The Instigator
maxtemp109
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JoaquinBarzi
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Vegetarianism a good option?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 89661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

maxtemp109

Pro

Is it really a question? Vegetarianism is clearly the best option. You see, this is for two reasons. First, you are saving the lives of many. And second, you are saving your own. First of all, you save the lives of many animals. I mean, you either EAT someone(an animal) or you don't. Which one saves more animals? Definitely the don't. You see, an average vegetarian saves between 371 and 582 animals a year. Imagine being vegetarian for your whole life. Saving the lives of innocents, in numbers of about 48,000. That Is amazing(1)!. Secondly, being a vegetarian makes you much, much healthier. In fact, in makes you live longer by about 9 years! That is a lot. 9 years to spend with others, help others and live a happy life(2). Vegetarianism is clearly a better option.

(1)http://www.countinganimals.com...
(2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
JoaquinBarzi

Con

I accept the debate. Side note, this is my first debate ever in the site.

Ok, i will be arguing for the con position although i dont necesarilly agree 100% with it.

Lets start with your first argument, that is, you save animals by not eating meat. This could be refuted by saying that my desire for meat supercedes my empathy for livestock, and this way i have an argument that suits both libertarians and utilitarians alike.
Furthermore, i could argue that the universal aplication of vegetarianism would render livestock economically senseless, leading to a mass extermination of such by the producers, in order to make space for more profitable industries. In the end, the animals will die either way. At least as livestock they dont get exterminated and get to live and reproduce (in horrible conditions though)

The other argument could be answered in the same manner. What if i like to take that risk in order to enjoy a good piece of meat once in a while? The same could be said for anything, from doing drugs, to performing extreme sports, to even drving or taking the bus. Everything we do carries a risk, its up to the individual to make the decision.

Is vegetarianism a good option? Subjectively, yes, just as much as eating meat is. But is it an obvious option? Absolutley not.
Debate Round No. 1
maxtemp109

Pro

The opponent said that saving animals by not eating meat is refuted by the fact that his desire for meat supersedes his empathy for livestock. Seriously? The fact that you would rather have ONE dinner. ONE dinner for one night of your life, for the life of another. Now sure, you could spread this out. Per year, an American eats an average of 300 lb of meat(1). That means about 1/5 of a cow per year is EATEN because of you. Did you know that because of meat, your carbon emissions are increased by a landslide? Lamb, in fact, has a carbon emission of 39.2 kilograms per kilogram of food, whereas lentils emit 0.9 kg(2). This is destroying our environment! Carbon emissions are like a coal plant! The fact that meat can emit that much carbon is crazy. We need to save the environment. The is something else that should convince you. Do you know that 40% of the world is waterless(4)? Many of them are children, lying on the ground. Thirsting. Carrying 128 pounds of water a day from home to well, across an entire village. You have it better. You have a computer! These people are without water, the one thing you have complete access to. Well, guess what! Beef uses 15.4 lb of water per kilogram of its product, whereas tomatoes use 0.1. Beef destroys the water, sends it off to Africa, and then the children realize. This water has disgusting, red, animal blood in it. Tomatoes use so little water, as do other vegetables. Why would you eat meat??

(1) http://www.livablefutureblog.com...

(2) http://ajcn.nutrition.org...

(3) http://michaelbluejay.com...

(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
JoaquinBarzi

Con

My oponent seems to be claiming that an animal life is always more important than any desire to eat meat. But what if i disagree? What if i dont have those strong feelings he has about animals that arent humans? But i really like to eat beef. My point stands.

Then he raises the point which, i think, has the biggest impact on my point of view of the topic. And that is how my consumption of meat affects the people around me. He brings up 2 important issues, CO2 emmisions and water.

Lets deal with water first. I live in a tropical area, with high yearly precipitation. Furthermore, instead of the intensive feed lot livestock production model, the majority ( of beef at least) is produced in extensive pasturage, which avoids you from having to spend crops (like soy beans) feeding the animals, instead leaving them to gain weight by their own. This saves you the agregate water use from the artificial irrigation used in growing said crops.

Also, most of said kids that lack water, as you just illustrated, dont lack it because there isnt enough of it, or because its used by livestock. To be honest, they probably engage in animal hubandry of their own. What they lack is a proper distribution system, not that someone thousands of miles away stops eating meat, in the hopes that the water used in the process will somehow get to them.

Then, we are left with the emisions problem. As i said, most of the livestock grown in my country is done so by pasturage, which, according to some experts, reduces the carbon footprint vastly (1). Also, i could compensate meat consumption by using solar panels and electric cars, as i am planning to do, evenning out my emissions. Besides, the worst of the greenhouse gases from livestock, in the degree they impact the enviroment, are methane and nitrous oxide (2), not CO2. The methane comes from the animals diggestive system. Solving that problem would involve killing most of the livestock, which is what you are trying to avoid in point 1. The nitrous oxide, on the other hand, comes from manure management. This is funny because, not only does the gas come mostly from the animal feces ( no animal= no gas),the manure is used mainly in, you guessed it, agriculture, you "great" alternative.

I will be posting some of the possible solutions in the third round.

(1) http://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu...
(2)http://www.fao.org...
Debate Round No. 2
maxtemp109

Pro

My opponent clearly does not even stand with himself in his own argument. What if? What if? Well, I doubt this standpoint. You see, my opponent clearly does not stand with his own point of view. The fact that you would even address the fact that your desire to have a large meal is bigger than your empathy of another is absurd. Did it ever even occur to the opponent that animals are abused for their meat?

Chickens are no doubt the most abused animals in the United States meat industry. We arrest people for beating their wives? Why don't we arrest people for abusing their chickens. Did you know that Chickens are called broiler chickens when they are being kept for meat? You see, one thing about chickens is that their beaks are being sliced off. You might say, that's ok! It doesn't hurt. But it does. Imagine your nose being sliced off so it spares the farmers frustration. Seriously? Farmers slice chickens beaks off because they are in such cramped conditions, they don't want them to stab themselves or others with their own beaks. The absurdity of this matter is outrageous(1). 9 billion chickens are raised a year for meat. More than the human race. A year. These chicks are packed very tight in shipping crates just days after birth, never actually meeting their parents(2). Along with this, Chickens are kept in such filthy conditions, such horrible homes, that they have no real way to feel anything. Except pain. Disease runs rampant in chicken farms, barns and slaughter houses. Instead of providing cleaner living areas for the poor creatures, the farmers decide to put large amounts of anitbiotics in the food, stopping no death. A US Department of Agriculture study also released that 87% of chicken carcasses being sold at stores in the United States contained E. Coli, a deadly disease(3). Lastly, male chicks are worthless to the egg industry, chicks meaning chickens under 4 months old, cute little fuzzy ones. These male chicks are, as 'useless' as they are, thrown into trash bags to suffocate and die OR into high speed grinders - while still alive(3). The way people treat these animals is a horror.

Cows are abused as well. Many cows are repeatedly whipped, kicked, punched, prodded, and beat by farmers. They are also denied veterinary care. In one case, in New Mexico, a calf died in the womb of it's mother, and because of this, the farmers had to get a metal prod, insert the prod into the cows womb and grab the dead and deteriorating calf out of the mothers womb, all the while denied care. She died the next day(4). The video on the source I just provided is shocking, disgusting and heart breaking. We must stop the abuse of these animals.

The treatment of all animals is horrible. Animals are not ours to wear, eat, cage, or abuse in any other way.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...

(2) http://www.foodispower.org...

(3) peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/chickens
JoaquinBarzi

Con

I stated in the first round that I didn't agree with the position I was defending 100%. That doesn't mean I cant make sound arguments for the position.

I am granting you, from the very beginning, that animals are abused in the current circumstances. My point was, why should we care? They are not humans. Should we care about the Billions of insects we kill daily? And i am not talking about bees here, which we actually need to pollinate plants. I am talking about the mosquitoes we kill because they bother us, or the other bugs we kill needlessly as Collateral damage.

Or what about plagues like rats and other rodents? Should we protect them to? Dont they feel pain too? Why do we make a distinction between a rat and, say, a squirrel? They are basically the same thing, only cuter. We could say that harming an animal NEEDLESSLY is bad, but if we agree that killing them to avoid disease is ok, then why not allow killing them for meat too?

For example, most of the time, I would say killing a dog is a bad thing. But if a starving family in China wants to eat a dog, who am I to judge them?

We should make some sense when talking about valid reasons to kill an animal. There are reasons that are ok, and there are reasons that arent. I am on the side that eating is a valid reason.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sachinshubham 1 year ago
sachinshubham
Vegetarian or not, change the way you think about food, experiment and try new "meat-free" dishes in your diet.

Studies have shown that vegetarians (following a well-balanced low-fat high-fibre vegetarian diet) often have lower incidence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, obesity and some forms of cancer.

Vegetarians avoid meat, poultry, game, fish and slaughterhouse by-products such as gelatine and animal fats. The staples of the vegetarian diet are fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, seeds and nuts. Most vegetarians eat dairy products and free-range eggs.

Fruitarians: Avoid all animal products and processed foods.

Vegans: Avoid all animal products.

Lacto-vegetarians: Eat dairy products but not eggs.

Lacto-ovo-vegetarians: Eat both dairy products and eggs.

Semi-vegetarians: Eat fish and/or chicken but no red meat. They are not officially classed as vegetarians.
Posted by maxtemp109 1 year ago
maxtemp109
My opinion on the food chain is that other animals should be allowed to hunt other animals if it is necessary to survive. For a leapord? Yes. For a bunny? Ehhh not so much. For a human, same thing. We don't need to round up millions of animals, stuff them in cages and slaughter them by boiling them alive and ripping their heads off. But we do anyway.
Posted by mangolife23 1 year ago
mangolife23
I agree, but what about the animals that eat other animals? In other words, what is your opinion on the food chain?
No votes have been placed for this debate.