
[Con 6] is PETA India, it has the same bias and credibility as [Con 2]. Point 4 for example says that meat is bad because if you under cook it then you could get bird flu. Ok, by this logic vegetables are bad because if you don't clean them you could get E. Coli. As I said in the beginning of Round 2 "Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced."
[Con 7] is my personal favorite. By citing this source you show how truly desperate you are to grasp at straws. This source made me understand why you did not disclose them in your debate, as it has no scientific value whatsoever, it simply bullet points propaganda without any evidence. Let's read some of the findings of SupremeMasterTV.com. Eating meat causes "Blue tongue disease", what is this? Oh right it's a disease that only affects livestock and not humans . The other diseases are food borne illnesses from improper cooking.
In your rebuttal you state "Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all." Meaning that those who drink milk and eat eggs along with vegetables have the best diet of all (this is not a vegan diet, in Round 1 you said you'd argue as a vegan). But Lo! [Con 7] says drinking milk is bad! It causes "Breast, prostate and testicular cancer from hormones present in milk; Listeria and Crohn's disease; Hormones and saturated fat lead to osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes and heart disease; Linked to higher incidences of multiple sclerosis." Still think drinking milk is cool?
[Con 8] is written by the same author as [Con 4] and as such contains the exact same arguments. Also I don't think you actually read this article because the author lays out a plan for rational meat eating in the section "Toward Rational Meat Eating" so yea ... you're helping me with this one.
[Con 9] I admit this article does seem legitimate and has sources. However this argument doesn't help you in the way you might think, it focuses on factory farming and it acknowledges meat can be environmentally friendly "Chicken is probably the best land animal to eat, certainly in terms of climate change impact. Fish have a low greenhouse gas impact but are being eaten in such large quantities that many are at risk of extinction." "Even limiting one's meat consumption to chicken yields major environmental benefits--not to mention health and financial benefits." So eating chicken yields health benefits ... Interesting.
[Con 10] was about jacana birds being influenced by human scientists to commit infanticide. I don't see how this proves anything more than humans encouraged behavior that only humans would consider immoral. If anything this goes to show killing animals is not an issue of morality. For the sake of science (as suppose to survival) humans encouraged these birds kill each others babies. Are these scientists immoral for encouraging nature?
Eating Meat Can be Healthy:
For the bulk of this section please read Round 2. This section is for counter arguments. Given that none of your statistics are properly cited they can be seen as fiction. You clearly dramatize the negative health effects of meat, if meat was so bad then why would doctors recommend it as part of a balanced diet ?
Quoting Con "Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues." Ah yes, Harvard disagrees quote "Environmental Protection Agency " calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer"but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. Second, levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are very low, similar to levels in meats, dairy products, and eggs. Third, more than 90 percent of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from such non-seafood sources, including meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables." 
Morality of Meat: Appeal to Nature
In Round 2 I specifically acknowledge the possible flaw in this argument "However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals." It"s important to note humans are animals, and as such comparison to other animals is legitimate (it's kind of how biology and anthropology work). You yourself make this a moral underpinning in Round 1 "" it is wrong to kill [animals], as it is wrong to kill humans." But why? What makes them like us? You argue mammals are sentient like us, they feel emotion like we do, so they should be spared. You think that just because chimps can love each as humans can love each other this somehow negates the fact that chimps are equally enthusiastic about killing lesser yet still sentient primates like monkeys [Con 4], humans eat monkeys too ya know. Because we can feel love somehow all mammals are entitled to our good graces. Even if I agreed with your pan-mammalism philosophy fish and chicken aren't mammals what claim to familiarity do they have? When it comes to rape and infanticide there are obvious pro-human arguments against it, if your only argument against eating mammals is 'well you wouldn't eat a human!' then I'm afraid the moral connection falls flat.
So it is not that eating meat has more health benefits that costs, it is not a comparative resolution: it is an objective resolution. My opponent must show that eating meat is not, in the least bit, harmful to health. Also he must show that no meat is harmful to health. If I can show that eating meat is the least bit harmful, I win. If I can show that some forms of meat are harmful I win. Secondly that eating meat is not immoral. Again the burden of proof is on my opponent, he must show that eating meat is not the least bit immoral, that it is objectively not immoral. Also I only need to show any one, while Bennett needs to prove both.
This analysis is critical for the debate. Remember my opponent must show necessarily not UI, where I only need to show not necessarily not UI, which is the same as possibly UI. So if I can show that some meat is unhealthy and immoral in some cases, or that it harms health I de facto win. With that let us begin.
Since the argument is based on statistics and the reasoning is assumed from your side, my original argument was also a refutation. Now I should win this debate here and now because Bennett actually accepts the harmful effects of meat in some cases, and since an ovarian diet is perfectly healthy and you have absolutely no need for any meat we can consider this a concession of the debate from Bennett right here and now. For Bennett says: ' the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer'. Now lets get started with the refutation of Bennett's contentions with my sources:
1. I do not see how my first source helps Bennett at all. You can, if anyone wishes to read my source learn that the paper is actually in favor of a vegan or ovarian diet. It is not over consumption: if one takes a steady diet of meat one will be more likely to get cardiovascular, and other diseases. Now the advised upper limit is 62 kilos per year, the recommended intake is only around 3 helpings a month (the upper limit being 8 helpings), now this is a very low number. There is a good reason for this: that mean is inherently unhealthy. As my original argument states meat is extremely high in cholesterol, and saturated fats, none of which is necessary. Meat, as a whole, says the journal should not be eaten, but if one is insistent then the healthy consumption would be 3 helpings a month. Compare that with vegetables and fruits of which you should have according to one site 4 helpings, and another ten helpings a day! As for the 8% vegetarians perhaps you should give a journal entry which talks about how vegetables are filled with deadly fats (something which Bennett cannot).
2. Perhaps one should re-read her bio, she is a licensed nutritionist who has written many journal entries, and a book. Also I think there is only one point regarding farming methods, the author lists sources as to how meat can cause colon cancer, cholesterol, dense in calories and this can be read in my original argument, listing the different harmful effects.
3. This is actually a very important source and lists the tens of cancers and fatal illnesses which come more from processed meat, but also from unprocessed meat. It talks about cooked meat, not processed meat. All the information can also be found in my original argument where I discuss the different forms of cancers. This is truly a very important source, and it is from the respected Physicians Committee and has in itself 39 references.
4. If you had read from page 20 on wards you would once again see that it talks about processed and unprocessed meat. It is another important entry.
5. For both 5, and 6 you say that PETA is biased but give no proof of their prejudice, this response of yours can be ignored.
9. You fail to realize it says 'best'. While it does say fish has the least amount of greenhouse gas emission, they are present. Also mutton and beef as I have shown produce 12 kilos or more of CO2, this is why the temperature of the Earth increases each year. When the source talks about chicken it means the lesser of evils. It calls it is the least worse, but bad still.
10. This shows the stupidity of an appeal to nature. Your entire argument was based on the belief that since meat is eaten in nature, and human bodies can process meat, meat is moral. This is not only an appeal to nature, which is a legitimate logical fallacy, it is also foolish. Pedophilia, Psychopathy, and killing of one's infants are all natural, should humans copy animals here too? As for the appeal to nature: http://en.wikipedia.org....
Now an Ovo-Lacto diet does not involve eating meat. This debate is about meat, and meat is defined as flesh. An Ovo-Lacto diet which is the most healthy is in itself devout of any meat. The debate resolution is not about veganism it is about meat, about eating flesh and I have sufficiently shown that this meat is unhealthy and immoral.
Now note how my opponent says: 'can be healthy'. It may have some benefits, but none of them are such that cannot be gained through vegetables. Also remember my burden of proof analysis in the beginning, since I have shown that there are some harmful effects, since Bennett has even accepted it, I win this argument, and this debate.
None of my arguments in relation to cancer, how meat has carcinogenics, and how meat is harmful have been tackled. Only the fish point was mildly tackled, with an appeal to authority to Harvard. It is commonly known that people get Mercury poisoning, and other gastric problems from aquamarine meat. The point that it contains mercury was actually conceded by my argument where he admits that they may cause cancer.
The entire defense of my opponents argument drops my points about how meat causes environmental damage and is therefore immoral. Since this is a dropped point, I ask that it give me extra points in the voter's eyes. The rest of the entire argument actually defends the appeal to nature. The above source from Wikipedia is good enough to prove that an appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. As I said psychopathy is natural, there are many people who are born to kill. Also human men have a genetic and evolutionary desire to produce children and carry on their genes, should we allow human to rape women then? I mean that is what they want naturally.
My argument about how other animals are sentient beings, and just as it is wrong to harm other humans, because we assume that to cause pain is immoral, it is wrong to harm animals. Monkeys and Chimpansies actually have 97% similar DNA to humans (all humans share a DNA similarity of 99.556%) and so have a neo-cortex formed and it wrong to kill of sentient life. My opponent provides no satisfactory answer to this.
With that I beg to oppose, and can only state that the resolution collapses miserably.
The Anatomy of Violence by Adrian Raine; Basic Instincts
Let's examine how Con interprets the BoP he states as follows (notice the position of the word "not"):
"Remember my opponent must show necessarily NOT UI ..."
Con uses the synonym "necessarily" instead of "inherently". However if we examine the ACTUAL premise/title of the debate using the synonym: "Eating Meat is NOT [necessarily] Unhealthy or Immoral." Notice that the premise is not "[necessarily] NOT UI".
Do you see the problem? Con switches "NOT [necessarily] UI" with "necessarily not UI". So in correcting Con's misguided attempt to place 100% of the BoP on me we get "NOT necessarily UI, where con must prove not NOT [necessarily] UI". The BoP is placed upon Con to prove that all forms of meat are inherently UI, he is arguing as a vegan after all and this would be in line with his original position. I have to show that there is a way meat can be healthy and raised/slaughtered ethically. I have done so with the example of free range farming, which for the entire debate Con has ignored in favor of fighting the straw man of factory farming. Con believes just because he can point out a slight fault, take fish and mercury poisoning, this negates the health benefits of the meat. He thinks that just because mercury poisoning would kill 24 people this negates the 7,000 who would be saved from fish.
This is a debate of an extreme position vs. a moderate one. The vegan represents the extreme, ALL meat is bad. My position represents the moderate, SOME meat is ok (you can read my position in Round 1). The key word is "inherent", if I can divorce the concept of meat from unhealthy and immoral I win. In other words, if I can show meat can be produced in a way that is healthy for humans and moral (or at least amoral) for animals, I win [see round 2 & 3]. The vegan will have no recourse for rebuttal given their position.
Now to address some points made by Con:
Con doesn't see how [Con 1] helps my position, read my Round 1 position, because my BoP is to prove meat is not inherently bad I point that it is not the meat that causes poor health effects but the irresponsible over consumption of it. [Con 1] confirms this hypothesis "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers." READ THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN. It is the over consumption that leads to the diseases not the meat itself. As for those 8% obese vegetarians, how did they become obese if they weren't eating meat? If meat is inherently unhealthy how could these people become obese if they avoided meat?
As far as morality is concerned, Con has 2 counters: it causes pain and environmental damage. Free range farming inherently eliminates the pain involved in raising cattle because they grow up in their natural environment, grassland (free to relax from the fear of natural predators). Before animals are killed they receive what is called a "stun bolt" which numbs the creature so when it is killed it feels no pain . Causing a painless death is at least amoral as it serves a purpose to humans without harming the animal. As far as environmental damage is concerned this is a moot point. Almost everything humans do causes environmental damage, especially agriculture (vegan food) with pesticides running into the water supply and soil degradation. If meat production is immoral by these standards then all food is immoral, in this case we would all starve to death.
In regards to not needing meat, this may true but it is irreverent. We may be able to live without meat but just because we can doesn't mean we should live without it. Meat has many nutrients that are important and if we included meat in our diets this gives human the full range of nutritional options .
Sorry for the hap hazard organization but internet connection problems took precious hours away. There is plenty of evidence that meat can be a part of a healthy diet [1, 2, 3, 8, Con 9, ], and through free range farming meat can be ethically harvested [5, 6, Con 8]. I have stayed true to my Round 1 position and have met my BoP. Con has abandoned his Round 1 position by making non-vegan arguments and most of his sources have been put into question, help my case, or are irrelevant. He has not shown meat to be inherently UI.
Vote Pro, thank you.
I always hope for one thing, that one day schools will start teaching formal logic to their students. Now let me start with the burden of proof analysis once again, before that however let me present to you one fact. The motion of the debate does not mention hard core veganism; it only mentions meat. This was defined as flesh earlier on.
Now lets come to the burden of proof analysis. I use the S5 Modal Logic System here made by Lewis Carroll. Let us before that attribute some signs: U is for unhealthy, and I is for Immoral. Now above I say that my opponent must show necessarily not UI. What this means is that he must show that meat is necessarily not inherently immoral and/or unhealthy. What necessarily implies here is that the motion is an absolute motion, not a comparative, or a shared one. My opponent must prove that meat is necessarily not immoral, and it is necessarily not unhealthy. Now some may say that the burden of proof is on me, for my opponent is trying to show a negative. I quote the Latin law here: Onus probandi incumbet ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. The burden is on the one "affirming" something. My opponent is affirming the healthiness and the morality of eating meat.
Now I must show the negation of my opponent, right? Well since my opponent must show necessarily not UI, I must show negation necessarily not UI, which through the S5 Logic System translated to possibly UI. So if I can show that meat is possibly unhealthy, or possibly immoral I win. I win this debate because my opponent concedes that sometimes meat is unhealthy. There are also a plethora of citations I used to show the harmful effect of eating meat. Eating meat affects the heart, kidneys, liver, et cetera. It causes cardio-vasular diseases, and contains numerous toxins.
Now most of my opponent's arguments are comparative. That the benefits out way the harms, well he still loses because he cannot satisfy his burden of proof. Seeing that there is in fact some harm. My above analysis can be checked if one Googles S5 Logic System, though here are some essays.
As for my first source, my opponent picks and chooses. The paragraph itself states of meat in general, and only then states that meat in large amounts is more detrimental. Meat in itself is inherently unhealthy, while eating it in small amounts may not effect one per say, it is still unhealthy. One who drinks alcohol socially is not considered to be doing something exceptionally unhealthy, but over long periods it still affects one's health.
I believe this is what stunning is: 'Electrical stunning is done by sending an electrical current through the brain and/or heart of the animal before slaughter. Current passing through the brain induces an immediate but non-fatal general convulsion that produces unconsciousness. Current passing through the heart produces an immediate cardiac arrest that also leads shortly to unconsciousness and death.' Do you know that 15% of animals are not put to sleep, they endure the pain of the current? Also stunning does not kill the animals, it puts them in an unconscious state, and they can still feel pain. Granted they wont remember this pain, partly because they will be dead, but they will be feeling pain for upto 10 minutes they will get heart attacks, some seize, and other problems. This is humanitarian? Also this leaves the point that my opponent conceded that he made an appeal to nature. Not to mention as animals are sentient creatures, and can feel pain, would you be okay if we stun humans before we cook 'em up?
My opponent's rebuttal is near non-existent. He states that since everything humans do causes pollution this is okay. Growing vegetables does not cause pollution, it reduces the CO2 from the air. In comparison I have earlier shown how meat causes extremely large amounts of CO2. Now the world is moving onto organic foods and many countries have banned any form of pesticides which are toxic.
With that I end this debate, my thanks once more to Bennett, and to the voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ldow2000 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I feel con had better arguments, although not by much. PETA, by the way, normally provides their own sources on their website. Pro, I am wondering, do you know the difference between vegetarians and vegans? You seemed intent on debating a vegan, but this debate did not include dairy or eggs.
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.