The Instigator
alexzanderzang
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
OMGJustinBieber
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Eating meat is right! There is nothing wring with it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
OMGJustinBieber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,593 times Debate No: 17020
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

alexzanderzang

Pro

In this debate, the opponent (Con/Against) must prove that eating meat is wrong and should not be done. Basically, why be a vegetarian (besides health-related issues)?
OMGJustinBieber

Con

The burden of proof seems shared. You don't just assume an action is right until proven otherwise. A moral judgment must be made by weighing both sides of the issue. Since this only R1 I'm going to point this out and await your case in R2 as to why eating meat is right since 5 rounds is a long debate and we'll have plenty of time for back and forth.
Debate Round No. 1
alexzanderzang

Pro

Haha...OK, thanks!


First off, I would like to say that humans are supposed to eat meat. In the past, humans used to be hunter-gatherers. We hunted animals, and gathered plants for food. I'm not saying that we are carnivores, but are omnivores, so we also eat meat.

Many argue that we are strictly herbivores, due to the legnth of our intestines in relation to the body. Carnivores have a ratio of 3:1, while we have a ratio of about 8:1. However, true herbivores have even larger ratios, such as 20:1 (cows) and 12:1 (horses). Because we are in between, it supports that fact that we are in herbivores.


K...good luck!
OMGJustinBieber

Con

Pro's argument is an appeal to tradition or history, and the biological point doesn't describe why we ought to eat meat. We have been using slaves for thousands of years, why not continue?

Suffering should generally be avoided in my view, and killing animals for food - often in ways that involve a large amount of pain - is immoral in that it causes clearly unnecessary suffering. Animals, like humans, have nerves and brains that can process these sensations. Vegetarians are evidence that humans can get along just fine without killing defenseless animals, and maintain a healthy lifestyle. Surely Pro would object to humans hunting and killing other humans, and given our bias towards our own species it would seem perfectly natural. However, if we want to live in a world that holds a greater balance of happiness over suffering it would be beneficial to stop the slaughter of sentient animals for food and completely ignore their own suffering.
Debate Round No. 2
alexzanderzang

Pro

alexzanderzang forfeited this round.
OMGJustinBieber

Con

OMGJustinBieber forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
alexzanderzang

Pro

alexzanderzang forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
alexzanderzang

Pro

alexzanderzang forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Pro forgot the ethical issues...And he spelled "wrong" wrong.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
I would like to take an "there is nothing wrong with eating meat" debate. I am a vegetarian when it comes down to factory farmed foods due to the ethical considerations.

I think that in a "there is nothing wrong with eating meat", con would have a definite advantage.
Posted by vbaculum 5 years ago
vbaculum
The entirety of R2 (Pro) is an appeal to nature. No surprise though; that's how these arguments usual go.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
especially with 'wring' in the title instead of 'wrong'.
Posted by alexzanderzang 5 years ago
alexzanderzang
Thanks!
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
You may have more luck with this debate if you were Pro and argued that eating meat is ok. Demanding that your opponent prove you wrong is almost asking for a high ranking member to engage in a semantic or otherwise loop-hole debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
alexzanderzangOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering MD's absurd votebomb.
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 5 years ago
MassDebator255
alexzanderzangOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: i like mine bloody.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
alexzanderzangOMGJustinBieberTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: obvious