The Instigator
LiberalLogic101
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
samwight
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Humans Are Initially Intended To Eat A Plant Based Diet

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 1 vote the winner is...
LiberalLogic101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 52701
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

LiberalLogic101

Pro

First round is to declare your position and accept the debate.

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.
samwight

Con

I am on the position that humans were initially intended to have a meat-based or partially meat-based diet. This includes all kinds of meat.
Debate Round No. 1
LiberalLogic101

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate, Con.

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.
samwight

Con

I concede.
Debate Round No. 2
LiberalLogic101

Pro

Alright.
Thank you for debating! - Mac
samwight

Con

samwight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
LiberalLogic101

Pro

LiberalLogic101 forfeited this round.
samwight

Con

samwight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
I already argued it.

Not quite sure what then happened but well.... I did defend it. :P
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Why the concessions? Do you guys not have the time? Then why accept in the first place! This would have been easy to argue.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
not at all, you're free to keep it unchanged if that suits you.
Posted by LiberalLogic101 3 years ago
LiberalLogic101
Alright. Well I'll post it tomorrow, since it seems that would be more convenient for you. Do you mind if I just copy and paste the same argument I used against samwight?
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
Sure, Just re-instigate the topic and lock the challenge to me.

It is well past midnight here and I'm fairly busy tomorrow: so I won't be able to make a reasonable case until tomorrow evening at the earliest, but I'll do my best. if you're interested. :)
Posted by LiberalLogic101 3 years ago
LiberalLogic101
@oculus_de_logica

If you are interested, I would be happy to debate you on this topic; or really most topics. I might start up the debate again. I was really interested to see people's views on the issue.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
this debate really should have gotten a better fight...... the con side isn't exactly a hard pole to defend.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 3 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
LiberalLogic101samwightTied
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: 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.