Debate Rounds (3)
Pro's definition of veganism is that of the ethical vegan, which is the orthodox side of veganism. Other types of veganism exist such as dietary veganism, where the reasons for becoming a vegan are more for personal health benefits rather than for the salvation of animals. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would class the dietary vegans in somewhat of a conservative or reformed type of veganism. Some ethical (orthodox) vegans do not like dietary vegans to be called real vegans because they aren't fully converted to the full vegan lifestyle. http://www.theveganwoman.com...
You'll see me draw several parallels between veganism and religion in my arguments as I will show that vegansim is very much a type of religion. It's not a religion that touches the subject of God, but its a religion where the orthodox adherents must not waver in their vegan beliefs or actions unless they are to be ridiculed and excommunicated from the community of orthodox vegans.
I hold that every person should have the freedom to do what they choose, live the life they want to live, and live with the positive or negative consequences of their decisions.
Pro's argument is that "people should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle, and that way we don't harm or kill animals."
In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by "people." Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take "people" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post.
tiff_mescudi forfeited this round.
Just as it is not good for everybody to join one religion, it is not good for everybody to believe a set of principles such as veganism. A variety of beliefs and ideas is what makes the world such an interesting place. If all people had the same beliefs, DDO would not exist, and how boring would that be!
I hope pro will join the debate once again and give valid reasons for why he believes going vegan is the right thing.
I will now respond to both of your arguments.
Con, I did not mention anything about health issues. So I guess you should see that we are not talking about dietary vegans here.
"In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by "people." Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take "people" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post."
I am very sorry for this, and I would like you to refer to me as a she, if you may so.
Anyway, I am not comparing veganism to any other type of lifestyle. I was trying to say, it is healthier and safer.
by people, I mean people. Not all people on Earth, because as you stated, that would be boring. And I doubt everyone would be vegan anyway. There is always a rebel, don't you agree?
People as in unhealthy people, people who need a healthier life. People who are against animal cruelty.
If you don't want to become vegan, its your choice. After all, God did give us freewill.
I am sorry for being brief on my last argument.
^ in the link above, it says "There are no silkworms left in the wild; all of them are raised in homes and farms"
How many more animals do you think are living like this ? I bet if I research some more, I would find alot more animals like these silkworms.
My reasons for becoming vegan :
1) Its healthy. Obviously. Here you get to eat more vegetables and fruits. No fat. People wouldn't suffer from cholesterol, diabetes, strokes, and some cancers. Many people wouldn't die from heart problems.
2) Its kind. It is unnecessary to be killing animals in order to feed and clothe ourselves. Plants can keep us alive. Some slaughter houses, are really cruel to animals.
3) Better for the environment . Meat production uses up alt of land and water. Cows expel amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Their hooves pack the dirt, making it less likely for it to absorb the rain. Manure from animal industrial facilities leaks into waterways, and gets into the groundwater.
4) Its delicious. People from all over the over the world have created plant-based dishes. Many familiar foods have a vegan versions, such as pizza, casserole, even chocolate cake!
The real question here isn't "Why go vegan?" but instead "Why not?"
I"m assuming you believe in the Bible and God since you listed in your profile you are Catholic.
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." King James Bible (KJB) Genesis 9:3
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." KJB 1 Timothy 1,3-5
The above scriptures from a work that many religions around the world deem the word of God proclaims that animals were created for human use and consumption. Timothy also stated that abstaining from meat would be comparable to forbidding to marry or giving heed to seducing spirits.
The video you posted did show some gruesome footage. I couldn"t work at a slaughterhouse, and I couldn"t be a surgeon simply because I am disgusted by cutting flesh and blood. The people who do slaughter animals are very important to the rest of us who use animal products for food, clothing, and other products.
Regarding the health benefits of a vegan diet, I agree that eating a lot of meat is less healthy than eating a little meat. However, it is true that eating fruits and vegetables alone is not sufficient for the body to get the good Omega 3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12 it needs. These nutrients are needed to survive as a human, and supplementation is usually needed to get a sufficient amount. http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, until recently (when supplementation products were created), people could not really become vegan and get the nutrients they needed.
Pro"s second argument about being kind is valid. However, we as humans can enjoy a better quality of life by utilizing animals that share this planet with us. For example the use of down feathers, if well cared for, retain its loft up to three times longer than do most synthetics. http://en.wikipedia.org... Even in an advanced age of technology, products coming from animals are cheaper to produce and can function better than the synthetic replacements.
Pro argued that "meat production uses up a lot of land and water." "A lot" is a very relative term. In fact, I can argue that pro uses a lot of land and water. Use of a resource is good if the outcome brings benefit. Dairies and ranchers raise cows and use the necessary resources so they can sell milk and meat that most people want to buy and use. The value of that outcome really depends on what someone is willing to pay for it. Vegans do not value the animal products, so they will not pay for it. However, restaurants sell plates of seafood and meat anywhere from less than a dollar on into the thousands of dollars. People value animal products, and so the resources used to create the valued productd are not wasted.
By saying that cows shouldn"t be raised because they pack the dirt with their hooves simply shows that Pro is a hypocrite unless she can fly. Every time you walk on the grass, you pack it and make it less likely for water to be absorbed. When you build a house and put in a sidewalk, a patio, and a driveway, you are preventing all rain from absorbing into the ground in those locations. The argument about methane is moot as this argument is not about greenhouse gases or what that does. That subject should be argued in a separate topic. There are no sources pointing to manure getting into groundwater and why that might be a problem.
I agree that fruits and vegetables are delicious, but so are meat, milk, fish, and poultry. Yes, there are vegan versions of familiar foods, but they are specialty foods, which increases the cost of production. If you want a vegan mayonnaise replacement, it will cost you. If you want a meat replacement, it will cost more than regular meat most of the time. Only when vegan practices become widespread will the market follow suit and be able to produce animal product replacements in higher quantities for the greater discount. If you"re part of a destitute family or in a third world country, veganism is out of the question. Anything that can be consumed will be consumed in those cases.
Conflict will be a major part of life for vegans. If family members aren"t all vegans, Thanksgiving dinner, Christmas dinner, going out to eat, and family get-togethers will all include moments of conflict about eating habits. Like I proposed in my earlier argument, veganism is like a religion. The vegan lifestyle will be debated just like religious beliefs are debated in families. For example, a common vegan story is similar to this one: "Some members of my family had strong objections to me removing dairy products from my diet, believing I"d be socially ostracised. This caused a regular conflict at meal times, especially since I wasn"t cooking my own food for dinner, so whoever was cooking would have to prepare a vegan meal as well as a carnivorous one." http://rohanmitchell.com... Family is about love, but it"s also about sharing common beliefs and goals. When someone changes a major part of their life so it is not sharable and extra food needs to be prepared for one person, it can become a stage for conflict.
Pro has failed to prove her point about why veganism is a better lifestyle than all other eating lifestyles. She failed to provide a second round argument, and she failed to rebut my initial argument about the animosity ethical vegans have toward others who leave their group.
There are plenty of reasons why not to go vegan including the extra expenses due to lack of mass production of non-animal products, the religious manner in which ethical vegans conduct themselves and excommunicate the apostates from their group, and the social awkwardness and conflict veganism creates when eating with non-vegan people - especially family.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 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||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. S&G should hopefully be obvious. Sourcing was equal enough for government work. As to arguments: I feel this debate was hampered by a fuzzy resolution at the start (and by Pro's forfeit). Combined with Pro's method of presentation, it made this debate hard to parse, and I was unable to justify awarding points. I will say I didn't find Con's arguments equating veganism to religion compelling, nor do I think the "it is not good for everybody to join one religion" argument had much merit. Overall, I kind of think that Con did better despite that. But, like I said, this debate was too messy for me to be happy with a judgment on arguments. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.