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

It is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,720 times Debate No: 23604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




Hi, I will be arguing that it is unreasonable to be a vegetarian. This is a relaxed, half-joking debate. It should be fun. The arguments I am making are a tad fickle, and are not meant to be taken that seriously. I definatly won't be doing any research or using any sources for this debate. I am presenting one argument for people who are vegetarian for health reasons, and one argument who are vegetarian for moral reasons. I will argue for these two points and my opponent's job will just be to refute these arguments. I am starting my arguments now.

4000 characters max, 72 hour response times, 3 rounds

The argument of the tofu turkey (moral reasons).

Some people are vegetarians for moral reasons. They say that it is inhumane to eat animals. They identify with animals, are friends with animals, and do not want animals killed. Often, these vegetarians will eat tofu instead of meet. They often make a tofu dish designed to look and taste like an animal. For example, they make a tofu dish, that looks like a tofu turkey.

Now, I am strictly against cannibalism. I identify with humans, am sad when I here of a human death, and am friends with many humans. However, I would NEVER dress a food dish up, to make it look and tast like a human. I would never make a tofu human. This, in my opinion is a sick twisted unapealing idea. Yet, vegetarions have no problem, eating immitation animals? It is unreasonable to dress a dish up, to make it look like the animals that you are morally against killing

Note: I understand that my opponent could claim that not all vegetarian eat tofu turkey ect. Please, for the sake of fun, do not make this argument. Please, argue on behalf of the vegetarians that eat tofu turkey and try to justify their actions.

The argument of cocain, lard and straight sugar from the bowl in moderation (Health Reasons)

Some vegetarians do not believe that eating meat is unhealthy, so they completely eliminate meat from their diet. It seems strange, that of all the unhealthy foods, to completly eliminate, they pick meat. Vegetarians are allowed to eat sugar straight from the bowl, french fries and gravy, lard, poison, cocain, heroin, cooking oil, dougnuts, cake, pop and energy drinks. Compared to these foods meats are relativly healthy. It seems unreasonable to complelty ban some moderatly healthy foods, while allowing some extremely unhealthy foods. Its like having the death penalty for manslaughter, while only 20 years for murder. Vegetarians are allowed to eats cocain and lard in moderation, but can never have an ounce of meat? These rules are skewed and unreasonable.

I wish my opponent luck and look forward to this debate. Again, I will argue these points, my opponent's job is to refute them. Let's Go!



Vegetarianism for the reasons of morality and health concerns are sound arguments for vegetarianism. Before I begin to break down my opponents ideals I will first point out the vegetarians that I will be defending today.
The simplest definition of vegetarianism is a diet free of meat. At the other end are vegans, who reject eating all animal-based products, honey included. Raw foodists are vegans who eat mainly raw fruits, vegetables, legumes, sprouts, and nuts.

Lets now look at the moral reasons for vegetarianism.

1. The vegetarian centre states,"Nobody would argue that animals don't feel pain, fear or enjoyment. This gives them the basic right to be treated in ways that respect their own personal value, just as humans are. This includes the right to live, not to be slaughtered or treated unjustly."

This argument is sound. No animal deserves to be killed over another or to be deprived of life. No animal deserves to be raised in a cage all its life to be slaughtered at any moment. Vegetarians realize these moral facts. They sympathize with these animals and imagine if humans were breed to be killed that our quality of life would be terrible. It's almost equivalent to the ideal of treat others how you want to be treated. Im aware that everyone might not agree that they want to be vegetarian because humans are naturally omnivores. Humans are also naturally violent, but that doesnt necessarily mean that we are bound to being violent. We can change who we are and what we do in life with the injection of strong moral values.

Let us now move on to the ideals of my opponent.

"Now, I am strictly against cannibalism."

In the paragraph I received this statement from pro he is trying to compare humans eating meat to humans eating humans. Obviously majority of humans don't care about eating animal meat as opposed to human meat. Sane humans would most likely be disturbed by eating the meat of our own species. Wait now that I think about it I see what my opponent means now. But he fails to realize that humans eat food that are in the shape of humans and or human organs. Examples being sour patch kids,eyeballs and arms on Halloween, or maybe pictures sprayed on a cake. Are all these acts then cannibalism? No. Neither is it morally wrong. So making tofu into animals is not immoral. Following my opponents line of logic then when we eat sour worms we are then actually eating real worms. This is basically what my opponent is trying to suggest her. We all commonly know that this isnt the truth. As a famous philosopher once said, Looks are deceiving.

Health reasons

"Some vegetarians do not believe that eating meat is unhealthy"

It seems my opponent attempted to say that eating meat is unhealthy.
Here's what the data says...."Most doctors and nutritionists agree that a low-fat diet high in fruits, vegetables, and nuts can be a boon to health. There is also widespread acknowledgment that reducing or eliminating red meat from the diet cuts the risk of heart disease."

"Research also has shown that a plant-based diet can improve the health of people with type 2 diabetes. A study in 2004 and 2005 showed that people with diabetes who followed a low-fat vegan diet had less of a need for diabetes medications. They lost weight and their insulin sensitivity increased. They had improved glycemic and lipid control."

It would be absurd to say all vegetarian diets are healthy. This is obviously not true many people only eat potato chips and are still considered vegetarians. Is that type of diet healthy in this situation? NO. Vegetarian diets have the potential to be very healthy. Most vegetable servings have less fat and calories than meat. Obviously meat has fat in it often times alt of fat and possibly cooking oil. You also have the risk of contracting E.coli and other meat-borne diseases. So yes the status quo of being a vegetarian can be more healthy than a meaty diet.

Debate Round No. 1


Tofu Turkey

Okay, human do eat foods shaped like humans. They eat sour patch kids, humans on cake, gingerbread-men ect. But these foods don't rise to the realism of a tofu turkey. I do not see a contradiction in vegetarians eating animal crackers, gummy-worms, gummy-bears ect. Tofu turkey is meant to taste and look and close to a turkey as possible. Take this quote from the description of a tofu turkey "A tofu turkey will not shape into a bird, but it can replicate the taste of a roasted turkey nicely."[1] They are happy that the tofu tastes like a turkey, but slightley displeased that the turkey does not look like a turkey. They try to immitate the turkey exactly. I don't see how someone would want to immitate the exact dish they are morally against eating.

While ginger breadmen, sour-patch kids look like humans, they don't try to immitate the exact taste and texture of a human. Imagine if someone served a tofu human. Hey look what I found. Somebody once marketed the concept of human tofu (hufu) as a joke [2] Imagine that. I would feel kinda iffy about eating hufu, because I am morally against killing humans. I still don't see how vegetarians are okay with trying to imitate the taste and texture exactly of a being they are morally against killing.


Oops. I made a typo if round 1. I meant to say "some vegetarians believe that eating meat is unhealthy."

My argument generally was that meat maybe moderatly unhealthy, but there are some extremely unhealthy foods that are still allowed under vegetarianism such as lard, gravy, drugs, sugar, cake, fudge. It seems that if one is going to start completly banning foods that they should completly ban the really unhealthy foods before they ban the moderatly unhealthy foods. For example a vegetarian who eats meat once in a while is more healthy than a vegetarian who eats lard, drugs, or syrup.

Now, i do see that vegetariansism can be healthy. But, doesn't it seem unreasonable that they take such a strict stance against eating meat. I could understant if they just tried to avoid meat. But by strictly banning meat it seems like they are labeling meat as more unhealthy than potato chips, sugar ect. If a vegetarian forgets to pick off pieces of chicken on a pizza it is a BIG DEAL, but if they indulge a whole cake, it is bad but not as bad as eating meat. I still feel that is is unreasonable to be strongly against meat, while not being against other more unhealthy foods. It seems almost arbitrary.




due to time restraints this will be short. Just because it looks and tastes like turkey doesnt make it immoral.....a taste and the actual meat are two different things.....there not killing the animal to get the taste but is instead imitating it. There is nothing wrong with this. No animals were killed for that taste.

Also obviously not every nonmeat food is healthy. But im only defending the status quo in witch vegetaians do eat healthy witch excludes those examples that my opponent has given. Also not everyone are vegetarians for health reasons. It really depends on the persons motives.

Debate Round No. 2


Tofu Turkey

Yes, these vegetarians have a taste/desire to eat a turkey. However, they are appalled by the idea of killing a turkey. However, they are not appalled by the idea of having a desire to eat a turkey. They will glasly make an imitation turkey. Shouldn't these vegetarians be appalled by having the taste/desire to do something they are so morally against. Imagine one with the desire to murder using a cadavor to chop up with a knife to feed his bloodlust or a human eating a human flavored tofu dish to feed his desire. Someone should be ashamed/appalled about a desire to do something immoral. It is admirble that they do not commit the actual crime, but they should not enjoy cutting up a corpse or eating human tofu. If someone did this they would keep it private until they cured their immoral desire. I never said eating tofu turkey was immoral, I argue it is unreasonable for a vegetarian to take pride in eating an imitation dish of an animal they are against killing. Shouldn't they be quite ashamed for having an immoral desire?


My opponent claims that he is only defending the status quo. This status quo is that all vegetarians only eat healthy foods. Now again, my argument says that it is unreasonable for vegetarians to be strictly against meat while they may indulge in other more unhealthy junk food. It does not make much health sense to be strictly against meat, while enjoying a chocolate bar or twinky every once in a while. Wouldn't it make more sense to be strictly against meat/twinkies and just try to avoid meat.

Perhaps I had a wrong view of vegetarians (I am not one, and don't know that many). I thought that vegetarians never eat meat, while still indulge in other unhealthy foods chocolate/twinkies ect once in a while. I am in agreement that it is reasonable for a vegetarian to stricly ban meat as long as they also strictly ban all other foods more unhealthy then meat (sodapop, doughnuts,candy ect). However, I think there are many vegetarians that strictly ban meat, while still indulge in other unhealthy foods. I posted my arguments in the 1st round to avoid confusion. My opponent has to justify the position for vegetarians the are strictly against meat, while more laxed on other unhealthy foods. Again, I posted my arguments in the first round. Why would my opponent accept the debate, just to say he does not need to defend against this. If my opponent felt this way he should have brought it up preferalbly before the debate, or in round 1. Not wait to round 2.


I have provided a solid argument why it is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for health reasons and one for moral reasons. I have argued well. This should be a pro vote.


I want to thank my opponent for a interesting debate,I would love to debate again.

Tofu turkey(morality)

Not all vegetarians are afraid of animals being killed. Some just don't like animals being bred to be killed. Yes some may be contend killing animals derelict of any situation. For pros claim to work he needs to prove all vegetarians don't like to kill animals for moral reasons. As we see some people are vegetarians solely because of health reasons excluding moral reasons Witch negates this claim.

The issue of imitation turkey isnt solid . As long as person may experience a artificial taste witch excludes the use of animals it's fine. Vegetarians are against meat because the meat we eat comes from animals whom was killed for meat. Vegetarians are not against the taste of turkey flavored tofu because No animals were injured/killed to make the dish. So eating tofu turkey does not contradict moral reasons to not eat meat because there is no meat in the meal. Just a fake taste witch did not result from the animal killings witch moral vegetarians are against. If turkeys were injured to make the turkey taste for tofu my opponent hasn't proven so. Witch means my premise is firmly rooted while pros ideal fails.

My opponent also attempted to use the;
False Analogy Fallacy- in witch an analogy is used but is poorly suited. Pro presents this analogy; Since a human flavoring a food human is cannibalism, then humans flavoring a non-meat.... meat flavored is then morally wrong for vegetarians. This is fallacious for both;

Non comparative responses

1.Cannibalism is commonly accepted to be immoral, while vegetarian morality isnt as commonly accepted. So it isnt fair to compare the concepts.
2. In cannibalism actual human parts are ingested. In tofu turkey actual turkey is not ingested.

Comparative responses

2. Cannibalism is eating the body parts of ones same species. If the consumed human flavor was made without using humans then it's not cannibalism by definition. Same with tofu turkey. No actual turkey parts were used to make the taste so its not wrong.
3. We don't know what humans taste like. Humans could be chicken flavored for all we know without our knowledge. Since we flavor vegetables chicken flavored are we then cannibals? This is possible!!( to freak out the

Health Aspect

Let me state my position once more for coherence. I am defending the status quo that majority of vegetarian diets are healthy. Obviously any type of diet could become unhealthy by abuse of proportion and/or the frequency of consumption. No food or diet is healthy where one can eat as much and as often as one wants(maybe water, though too much will kill you). I am stating that not every vegetarian diet is healthy but instead that majority of vegetarian diets are healthy witch is the status quo. I ask to reject the drugs because it's not a status quo,nor is it a common stereotype witch is what a status quo is. I accept unhealthy foods of pop, candy etc. Drop lard and gravy since animals are involved.

Healthy diets
Healhy foods

Dieting is interesting. One can eat a unhealthy type of food occasionally and still have a healthy veggie diet. Hypothetical Example, 2000 calorie based diet for a person of 165lbs; Today I have eaten 1750 calories, 15 grams of fat, etc

I can eat one twinkie and have a healthy diet today. If your educated in dieting then you should be aware that it's not necessarily about rejecting certain foods as it is about about eating the food in accordance with ones diet intake. we see Twinkies only have 150 calories. Given this diet I can eat one twinkie and still meet be healthy. So yes a person can eat unhealthy food occasionally and have a healthy diet.
daily diet info--
twinkie nutrition info--

Con has proven it reasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons. Con logically should win this debate.( characters wanted lol)

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by twocupcakes 6 years ago
yeah, that was a fun debate...sorry about the characters, i made it 4000 so it would be easier for poeple to read, so we could get more votes/feedback...yeah I think interesting arguments are cool...I'd be down to go again, same topic, orr?
Posted by frozen_eclipse 6 years ago
that was really fun.....last round was pretty difficult due to character be honored to go at it again you are a opponent who introduces intresting arguments witch is what i look for....{:
Posted by twocupcakes 6 years ago
haha cool
Posted by vbaculum 6 years ago
Damn, I was going to take this. You just beat me to it frozen_eclipse, lol.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 6 years ago
i could just do it now....but storm generations is calling my name.....i shall post tomarow my friend
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 6 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: i'm going to give convincing arguments to Con because although his responses were terse at times, I do believe he got his point across. However, I give S/G to Pro because Con made more grammatical mistakes than Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 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 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: counter VB
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 6 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's an idiot.