Humans Are Initially Intended To Eat A Plant Based Diet
Debate Rounds (4)
Second round is your opening argument.
Third round is defending your opening argument.
Fourth round is your closing argument.
I am on the position that the current human physiology (so please do not use species prior to homo sapiens in your argument) is more adapted to a plant based diet. A plant based diet is one in which the majority of the diet (or the entirety of the diet) is made up of non-animal products (no cheese, no eggs, no meat).
Thanks, and happy debating.
Some of this did come from PETA, which I referenced in the sources behind that quote. I consider PETA to be somewhat credible. I want to be clear that it is not my only source.
Carnivores have teeth and mouths that are relatively large in comparison to their body size. We have teeth that are actually very small, as with our mouth, in comparison to our body size, when examined with carnivores.
On the topic of the way our mouth moves :
Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, summarizes, "You can"t tear flesh by hand, you can"t tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don"t have large canine teeth, and we wouldn"t have been able to deal with food sources that require those large canines." - Direct quote taken from PETA's website. I consider this to be more credible than the average PETA facts.
A very common defense of meat eaters is that we have canine teeth; while we do have canine teeth, they are a pathetic excuse for canine teeth, and some strict herbivores have canine teeth that are massive in comparison to body size. Hippopotamus have some of the largest canines in the animal kingdom, and they are plant eaters in every way; they survive off grass and fruit.
"[M]ammalian carnivores and omnivores share a number of physical attributes that make them well suited for killing and tearing apart their prey. They have a wide mouth opening, relative to head size; a simple jaw joint that operates as a stable hinge for effective slicing but which is ill-suited to side-to-side motion; and dagger-like teeth spaced apart to avoid trapping stringy debris. They also have sharp claws. (2) The mammalian carnivores and omnivores additionally have huge stomachs that enable gorging, an important capacity in animals who tend to average only about one kill per week. (3) These animals also have a very low gastric pH (which means their stomachs are very acidic), enabling the breakdown of highly concentrated protein as well as the killing of dangerous bacteria that typically colonize decaying flesh. (4)" Quote from the book "Mind if I order a cheeseburger?"
Now, to compare our anatomy... we have a small mouth opening, flesh lips, can easily move our jaw side to side (if it functions normally), flat herbivore teeth, and essentially no claws. We have stomachs that are not nearly as spacious as a carnivores, and a rather low stomach pH.
Our intestine is very long, which is abnormal of omnivores and carnivores. They need to get rotting meat out of their system quickly to avoid it hurting them. Herbivores can keep the grains and grasses in their intestines longer; they lack the dangerous bacteria of meat.
"Does any of this mean that people are incapable of eating and digesting animal products? Of course not. With weapons to kill animals, we do not need dagger teeth, and with fire to cook flesh, we can usually avoid the pitfalls of a stomach that is ill-equipped to kill the pathogens that populate raw flesh." Taken from freefromharm.org
Furthermore, most carnivores and omnivores have a biological requirement to consume meat. Without it they might die. Humans are no such animal. We can very easily go vegan or vegetarian, and many sources cite that it may actually be much better for you.
I hereby close my argument, and look forward to seeing your rebuttal.
Thank you for debating! - Mac
samwight forfeited this round.
LiberalLogic101 forfeited this round.
samwight forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that this should have seen a better debate which makes me glad to see you debated it again with someone else. Great topic. Anyway, the con conceded.
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.