The Instigator
Noradrenergic
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Eating meat is good for your health

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 4 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,027 times Debate No: 26424
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (44)
Votes (4)

 

Noradrenergic

Con

Does anyone want to argue in favour of this?

Assuming focus on developed western nations, and that extended life expectancy and prevention of disease = good for health. Also, that eating meat is good for your health in comparison to other non-meat alternative food sources (i.e. not to be compared with eating nothing instead etc.).

I'll argue against.

If someone accepts, this will be my first debate, so please let me know if there is anything that I've missed out regarding format & rules etc.
Mirza

Pro

The debate is centered around the health benefits of meat. This is not limited to red meat only. Con will argue that meat consumption is bad for you health. The debate is not about whether or not meat is good as a replacement of vegetables. There should be a balance between consumption of both. The definitions are self-evident in this debate. "Health benefit" covers both short and long-term health effects of meat consumption. Some advice to Con regarding debates:
  1. Don't plagiarize. Put everything that you take from another source into quotes, and make sure you put references.
  2. Avoid arguing in the comments section. This can lead to unnecessary disputes. Put your references in the debates, not the comments section.
  3. Make no new arguments in the last round. This often gives you an unfair advantage, especially if you are the contender.
  4. Avoid personal attacks. Attack the arguments, not the debater. Anything like "My opponent is stupid!" adds nothing of value to a debate, and causes nonsensical exchanges that are off-topic.
  5. Don't write more than 10 lines in one paragraph. People tend to get repelled by walls-of-text. Make sure you have spelling and grammar in check.
  6. If you point out logical fallacies in your opponent's arguments, don't simply say "Strawman!" It is your job to also explain why something is a fallacy
Debate Round No. 1
Noradrenergic

Con

Thank you for the warm welcomeand advice.

Hopefully my argument is sufficient regarding the rules and regulations. If not, perhaps we can try again in future when I have more experience.Although meat is not limited to red meats, I will be focussing most of my argument around red meats and processed meats given that these are the most vastly consumed meats in most developed western nations [1]. Commonly consumed non-red meats are chicken and fish, the former mainly in processed form (therefore coming under processed meats). I will argue that although there may be some beneficial constituents in these meats, the cons outweigh the pros making meat consumption bad for our health overall. The pieces of evidence in support of this position areepidemiological, experimental, and mechanistic in nature.

The World Cancer Research Fund's 2007 (and more recent updates) report "Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective" was prepared by over 150 of the worlds scientists from 30 different countries, and summarized over 7000 peer-reviewed publications (epidemiological, mechanistic and experimental in origin). The report states that the evidence for red meat intake increasing colorectal cancer risk is 'convincing'[2]. Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less thangeneral western average consumption; see reference [1]), the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats.

Some epidemiological evidence:

A 2011 study with nearly half a million participants found the highest red meat consumers to have a 19% increased risk of kidney cancer [3]. A 21 year follow up study of around 30,000 participants found daily red meat consumers to have a 60% higher risk of dying from heart disease than those eating meat less than once per week [4]. Significant associations between red meat consumption and coronary heart disease have been found in multiple large scale studies [5][6].

A 2009 study of over 500,000 people by the National Cancer Institute found the same correlation between consumption of red meat and increased cardiovascular related mortality, as well as overall mortality. This year (2012), a study was published in the Harvard Annals of Internal Medicine that followed over 120,000 participants for 22 - 28 years. The study reported red meat consumption was associated with "increased risk of total, cardivascular, and cancer mortality". The results remained significant after factoring for smoking, physical activity levels, obesity, alcohol consumption and other possible confounds [7].

Some mechanistic and experimental research:

Zaidi, Kumar & Rawat (2012) report that to date, more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products, including non-red meats such as chicken [8]. DNA damage has been characterized in cells excreted in the faeces after a meat meal, compared to non-meat consuming controls [9]. Although research showed that cruciferous vegetables reduced DNA damage in colorectal cells, damage was not reduced elsewhere and was not completely eliminated in the cells where it was reduced.

Lastly, as mentioned above these meat products contain nitrosamines among other mutagens. Nitrosamines are known to alkylate guanine nitrogenous bases in DNA, causing G C -T A transversions. These such transversions are amongst the most common mutations found in human cancer cells [10]

In conclusion:The research discussed in full above is by no means exhaustive, as mentioned in the WCRF report alone over 7000 studies were reviewed and summarized, and I do not have the space or time to present such a thoroughsummary here. Whatever health benefits come from these products, epidemiological research strongly suggests that these are outweighed by the negative implications of such consumption. Characterization of mutagens present in meat products, as well as experimental research where DNA damage from human cells has been observed after meat consumption, together provide not only evidence that those who consume meat get more diseases, and die earlier, but provides insight into the specific mechanisms involved.

References:

[1] http://www.fao.org...

[2] http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk...

[3] Daniel, C. R.; Cross, A. J.; Graubard, B. I.; Park, Y.; Ward, M. H.; Rothman, N.; Hollenbeck, A. R.; Chow, W. -H. et al. (2011). "Large prospective investigation of meat intake, related mutagens, and risk of renal cell carcinoma". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 95 (1): 155–162.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3238458/.

[4] Kahn, H. A.; Phillips, R. L.; Snowdon, D. A.; Choi, W. (1984). "Association between reported diet and all-cause mortality. Twenty-one-year follow-up on 27,530 adult Seventh-Day Adventists". American Journal of Epidemiology 119 (5): 775–787.

[5] Menotti A, Kromhout D, Blackburn H, Fidanza F, Buzina R, Nissinen A, for the Seven Countries Study Research Group (1999). Food intake patterns and 25-year mortality from coronary heart disease: Cross-cultural correlations in the Seven Countries Study. Eur J Epidemiol 15, 507–515.

[6] Zyriax BC, Boeing H, Windler E (2005). Nutrition is a powerful independent risk factor for coronary heart disease in women-The CORA study: a population-based case–control study. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 1201–1207.

[7] Red Meat Consumption and Mortality; An Pan, Qi Sun, Adam M. Bernstein, Matthias B. Schulze, JoAnn E. Manson, Meir J. Stampfer, Walter C. Willett, Frank B. Hu, Archives of Internal Medicine, online March 12, 2012

[8] Zaidi R, Kumar S, Rawat PR (2012)Rapid detection and quantification of dietary mutagens in food using mass spectrometry and ultra performance liquid chromatography. Department of Biochemistry, Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard University), New Delhi 110062, India.

[9] Daniel T. Shaughnessy, Lisa M. Gangarosa, Barbara Schliebe, David M. Umbach, Zongli Xu, Beth MacIntosh, Mark G. Knize, Peggy P. Matthews, Adam E. Swank, Robert S. Sandler, David M. DeMarini, Jack A. Taylor (2011) Inhibition of Fried Meat-Induced Colorectal DNA Damage and Altered Systemic Genotoxicity in Humans by Crucifers, Chlorophyllin, and Yogurt.

And:

Vanden Bussche J, Moore S.A., Pasmans F., Kuhnle G.G.C., Vanhaecke L. An approach based on ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to quantify O6-methyl and O6-carboxymethlguanine DNA adducts in intestinal cell lines.

[10] See Watson J, Molecular Biology of the Gene.

All the best. I anxiously await my opponent's response.
Mirza

Pro

My opponent did not find a way to escape fallacies and faulty science.

1. Meat provides innumerable health benefits

Con is wrong in saying that consumption of meat brings more negative than positive outcomes. In terms of what? He used weak studies to prove his point. That does not work. Beef liver is among the type of meat that contains more nutritions than many varieties of fruit. [1] Calf's liver contains incredible amounts of health benefits, among them cancer reduction. "Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, especially if they are low in fat, are also associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. And, calf's liver is also an excellent source of zinc and a very good source of selenium. Selenium helps reduce the risk of colon cancer since it is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an important internally produced antioxidant that not only protects the cells of the colon from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins, but has also been shown to reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis." [2]

"Studies consistently show red meat prevents iron and zinc deficiencies when requirements are high such as in babies, toddlers, teenage girls and young women." [3] It's obvious that meat in many forms comes with a plethora of health benefits. Fish alone can cover your Vitamin D needs.

2. Right doses and preparation is necessary for all food

Con only attacks processed red meat and high consumption of it. Nowhere does the resolution refer to red meat only, nor does it specify the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. He said, "Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less than general western average consumption; the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats." In the last round, he claimed that meat consumption should be compared to the alternative food sources.

So how about vegetables, sir? "Lima beans have to be very well cooked before they are eaten because the raw beans contain a product called limarin. Just a handful can make someone violently ill so always ensure they have been cooked." [4] Obviously, everything can be harmful if not prepared well, and if produced in a wrong manner. Merely pointing out that processed meat and over 300g of it per weak means it is unhealthy per se is just rubbish. In contrast, lower doses of certain types of meat are very beneficial and often necessary. Lack of meat consumption has often been linked to a variety of diseases and nutrition deficiencies.

"Researchers have long known that a strict vegetarian diet -- one that excludes all animal products -- can lead to vitamin B-12 deficiency, and possibly heart disease. Now, new research suggests that even those who follow a more lenient vegetarian diet are also at risk." [5]

"In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb." [6]

Clearly, both meat and its alternatives (vegetables, fruits, etc.) can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses, and if prepared poorly. This is not a good argument against their health effects whatsoever.

Counterarguments

C1: There is no sufficient evidence that links meat consumption with cancer and increased heart disease

Con's case relies heavily on the myth that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Pay attention to these studies; - All of them literally rely on correlation-data, something that should never be taken seriously. It's a logical fallacy, too. To claim that because A and B happen to be correlated, therefore one must have caused the other, is illogical. It could be, in the case of meat consumption, that those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside very unhealthy food, live a negative lifestyle, etc. In fact, according to plenty of research, this happens to be the case.

"The aim of this research was to analyse certain lifestyle parameters and health condition indices among people with traditional and vegetarian models of eating. The research conducted shows that vegetarians present a higher level of caring about their health, which is expressed on a scale of pro-health behaviours, than people with traditional model of eating. A higher percentage of them take up physical activity in their free time (80% vs. 70%), additionally, they more seldom drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Alcohol abstinence is declared by 75% of vegans, 25% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and only 8% of people with traditional model of eating. Tobacco non-smoking is declared by 94% of vegans, 74% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and 67% of traditional eating people. It has also been shown that some psychosomatic health indices, especially concerning digestive duct/system, remain varied in regard to the model of eating followed. The research has proven that vegetarian model of eating influences other--non-eating--pro-health behaviours and in this way it shapes healthy lifestyle of research subjects." [7]

For studies to be sound and complete, they must compare people who live approximately same lifestyles, with the exclusion or inclusion of meat consumption. It is nonsensical to point out that meat consumers have increased risk of cancer, because all evidence points to the fact that there are far more factors involved than mere meat consumption. As per the study above, it is obvious that vegetarians are not more healthy only because they refrain from eating meat. It is because when people decide to become vegetarians, they break a norm; They shift from meat to alternative sources, from smoking to non-smoking, from alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, et cetera.

A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] In addition: "When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined foods, the health outcomes aren’t much different than those of standard omnivores (except for the added burden of higher homocysteine)." [9]

C2: Mutagens in meat can be reduced

Con claims that "more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products." This is no problem. "Microwave heating eliminates the majority of the precursors for the formation of HCAs, and reduces their mutagenic activity by 95 percent. Other studies have shown microwave cooking is associated with a decreased risk for some cancers. For the best of both worlds, gently cook your meat in the microwave, in a low conventional oven, or sous vide, and finish it on the grill for flavor." [10]

Feel free to consume meat. It's enjoyable and healthy. Don't be frightened by the pseudo-science we observe in this debate.

[1] http://chriskresser.com...
[2] http://www.whfoods.com...
[3] http://www.themainmeal.com.au...
[4] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...
[5] http://www.webmd.com...
[6] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[8] http://rawfoodsos.com...
[9] Ibid.
[10] http://blog.zocdoc.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Noradrenergic

Con

1. Pro claims that I have cited weak studies, while himself citing older studies from the same institution [1]. Most of pro's sources are opinion articles from internet websites, whereas the majority of mine are peer-reviewed, scientific publications, from respected journals. If the content of pro's sources is supported by the scientific literature, I encourage pro to demonstrate this. The Harvard publication that pro cites did not find that red meat consumption does not reduce mortality, let alone cancer related mortality, as was found in the more recent Harvard study that I cited above.

2. Pro claims consuming a selenium containing compound which also contains elements that contribute to cancer is somehow healthy in comparison with getting selenium from other sources that lack such mutagens, such as nuts, cereals, mushrooms or eggs. If selenium were absorbed through the lungs, for arguments sake, adding this compound to cigarettes would not mean that they were therefore healthy.

3. Pro argues that I only argue against consumption of 'processed' red meat. As you can see by reading my first round, this is clearly false. The World Cancer Research Fund's recommendation of less than 300g per week applies only to unprocessed red meats. Their recommendation regarding processed meats is that there is no safe level of consumption whatsoever. Pro has misrepresented my argument, as well as my sources in this assertion (see WCRF reference from my first round). My argument is against the consumption of all red meat, whether processed or unprocessed, as well as all processed meats (whether red or not).

4. Pro's webMD source is almost 10 years old and seems to conflict drastically with more reliable sources i.e. the peer-reviewed literature. This quote sums up the science regarding the health effects of a vegetarian diet:

"The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in non-vegetarians.[2][3] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[4]"

"Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index,[5] lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome,[6] dementias such as Alzheimer"s disease and other disorders.[7] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[8]"

5. While I am aware of the limitations of correlational studies, the extent that these studies have gone to in order to control for confounding factors is quite impressive. The recent Harvard study, for example, controlled for every possible confound mentioned by pro above (including smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, etc.). In other words, the statistics that pro presented regarding vegetarians and other lifestyle parameters are irrelevant because the studies I cited controlled for all of these. Pro's argument against the science here is reminiscent of tobacco companies less than only a few decades ago.

6. The vast majority of epidemiological studies demonstrate the links mentioned above, and contrary to pro's claims the World Cancer Research Fund's 2007 recommendations were far from being based solely on correlational data. As stated above, research was not only correlational, but also mechanistic and experimental in origin (characterization of mutagens, characterization of DNA damage in human cells after a meat meal in comparison with control non-meat meal - cited in round 1).

7. Pro picks out one study which found no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. This does not outweigh the majority of peer-reviewed epidemiological studies.

8. If you agree with pro in that the over 200 scientists from 30 different countries are practicing pseudo-science, along with the researchers responsible for the over 7000 peer-reviewed publications that these scientists summarized, as well as Harvard Medical School's leading researchers, then vote pro in this debate.

Conclusion:

Pro has seemingly misread the core of my argument, and misrepresented my sources. Pro claims that my sources are weak, but presents sources that are for the most part unreliable, whereas mine are from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Pro uses logical fallacy in claiming that eating a selenium containing but carcinogenic compound is healthy in comparison with a selenium containing, non carcinogenic food source. Pro claims that red meat consumption lowers cancer risk, but this claim is at direct odds with the vast majority of epidemiological evidence showing that meat consumers get more cancer, and die more prematurely, even when studies controlled for all of the possible confounds mentioned by pro above (alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity etc.). If respected scientific journals such as those that I have cited, and organizations such as the WCRF and Harvard Medical School are pseudo-science, then I do not know what pro considers to be real science. In light of these facts I urge you to vote con.

References:

[1] Red Meat Consumption and Mortality; An Pan, Qi Sun, Adam M. Bernstein, Matthias B. Schulze, JoAnn E. Manson, Meir J. Stampfer, Walter C. Willett, Frank B. Hu, Archives of Internal Medicine, online March 12, 2012

Versus

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

[2] http://www.vrg.org...
[3] Key et al. Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70 (3): 516S.
[4] Fraser G. Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases?Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(suppl):1607S"12S.
[5] Appleby, P.; Thorogood, M.; Mann, J.; Key, T. (1998). "Low body mass index in non-meat eaters: the possible roles of animal fat, dietary fibre and alcohol". International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders : journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 22 (5): 454"460.
[6] Rizzo NS, Sabat" J, Jaceldo-Siegl K, Fraser GE. Vegetarian dietary patterns are associated with a lower risk of metabolic syndrome: The Adventist Health Study-2. Diabetes Care. 2011 May;34(5):1225-7
[7] Mattson, Mark P. Diet-Brain Connection: Impact on Memory, Mood, Aging and Disease. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
[8] Maggie Fox, Meat raises lung cancer risk, too, study finds, Reuters, December 10, 2007; A Prospective Study of Red and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Risk, PLoS Medicine. April 21, 2008.

I believe that this is the final round; it was a pleasure debating you, Mirza. All the best for your final round and I anxiously await votes.
Mirza

Pro

It is my pleasure to point out the innumerable arguments and rebuttals that my opponent completely dropped:

(1) Con's strongest point was that increased mutagen activity from meat causes cancer. He entirely refused to defend this point once I made it clear that microwave preparation of meat (and/or cooking at lower degrees) almost eliminates mutagen activity. (2) Red meat contains powerful anti-cancer elements. This remained unchallenged throughout the debate. (3) Well-prepared meat is entirely safe to consume. Microwaving before cooking in itself is enough to deter any cancer-risk increasing activities. Con had no counter to this. (4) Ill-prepared vegetables can pose far greater health risks than ill-prepared meat. This means that the counterpart of meat, i.e., vegetables, are no better than meat per se. It's all about preparation and choice of type. Con ignored this point, despite being highly destructive to his entire argument.

(5) Con provided no response to my argument that vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat-eaters because of their lifestyles, not beause they refrain from eating meat. I provided a well-researched study pointing this fact out. Con seems shocked enough to dedicate no characters for a response to this. (6) There was no response to my argument that very precise research, comparing vegetarians to meat-eaters who live approximately same lifestyles, showed that these people generally have same health outcomes - This was heavily ignored. I guess Con sticks to nonsensical studies.

Counterarguments

1. Studies are incomplete

Con only provided a single study that attempted to compare vegetarians and non-vegetarians in terms of lifestyle. Yet, the study I cited that showed no health differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians who lived same lifestyles -- this was entirely ignored by my opponent. To paraphrase Con's response: "One study is not credible compared to many I cited!" This is rubbish. The vast majority of his studies are NOT considered credible by scientists whatsoever. Countless health experts and organizations recommend meat consumption, especially fish. Con's studies are summarized as follows: "Meat eaters tend to have higher risks of developing cancer. This was discovered by comparing meat eaters to vegetarians."

No credible scientist takes this seriously, and virtually every, except one, of Con's studies are based on this kind of research. "Researchers have run a large case-control study in Japan, examining associations of meat, fish and fat intake with risk of colorectal cancer, paying particular attention to the subsite within the colorectum. The Fukuoka Colorectal Cancer Study - using a newly developed personal-computer software for registering semi quantitative food frequencies - found that intake of beef/pork, processed meat, total fat, saturated fat or n-6 PUFA showed no clear association with the overall or subsite-specific risk of colorectal cancer." [1] As I also said earlier, the fact that vegetarians in the West tend to have better health is due to their lifestyles, and there is irrefutable evidence for this.

Con criticized my use of a Harvard study tor refute his argument that meat causes cancer, because "He used sources from the same institution!" Sure, I never attacked the source of the studies, so that's a completely nonsensical notion. Moreover, what my use of the Harvard study shows is that regardless of the researchers and the research being done by them, there are always different results. Thus, Con's argument is not enhanced by the recent Harvard study. In any case, this study has turned out to be erroneous and quite frankly, nonsensical. Contrary to what Con said, the Harvard study hardly took into account any other factors besides meat consumption.

"Several other critical variables showed correlation with death rates – lack of activity, low cholesterol, BMI, smoking, diabetes, calorie intake and alcohol intake. These have not been excluded to isolate meat consumption alone. The raw data actually shows deaths rates falling with increased meat consumption up to the third or fourth quintile – and this is before all the other variables have been allowed for. This would suggest that meat consumption has a protective effect while weight, alcohol, calorie intake, lack of exercise and so on are all taking their toll." [2]

Why does Con choose dishonesty over credible studies? Because the latter is almost non-existent. Finally, Con accused me of not using proper studies, rather articles. This is entirely false, as every single of the sources I provided refer to external sources, such as medical agencies that conducted certain studies about meat.

2. Meat is generally healthy

I argued that meat has innumerable health benefits. Con refuted none of my arguments regarding this. For example, I argued that certain types of red meat have anti-cancer properties. His response was, "That's like adding selenium to cigarettes and saying they are healthy!" This is a strawman. I am not arguing for cigarettes, but meat. I proved that red meat contains essential nutritions, such as Vitamin B-12, which is almost only gained by animal food sources. In fact, a direct blow to vegetarianism is the fact that vegetarians tend to suffer more from cardiovascular disease in certain areas of the world. [3] Again, comparing same lifestyles, except for eating meat and being a vegetarian, almost always shows no health differences.

Neither Con nor any of his studies mention the important differences between grass-fed meat and grain-fed meat. Modern research on this was done: "In virtually every nutritional category evaluated, grass-fed meat was far superior to grain-fed meat. The omega-3 fatty acid profile in grass-fed meat, for instance, was found to be similar to that of fatty fish, which is often recommended by health officials as a type of meat that promotes health. Grass-fed animals were also found to produce meat that is higher in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a healthy fat that fights obesity; carotenoids, organic antioxidant pigments that protect cells from cancer-causing free radicals and promote healthy immunity and reproductive function; and vitamin E tocopherols, which protect against cardiovascular disease and cancer." [4]

So, not only does well-fed meat contain more health benefits, but among these include risk reduction of cancer and cardiovascular disease. This is a blow-up to all of Con's arguments. And this is just red meat -- Fish includes a plethora of health benefits, including powerful anti-cancer properties. [5] [6]

Con provided no response my argument that meat is healthy if prepared in a proper fashion. The mutagens he kept talking about were almost eliminated when red meat was either cooked at lower degrees, or put in a microwave oven prior to cooking. So, why should we believe his nonsensical claim that meat causes cancer? It's like saying vegetables cause severe illness. They often do, but only when prepared wrongly. This is not a good argument against vegetable consumption. Neither is it against meat consumption. Lastly, a mixture of meat and other foods (vegetables, fruits, seeds, etc.) produces the best outcomes. [7]

Conclusion

I expected Con to bring some valuable studies to prove any of his extreme claims. He hasn't done so. On the other hand, I've given irrefutable evidence that meat is extremely healthy, and only shows signs of being bad if cooked in very wrong ways. And, vegetarians are not healthier because they don't eat meat.

[1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
[2] http://www.zoeharcombe.com...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] http://www.naturalnews.com...
[5] http://intelegen.com...
[6] http://www.reuters.com...
[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muted 1 year ago
Muted
@RoyLatham, "I like formal debates better than the forums, because in the forums people make claims and then walk away. In debates, they must be defended."
Precisely why I don't go into the forums much in the first place!
Posted by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
Noradrenergic argues that anyone who has debated a subject before, and therefore knows something about the subject, ought to be disqualified as biased. That's nonsense. It's up there with arguing that physicians are disqualified from having medical opinions because they are "part of the system." No, ignorance is not a qualification. If you are on record as defending the round earth, you can still vote against the flat earth theory.

Is it true it academic debating that you are forbidden from discussing the subject after the debate? If so, that is certainly a silly rule. Arguments in comments should not be considered as part of the debate, but on a debate site arguments are the purpose of the site. An RFD should not consider or reference arguments in comments, but comments are appropriate for further discussion.

I like formal debates better than the forums, because in the forums people make claims and then walk away. In debates, they must be defended.

This debate was difficult because the resolution was poorly worded.
Posted by Mirza 1 year ago
Mirza
The way you keep being persistent after being completely wiped-out is astonishing. I'll leave a comment too.

1: I argued far less in the comments section than you did - not to mention the fact that you initiated the argument here in the first place. I used no personal attacks in the debate, and pointing out your dishonesty was a clever move. I made no new arguments out of nowhere, but merely came with responses.

2: Even if your sources were better (they were not), it is YOUR job to explain why, one by one. To refer to 7,000 studies and think you have a case is such an idiotic thing to do. Don't show off your guts to me that way, understand? I touched upon the sources you mentioned directly in the debate, and spent as many characters as needed to refute them, and that's sufficient.

3: Nobody votes on grammar/spelling for minor mistakes. Only clear-cut terms and phrases that distort the meaning and make one's argument hard to understand actually takes the s/g point away.

Glad you're going. Way too persistent for a newcomer.
Posted by vbaculum 1 year ago
vbaculum
Who cares about votes anyway? Even if all the votes were valid it would have still only been 4 votes. And that's a pretty typical turn out. But you would need many more votes than that to gage the success of your debate - I would think at least 20 or so. You'll never get a decent turn out in a formal debate on DDO.

Formal debates are always going to have this defect. I like doing formal debates (when I have the time) because it forces you to do the research and, if you get a good opponent, you will improve your game.

Most of the interesting stuff happens in the forum section, though, where mini debates flare up all the time and you get a lot of participation and input.

So votes simply don't matter. And of all the long-time users of this site, Mizra is by far the most dyspeptic. There are a lot of intelligent, long-time users who make good debating partners.
Posted by Noradrenergic 1 year ago
Noradrenergic
...Play here.
Posted by Noradrenergic 1 year ago
Noradrenergic
This shall be my final comment before leaving the site. Clearly there is no academic integrity regarding voting here, and I shall keep my involvement in debates to the university campus from here on out.

Mirza, you should certainly lose conduct for continuing to argue in the comments section, using rude personal attacks on those you disagree with, and making new arguments using new sources in your final round where I had no oppourtunity to respond.

Those that have awarded sources to Mirza cannot have any academic integrity, given that all of my sources were from peer-reviewed journals, and at least 2 of Mirza's were opinion articles that have not been published (and wouldn't pass peer-review due to blatant flaws). Even giving us a tie is being dishonest, let alone awarding a point to Mirza for sources as one individual has done.

Clearly the first voter is not impartial, having taken Mirza's position in an identical debate before. This individual asserts that one small meta-analysis outweighs the over 7000 studies that were summarized and debated over by more than 150 of the worlds scientists...These studies included the one that you claim to disprove all of the rest, and it is therefore safe to assume that you haven't read the WCRF report.

Another individual awarded Mirza points on grammar and spelling, despite grammatical errors and obvious spelling mistakes such as 'meat contains nutritions', where it should have said nutrients (among other obvious errors).

There is no rational justification for awarding Mirza sources, or spelling & grammar. These are clearly dishonest votes and I do not recognize them as valid.

Nobody has accepted my challenge to flesh this debate out properly, without myself being disadvantaged by an individual who fails to address my opening argument in the first round and then places new arguments in the final round where I have no oppourtunity to respond, so I shall leave.

Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are at
Posted by Noradrenergic 1 year ago
Noradrenergic
Sources awarded to Mirza? You guys are certainly well informed and impartial voters, aren't you? Need I bother recognizing votes here?
Posted by Smithereens 1 year ago
Smithereens
read Mirza's address to you down there v
Posted by vbaculum 1 year ago
vbaculum
Smithereens, why was my vote a "vote-bomb"?
Posted by Mirza 1 year ago
Mirza
I should have expected votebombing from a vegenut.

vbaculum, You must be very brave to think that mentioning 7000 publications is worth anything. I'd need 100,000k characters to even ATTEMPT to refute them all, let alone find them. Moreover, Con dropped SIX important arguments I made, and never attempted to refute them. You said, "Eating unprocessed, pre-microwaved, grass-fed calf liver isn't, in my view, a solution against the overwhelming evidence that indicts meat as a chief contributor to death and disease." But this is not what CON said. He said NOTHING against that, so the fact that you vote on the basis that YOU think proper cooking does not help is completely rubbish. And what you "think" isn't what is reality. I provided evidence that proper cooking reduces cancer risk, as well as when other factors are involved (grass-fed meat, unprocessed, etc.).

Con responded to none of the arguments in my sources. He shouldn't get the point.

Con's conduct was equal to mine. I pointed out his dishonesty the way he pointed out, falsely, that I made arguments which were never there, and that I misrepresented his case. That's dishonesty, and he knows it very well.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 1 year ago
Smithereens
NoradrenergicMirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: negating half of vbaculums votebomb
Vote Placed by innomen 1 year ago
innomen
NoradrenergicMirzaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close and well done on both sides, but I give pro the edge to pro.
Vote Placed by vbaculum 1 year ago
vbaculum
NoradrenergicMirzaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is in comment section.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
NoradrenergicMirzaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have said "not compelling" rather than "weak." The studies are valid, but do not support an overall conclusion about the general health of meat eaters. Similarly, vegetarians often have problems with deficiencies, but that does imply an overall conclusion. Pro showed data that eating meat can be as healthy. ... More in comments.