The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
RonaldTrumpkin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Every adult in first world countries should be vegan.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 303 times Debate No: 94197
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Structure
1st round brief statement of position and acceptance.
2nd round main argument
3rd round rebuttals
4th round defend your r2 argument against opponent's r3 rebuttal.

Thanks for accepting this debate. I will be arguing that every adult in first world countries should be vegan. Exceptions, rare medical conditions, extraordinary circumstances, and lab grown meat.

Examples of extraordinary circumstances would be stuck on a desert island or in an elevator shaft.

1. http://prime.peta.org...
RonaldTrumpkin

Con

You are excluding my brothers back in Africa and other third world countries? What if those people want to be vegan too? They have a RIGHT to choose what they eat. Saying that only first world whites should get that choice is extremely negligent and ignorant.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Round two main argument

Outline
I. Intro
II. Animal suffering ethics
III. Environment
IV. Health
V. Conclusion
VI. Sources


I. Intro

There are three main points to my argument, animal suffering & ethics, environment issues, and health concerns. As a responsible adult and productive member of society I feel it is necessary to take care of one's health, the environment, and to show compassion towards animals.


II. Animal suffering ethics

First and foremost is animal suffering and ethics.

Claim 0: There is no survival need to eat animal products.

Warrant 0: "Typically, vegans can avoid nutritional problems if appropriate food choices are made. Their health status
appears to be at least as good as other vegetarians, such as lactoovovegetarians."[0]

Impact: Any suffering via the raising, transportation, and breeding of livestock can be seen as animal cruelty. Vegan is the morally superior path.


Claim 1: Animals suffer greatly during factory farming.

Warrant 1: Common knowledge.

Impact 1: When combined with the fact that we don't need to eat meat to survive and the abundance of wealth in 1st world countries, factory farming has no relevant difference than dog fighting, pig wrestling, pigeon shooting, and cock fighting. We are simply eating meat for pleasure at the cost of great suffering and pain to animals. This is animal cruelty. Halt a large portion of animal cruelty by becoming vegan.


Claim 2: Humans have drawn an arbitrary line between animals and humans.

Warrant 2: Richard Dawkins a famous person known for his intellect says so. [1]

Impact 2: This is a cruel double standard. Such a double standard is an injustice. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." [2] Martin Luther King, Jr. As long as such an injustice is allowed to stand, a threat to justice everywhere remains. Become vegan today to help remedy this injustice.


Claim 3: Cage-free, free range, pasture raised, and their variants are a form of humane washing.

Warrant: "the movement to treat farm animals better is based on the idea that it is wrong to subject them to unnecessary harm; yet, killing animals we have no need to eat constitutes the ultimate act of unnecessary harm." [3]

Impact 3: While factory farming is common knowledge humane washing is not. Not only does humane washing have the injustice of animal cruelty but of deliberate deceit to the public. Adults in 1st world countries should become vegan thus boycotting such products.


III. Environment

If you paid attention in elementary level science class you learned about the food chain, autotrophs, heterotrophs, and tropic levels. That each trophic level requires significantly higher amount of biomass and thus energy. Therefore, it is logical to eat at a lower level in the food chain, plants instead of animals. Cows require up to sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.

Then, there is destructive fishing habits, rain forest deforestation to clear land for cows, and so forth.

IV. Health

I think it is immoral to carelessly destroy your health and leech off of the various forms of welfare and public assistance. Ideally a person should repay his or her society and become an industrious citizen. There are many health benefits from becoming vegan with little health concerns.

The benefits including receiving plenty of the good while avoiding the bad. The good being antioxidants, fiber and phytonutrients. The bad being excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, heterocyclic amines, endotoxins, and IGF-1.

V. Conclusion


The first world is plagued by immoral and morbidly obese humans leeching off not only their own nations but destroying the environment for everyone. We can no longer afford to allow these evil humans to desecrate our morals and future. They will hide behind their religions and selfish ideologies, nevertheless we cannot afford to be infinitely patient.

For justice, the environment, and your health become vegan today. All adults in first world countries barring a few exception should become vegan as soon as possible. Thank you for reading and thank you for the debate.

VI. Sources

0. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...
1. https://richarddawkins.net...
2. https://www.brainyquote.com...
3. http://freefromharm.org...
RonaldTrumpkin

Con

Because my opponent is racist by not mentioning third world countries and refuses to even have the thought that they should have the ability to choose what to eat i will not waste my time with this f*cking idiot.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Opponent's argument are in bold and italic, mine are in plain text.


"You are excluding my brothers back in Africa and other third world countries? What if those people want to be vegan too? They have a RIGHT to choose what they eat. Saying that only first world whites should get that choice is extremely negligent and ignorant."RonaldTrumpkin


This is a separate issue and thus a red herring. The availability of medical care and food is more scare in 3rd world countries and thus complicates the issue. Testing of b-12 supplements and administrating the b-12 supplements is necessary for some individuals. I am unsure if 3rd world countries have reliable access to such testing and supplements.
Of course they have a choice in what that eat.

As for the last sentence that is a straw man fallacy. [4] I never mentioned the word whites in my r1 nor r2 arguments. Thus you are attacking an argument I did not make.



"Because my opponent is racist by not mentioning third world countries and refuses to even have the thought that they should have the ability to choose what to eat i will not waste my time with this f*cking idiot." RonaldTrumpkin

I wanted to exclude 3rd world countries from the debate because of the increased difficulty in receiving proper levels of b-12. You then make the same straw man argument you made in the previous round followed by an ad hominem attack. [5] Calling me an idiot is an attack to undermine me and not my argument. Finally, I indirectly referenced 3rd world countries by mentioning the enviorment. Since the enviorment affects everyone both first and third world, as seen in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth. [6]


4. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
5. http://literarydevices.net...
6. http://www.imdb.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

My opponent's round three argument is an ad hominem attack.
RonaldTrumpkin

Con

I hope BLM kills your f*cking bleach skin family
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Bored_Debater 9 months ago
Bored_Debater
Troll routes seem attracted to your debates, odd.
Posted by Stupidape 10 months ago
Stupidape
"You are excluding my brothers back in Africa and other third world countries? What if those people want to be vegan too? They have a RIGHT to choose what they eat. Saying that only first world whites should get that choice is extremely negligent and ignorant." RonaldTrumpkin

This is a separate issue and thus a red herring. The availability of medical care and food is more scare in 3rd world countries and thus complicates the issue. I hope you make a more potent argument next round.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 10 months ago
ThinkBig
StupidapeRonaldTrumpkinTied
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: Conduct - Awful conduct from con. "f*ck you," and "I hope BLM kills your f*cking bleach skin family" is totally uncalled for. It is sad as con started out as a decent member of the site and suddenly turned to become a nasty racist troll (we all know con is really a white person masquerading as a black person). Because con chose the troll route, pro's arguments went unrefuted.
Vote Placed by Amedexyius 10 months ago
Amedexyius
StupidapeRonaldTrumpkinTied
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: Pro made a very organized and very powerful argument. He placed great amount of detail and sound effort and material sources towards expanding his reasoning as why his claim is stronger. Con, on the other hand, cursed at him and dropped every single argument.
Vote Placed by Peepette 10 months ago
Peepette
StupidapeRonaldTrumpkinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: CON failed to address or rebut PRO?s arguments concerning animal suffering ethics, environment, and health. CON took a pejorative stance calling PRO racist which PRO adequately rebutted with reasoning that 3rd world countries have limited access to b-12 supplements, food and medical care. It?s sad that CON wasted PRO?s time with a racism attach, and so looses the conduct point. PRO made efforts to back his points with sources, CON did not.. I hope PRO redoes the topic and finds a more suitable opponent