The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Humans can kill and eat animals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 875 times Debate No: 56922
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Humans should be allowed to kill and eat animals. Humans have fought their way to the top of the food chain for tens of thousands of years, and there is no reason why this should stop. Life is not possible without death. When I die, my assets will be given up to those who inherit them, likewise with animals.

Whilst I believe that people have the right to be vegetarians, I honestly believe that if it is due to the natural view that people shouldn't kill animals because it is unethical, then they are wrong.

Whilst I have physically seen some slaughterhouses, and their terrible conditions, I believe that it is human nature to kill animals, and thus, so long as animals are treated with compassion and given space, there is nothing wrong with killing animals. If you go to the savannah in Africa, you will discover that some animals cannot defend themselves anyway from wild predators. The same is likewise in our society.

Furthermore, in developing nations, it is very important for the economy that animals are killed, (e.g. whilst there is deforestation in many nations like Brazil to make space to farm animals, a huge amount of investment comes through from large firms, such as McDonald's, thus boosting GDP).

Finally, vegetarian diets naturally lack vitamin B-12, which has a key role in the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system. Some vegans have been led to serious health problems.


No, humans should not be able to eat and kill animals.

You argue that "there is no reason we should stop" Well, I"ve got three. The first reason is because we"re being incredibly irresponsible, the second is that 58 billion animal lives every year should be compelling enough for a reason, and the third is that unlike all the predators which must live off death, we have a choice - we can. A better world to live in is one with a compassionate dominant species, not one that destroys everything for their own selfish ends simply because they turned out to be the dominant species.

Afterwards, you argue that killing animals is all right so long as we treat them with compassion beforehand. Well, no matter how well an animal is treated, if we kill them for what essentially boils down to pointless luxury then what"s being said is still that their lives continue to be less valuable than our own selfish want. By principle, there"s a lot wrong with this notion by principle.

Next you provide a false equivalence. "The same is likewise in our society." The fact that a free animal can even run alone gives them an immense chance of survival over that of one in a cage.

Next you bring up an economical argument. I"ll admit that this argument has some merit, but I don"t see how money is a good enough reason to justify the mass slaughter of countless animals. The blood that"s being spilled far greatly outweighs the benefit, and ultimately I"m sure we could just as easily find another industry less harmful to us and the environment if we stopped eating meat.

Lastly, you argue that vegetarian diets don"t naturally have B-12. Well, the almond milk I had in my cereal this morning says otherwise.

I had a lot more in mind, but I found out that debates have a 2000 character limit so I had to butcher my post an incredible amount.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks very much for responding. I expected the debate to be done by last weekend, so I don't have much time. (BTW love the 'butcher' pun XD)

Thus, I have some questions for you.

1. Whilst we talked about the health benefits of eating meat previously, researchers at Oxford University recently followed 35,000 individuals aged 20 to 89 for a period of five years and discovered that vegans are 30% more likely to break a bone than their vegetarian and flesh-eating peers. A subsequent study conducted by Sydney"s Garvan Institute for Medical Research found that vegetarians had bones 5% less dense than meat-eaters. This can be attributed to the fact that many vegetarians and vegans consume very little calcium due to the limitations of their diet. Why waste the resources that are right in front of us and make us healthier?

2. Surely the world would have to make radical changes so that everybody could have 'almond milk' in their cereal, amongst further vegan products. There would be an increased need for manual labour and space and a lot of countries do not have the space nor resources for this, when the services sector is increasing worldwide, and there are fewer people willing to backtrack to a job on a farm. So why change?

3. We have fought our way to the top of the food chain for 6mn years. Now our tastebuds have evolved to crave the savoury taste of meat. Beef is the most time-wise efficient food for humans (see, so why change?

4. About 90% of US cropland suffers from top soil loss at 13 times the sustainable rate. 92% of US soybeans (a vegetarian staple protein) are planted with genetically modified soy, immune to herbicides. Why add to the torture of the environment?

5. Plants are living organisms too. If animals can't talk to us, plants can't talk to us. Why should we kill plants if we can't kill animals? You can't prove either have souls.

Thanks and good luck.


'Why waste the resources that are right in front of us and make us healthier?'

Because animal life shouldn't be called 'a resource' and it comes at the price of their immense suffering. For the sake of argument I'm going to assert that what you're saying is absolutely true. Okay, so being a vegan makes bones a teensy, tiny bit less dense. Is that small bonus in endurance, a trait which isn't really either important or relevant in most of our lives a fair trade for the life of another living creature, never-mind the hundreds we'll each individually kill in single life time? Around some point animal suffering probably can be justified, but I don't think a boon this minor really defends it.

'So why change?'

Because the mass consumption of animals is a destructive industry which causes a great deal of suffering and is actually harmful to the environment. It was never asked of people to change over night, that was never proposed. It's asked that we at least acknowledge that this slaughter of 60 billion lives is wrong so we can move on to changing this problem. Why change? Because change is what defines us, and because it would be incredibly negligent and selfish not to simply because it requires work.

' We have fought our way to the top of the food chain for 6mn years. Now our tastebuds have evolved to crave the savoury taste of meat. Beef is the most time-wise efficient food for humans'

I'm not seeing how a teensy bit more time is worth all the lives being traded. This argument is furthermore undermined if we're talking about fast food, in which vegetarian options can be taken anyway.

'Are planted with genetically modified soy, immune to herbicides. Why add to the torture of the environment?'

You're proposing a false equivalence. Soy isn't the best thing, but there's no way that it's worse than eating meat. One bad thing doesn't defend the existence of another which is worse nor on equal grounds.

2000 characters really doesn't give me much to work with.
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately it's your word against mine, as you haven't really expanded your points to contradict mine.

Eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life. It has been an essential part of human evolution for millions of years. Meat is the most convenient protein source available. In one serving, meat provides all the essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein), as well as essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, and B vitamins. Also, meat provides healthy saturated fats, which enhance the function of the immune and nervous systems. Eating meat provides a better source of iron than a vegetarian diet as well. The body absorbs 15% to 35% of the heme iron in meat, but only absorbs 2% to 20% of the non-heme iron found in vegetarian sources like leafy greens and beans. A meat-centered diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options. One serving of lean beef contains as much protein as one serving of beans or a veggie burger. However, the lean beef has half the calories of beans, and 50%-75% fewer calories than the veggie burger. Vegetarians do not live longer. This myth stems from the fact that vegetarians tend to be more health conscious overall, eating a more balanced diet, exercising more, and smoking less than the general population. When a peer-reviewed April 2011, 2005 study from the German Cancer Research Center compared health conscious meat eaters with vegetarians, there was no difference in overall mortality rates. In 2001 about 95% of animal products consumed in the United States were produced in the United States. Despite the US consumption of about 27 billion pounds of beef per year, the percentage of forested US land has remained steady at around 33% since 1907. Vegetarianism alleviate world hunger. The 925mn people in chronic hunger are not hungry because people in wealthy countries eat meat, it is because of wealth distribution.


'as you haven't really expanded your points to contradict mine.'

2000 characters doesn't give a great deal of room for elaboration. I've had to butcher my posts immensely.

You begin by arguing that eating meat isn't cruel or unethical because it's a natural part of life. This is an appeal to nature. A lot of what happens in nature is incredibly cruel, and we as humans don't actually need to eat meat unlike the rest of it so we're in a far greater position of responsibility. Predators will sometimes eat animals alive, but they at least they have to. Meanwhile, we kill billions of animals when we basically don't need to. There is no way that treating billions of living animals as a product and putting them on an assembly line is either natural or ethical.

'A meat-centered diet can help with weight loss.'

You're arguing that a diet which has been constantly criticized as a direct cause for obesity and numerous health problems is a diet that can help weight loss in comparison to the diet which has been promoted and understood by doctors and nutritionists to be better for weight loss. Furthermore, I fail to see how dead animals can possibly have less fat than vegetables. So, basically what I'm hearing is that those little green vegetables provide less of everything and yet they somehow provide more fat. This argument is simply not credible, especially given that Oxford has incredibly recently banned meat from their menu. I'm absolutely serious.

'There was no difference in overall mortality rates.'

If that's the case then clearly eating meat isn't a supposedly better alternative and this proves my point that we can live without having to slaughter countless animals.

And lastly, the major difference between a vegetable and an animal is that when you kick one of them they scream. It's false equivalence to try and propose a resource we actually need to survive that can't feel pain is the same as one we don't which doesn't.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by gorant 2 years ago
If animals also think same as you think " If God didn't want us to eat humans why did he make them out of meat? lol....

In this world every one has right to live. no matter who we are whether animal or humans.

TheFoxWolf has a strong points. that is reason he won. Keep it up the great work bro. you'll always win if you are debating against to animal killing. i will be there to to support ...............
Posted by IwinYoulose333 2 years ago
"If God didn't want us to eat animals why did he make them out of meat?" -unknown
Posted by wbirchall 2 years ago
Also, before you add anything about multivitamin pills, I should say the cost of transporting them is enormous. Plus, if you had the choice, would you take a pill every day? I don't think so. The cost is largely in transporting them - would you make a "5000 journey from your pill factory in Germany to each self-sustaining family in Angola?
Posted by wbirchall 2 years ago
Also, before you add anything about multivitamin pills, I should say the cost of manufacturing them is enormous. Plus, if you had the choice, would you take a pill every day? I don't think so.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AtheismJD 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It is healthier to eat a vegan or vegetarian died rather then meat. It is also more sustainable to eat that way. Also, 70% of a soy products are consumed by farmed animals for meat consumption.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither user had poor conduct towards the other. S&G - Tie. Neither made any major grammatical or spelling errors. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to maintain the burden and every arguments raised was rebutted by Con. Another thing that hurt Pro was his questions posed to Con. In a debate, you take a stance and present your evidence and arguments that support your stance. Posing questions, when burdened by the Pro position is not an appropriate method. For this, Con successfully upheld his position and takes arguments. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources to further verify claims. Considering that Pro did, these points belong to him. Great debate guys. For Pro, I would recommend you build your case around strong contentions rather than posing questions for your opponent to overcome.