The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is Vegetarianism the Only Solution for Keeping People Fed in the Future?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 300 times Debate No: 82436
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The first round will be for introduction, welcomes, and hand shakes.
Hello, my name is Ryan and today i am going to be supporting a claim that the only sure-fire solution to feed al of the world's growing population is through vegetarianism.
If you or I post a statistic, fact, or otherwise important piece of information, it should be followed by a citation. If it isn't it should be discarded as fiction.
I look forward to this discussion, and eagerly await the appearance of my opponent.


vegetables are poison
Debate Round No. 1


Meat has always, since the dawn of civilization, been considered a delicacy (of sorts). All the lords and ladies would have at least one meat dish on their table, even modern day the amount of meat consumed speaks volumes for the situation of a person financially. I would love nothing more than for our rate of meat consumption to continue, but sadly, it can't.
As it stands, 40% of the land on Earth's surface is consumed by farm land.[1] Of that, 7.9 to 8.9 billion acres are dedicated solely to the raising, housing, and feeding of livestock.[2] Twenty six percent of the land on earth is used for livestock grazing. [3] As you can see, that's a lot of wasted space.
We may be able to get more technology to speed up the growth of plants, or make them more efficient, but the only sure fire way at the moment to increase food yield to deal with or rising population would be to remove livestock from the equation, and use the left over fertile land as farmland.



It's not really a problem everything balances out. We're going to be developing new technology and improve our industrial capacity. Humans are incredibly ingenious and are constantly discovering new ways to solve their problems. What do you mean wasted space? This is the best use of space possible! The fact is, vegetables are not good food. They are in fact poison. Here's what happens. You eat a carb, it converts to glucose and you store it as fat. Contrary to popular belief your body does not 'run off carbs', your muscles run off fat. Carbs are stored as adipose tissue and the conversion from glucose to fat requires insulin which is badly damaging to tissues. Have you ever met a vegan? They are all sickly because they are malnourished. You need to eat meat. Meat is critical to your health and thus land devoted to grazing is great. You can also feed beef with grain so there are less land intensive methods of producing cattle. Perhaps in the future barns will go up, into the sky. There are countless ways to solve this non problem so don't sweat it kid we'll all be eating sirloin tip roasts long into the future, there is no need to sort to the mass malnutrition and dissatisfaction which would result from societal veganism.

Eat beef.
Debate Round No. 2


You say we will increase our technological abilities, but how can you be sure? It is never a for-sure thing. I have no doubt that we will advance our agricultural capabilities, but the real question is will we be able to do so at a rate that surpass our population growth rate? Probably not.

If you take the grazing land alone and convert it into farm land, we could easily double the food produced, if not triple it. Long story short, it's a waste of space for less food on the table.

What the body needs isn't beef and meat, what it needs is what's inside. Protein, which you can get from various assorted beans, fish (technically a livestock, but I count them out because of how efficient the fish farms have become) and other plants. I know very well that no method of protein delivery can ever be as orally pleasing as a big juicy medium-rare steak, but it isn't really something we should look towards if we want to feed a large population.

Getting rid of livestock wouldn't just give us more food, it would also help the environment.
Globally, 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to livestock, more than emissions from transportation related sources.
In the United States alone, livestock is responsible for 55% of erosion, 37% of all applied pesticides, and 50% of all anti-biotics consumed. [1]
In addition, 90% of oats and 80% of corn produced in the U.S are funneled directly to the animals that yield significantly less bang for your buck.[2]




Yes it is possible that a trend which has been ongoing through the history of humanity could reverse itself. We could wake up tomorrow and gravity could start working in reverse and we'd all float off into space and die, but this isn't particularly likely. Ever since man discovered stone tools we have been constantly improving our technology, and aside from weird times like the dark ages things have always been getting better and we have always been developing new tech.

A lot of the protein in plants or legumes is not accessible to human beings. Take the garbonzo bean (you may know it as a chickpea). Lots of protein, but only 1% of it can be used by humans. It's cause of the phytic acid.

Medium rare? Heathen! Steak should be consumed blood rare. 1 minute on either side, high heat and it's done. But I digress.

There's too much concern about the environment. We need to transform nature to better serve the needs of man. Why should the rights of tees and critter be more important than those of human beings, who after all are capable of understanding their plight. Now this doesn't mean that pollution should be allowed, since that is an act of aggression, but we need to do away with this notion that it is evil for man to attempt to ameliorate scarcity by improving the world in which he has found himself.

Animals are good for you. They have everything you need. Fats, protein, vitamins. They are tasty, and they are tasty because they are a complete food, especially when cooked very lightly so that the vitamins are not destroyed and the proteins are not denatured. So quit worrying about the future, do some flyer shopping, find yourself some affordable beef, learn how not to ruin it with excessive cooking, and dig in. We'll all be dining on animal flesh for some time yet to come. And to everyone else, you guys should all be vegetarians so that there is more beef left for me.
Debate Round No. 3


I never said we would regress our abilities, only that we may not progress them fast enough to deal with the population problem. Besides, technological innovation isn't a linear path, it is very much based in whether or not we run the right numbers, combine the right chemicals. If it rose at a definite rate, we would already be sailing amongst the stars. (One can only dream.)

There are several leafy greens capable of providing your daily dose of protein, least tasty being the legume. Spinach, however, is a good alternative.

I have tried blood rare in the past, it seems too much like mush for me. (Probably didn't help that I got my steak from the local O'Charlies)

I agree, it would be best if we can force nature to bend to our whims. Just imagine it! Our planet sustained by giant co2 scrubbers, huge sprawling farms both far above and below sea level, the ability to efficiently clean the ocean.
Sadly, with our current abilities, that dream will stay science-fiction for some time. For now we will have to try and live with the eco system, because if it were to collapse we would go down with it.
I must say I agree, we shouldn't worry about the right of trees and critters, we have inherited this earth through our superior intellect, our superior evolution, and our remarkable ability to adapt to our surroundings. I just think we should try to preserve animals because they are, quite simply, pretty to look at.

We will be eating animal for quite a while yet, this debate was intended to be in the 'If we can't find a more efficient way to grow food in the next 60 years' format. On a side note, I am saving up to go and get some good Kobe Beef. I will have it cooked medium rare :).

Thank you for a good first completed debate, it was fun.


In summation let me say, vegetables are poison because they have carbs, the storage of which as fat triggers a tissue damaging insulin response and because vegetables develop anti-nutrients as a natural defense against herbivores munching them up. The best fuel for people is critters, so get cracking science nerds and solve this issue so that we can all enjoy eating delicious beef even after the world is 20 billion +.

Welcome to this was a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by NikolaGustav 11 months ago
Not all vegans are sickly and malnourished.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
I don't think we'll need to live on only fruits and vegetables to survive in 2150.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Forever23 11 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had much better conduct an made more convincing arguments.