The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
areeder5011
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarian cause animal cruelty thus are animal abusers.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 320 times Debate No: 81899
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I Pro will argue for the subject.
Con will argue against the subject.

"

Lacto-vegetarian is sometimes used to describe a vegetarian who does not eat eggs, but does eat dairy products. Many Hindu vegetarians are lacto-vegetarians who avoid eggs for religious reasons while continuing to eat dairy.

Ovo-vegetarian refers to people who do not eat meat or dairy products but do eat eggs. Some people are ovo-vegetarians because they are lactose-intolerant."Jolinda Hackett about.com

Cause "1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect:" reference.com

"Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." wikipedia.

Abuse "

to use wrongly or improperly; misuse:
to abuse one's authority.

2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way:"

"

4.
to commit sexual assault upon."


When somebody buys eggs at the grocery store greater demand is created. Causing creater supply. Greater supply causes more animals being bred into existance. More animals being bred into existence causes more animal cruelty.

The same can be said for milk and cheese.

""Cage-Free"/"Free-Range" hens come from the same hatcheries that battery hens come from, all of their brothers are killed by suffocation or being ground up alive, the girls themselves endure the same bodily manipulations and mutilations, and they ALL ultimately end up at the same slaughterhouses when their "production" declines." http://peacefulprairie.org...

"All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow’s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a “rape rack.”" humanemyth.org/happycows.htm

I conclude that the evidence is undeniable. By purchasing milk, eggs, or cheese you are inevitablity encouraging and causing animal abuse. The purchaser is just as guilty as the retailers and supplier. Willful gnorance is no exuse.


http://vegetarian.about.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://peacefulprairie.org...

http://www.humanemyth.org...

areeder5011

Con

First off, all of your sources are from bias websites that support your opinion. Either way I still feel you are wrong.

I would even argue that people who straight up eat meat are not causing animal cruelty and are not animal abusers.

You reference "forcefully impregnating cows"( which I am assuming you are dropping into the "rape" category of your animal cruelty definition) is a weak argument. It is well known that cows do not have sex for pleasure. This method of impregnating them is for their own benefit. Cows are a domesticated animal, meaning they are bred to have the characteristics that we desire. This domestication has caused some complications. One of them being that they hurt themselves during sex. This artificial impregnation method is done to not hurt the cow and actually protect them from themselves.

Your definition of cruelty to animals... "is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival". I argue that since the dairy and meat industry is a large part of our food procurement system as a society, its purpose is for survival. Maybe not for the individual, but is for our culture as a whole. That being said, your definition disproves your point.

Someone who buys eggs at the grocery store who is looking for the best deal is not doing so because they have a choice. That is what is available and they must feed their family. Most Americans have grown up and are acculturated to see eggs as a needed food source. Because of this they cannot see how other foods will provide the same nourishment. On top of that, because of their low paying jobs, they cannot afford the "farm raised" eggs that make you a good person all of a sudden.

Your whole argument is based on ignorance and the choice to view bias media sources that are trying to get your views for advertising money.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

My opponent makes four counter-arguments.

0. My sources are bias

Pro's response: Bias or otherwise, doesn't effect the validity of the information.

1. "I argue that since the dairy and meat industry is a large part of our food procurement system as a society, its purpose is for survival. Maybe not for the individual, but is for our culture as a whole." Con

Pro's response: I don't see upholding the culture as a valid reason for continuing to perform an unhealthy and cruel act.

2. "they cannot afford the "farm raised" eggs that make you a good person all of a sudden." Con

Pro response: I'm not sure what you mean by farm raised, if you mean cage-free or free range from the supermarket those eggs are more or less factory farmed. If you are suggesting eggs from the local farm, there is still cruelty in even small local farms. Eggs from small local farms are still unhealthy. "The bad: This food is high in Saturated Fat, and very high in Cholesterol." [1]

According to the data at nutrition facts, 4.86 large eggs have 343% cholesterol, 37% fat, and 38% saturated fat. Yet, only 347 calories.

3. "Someone who buys eggs at the grocery store who is looking for the best deal is not doing so because they have a choice. That is what is available and they must feed their family. Most Americans have grown up and are acculturated to see eggs as a needed food source. Because of this they cannot see how other foods will provide the same nourishment." Con

Pro's response: The culture needs to change. You make an excellent argument for banning eggs. Since individuals do not need eggs nor are eggs the healthiest nor the cheapest option. Eggs aren't the healthiest because of their high cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat content. Grains are much cheaper per calorie than eggs. If you look at this table you will see eggs are not the most economic choice. [2]

Links:

1. http://nutritiondata.self.com...
2. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...
areeder5011

Con

Pro - "I don't see upholding the culture as a valid reason for continuing to perform an unhealthy and cruel act." - Pro
"You make an excellent argument for banning eggs. Since individuals do not need eggs nor are eggs the healthiest nor the cheapest option"-pro

Con - I thought I pointed out that eating eggs is not a cruel act considering it is for survival. A vegetarian should understand that considering that eating just a vegetarian diet will leave you with a vitamin b12 deficiency. Do you know what has a good source of vitamin b 12? oh yeah... eggs! Furthermore, studies from your sources concerning the dangers of cholesterol and saturated fat are incorrect. Cholesterol in the diet has no bearing on cholesterol formed by the body. They are two separate things. This thought is outdated and mainly supported by misinformed doctors who don't even need to take nutrition to get their degree. The human digestive system is quite incredible, it breaks everything down to its basic parts, takes what it needs, and disposes of the rest. Cholesterol found in arterial walls is more likely from having a high sugar diet. The molecular makeup of sugar is sharp and when streaming through the blood causes microscopic cuts at the bends of arteries. Cholesterol is not collecting here because it is in high content in the blood, it is collecting there because the job of cholesterol is to repair these tears caused by sugar. Cholesterol is made by the body, not from the diet.

As far as saturated fat goes, your results are also wrong from bias sources. Again, a high sugar diet is likely the cause that scientists draw from these studies. An American diet does have a lot of saturated fat in it, but that is nothing knew to the human diet. Pastoralist societies have been thriving off the meat from their herds for well over 10,000 years. The only thing knew is a high simple sugar content in our diet. Eskimo's for example eat mainly meat and eat straight whale blubber in high amounts when it is available. They eat their meat raw (Eskimo=eater of raw flesh), in order to get the nutrients they need. It is only when they take on a western diet high in sugar do they have significant health problems.

Pro -"According to the data at nutrition facts, 4.86 large eggs have 343% cholesterol, 37% fat, and 38% saturated fat. Yet, only 347 calories."

Con -Even though this information means nothing because of what I said above, an unhealthy diet does not make someone guilty of animal cruelty.

Pro - "The culture needs to change. You make an excellent argument for banning eggs. Since individuals do not need eggs nor are eggs the healthiest nor the cheapest option. Eggs aren't the healthiest because of their high cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat content. Grains are much cheaper per calorie than eggs. If you look at this table you will see eggs are not the most economic choice"

Con - Again, I don't see how a supposedly unhealthy diet can make you guilty of animal cruelty. Secondly, grains have a lower nutrient and macronutrient content than eggs. Thirdly, why are we arguing a healthy diet? I thought this was about animal cruelty... your bring up no new points.

Con - With your logic, anything anyone ever does ever, would make them an animal abuser. You would find some statistic somewhere to support your opinion. Statistics do not make laws, they only create conclusions drawn from the person that interprets them. If people who eat eggs are animal abusers than your are too simply because you are using your computer. Computer's are used at slaughterhouses so you must be cruel to animals. Do you see how this silly argument is false? Ignorance does not make someone guilty. Culture is learned. They don't know any different. Ignorance does make someone innocent. You are not arguing that people who eat eggs are animal abusers, you are arguing that our culture needs to change the way in which we procure our food sources.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Resolution: Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarian cause animal cruelty thus are animal abusers.

Con is arguing that Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarians are not animal abusers based on two main points. Ignorance and survival.

First Con argues that people think they are buying eggs for survival and that counts as enough. Regardless of whether eggs are needed for survival. Which poses a question? If there is an animal that you perceive as a threat, yet is no threat at all and you attack it out of a sense of survival, does this count as animal cruelty or not?

As for B12

"Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives" [1]
"Vitamin B12 deficiency is estimated to affect 10%-15% of people over the age of 60"[2]

As you can see B12 is gained from microorganisms not animal products. Also, plenty of elderly people who eat animal products have B12 deficiency.

" Again, I don't see how a supposedly unhealthy diet can make you guilty of animal cruelty." Con

Because if the diet is healthy, then an argument could be made for survival. Hypothetically speaking if eggs were the healthiest food on the planet, it would not be animal cruelty because of the survival exception.

Overall there is some wisdom in Con's argument. That people are brainwashed into thinking eggs are healthy. So, therefore they are acting out of a sense of perceived survival by listening to the media. There has to be some limit to the ignorance defense.

Let's take a human on human violent interaction. Let's say person A gets scared by person B. Person A then shoots and kills person B and claims self-defense. Yet, not every killer gets off on the self-defense clause. If person B was unarmed, asleep, and 2,000 feet away this would make a very poor defense.

The same goes with animals. If a bunch of pigeons were in the middle of a city eating bread crumbs and somebody started firing at them. It would be hard to use a self-defense or survival excuse. At what point do we stop making excuses about ignorance and mass media telling us what to do and own up to our actions? Pretty much everyone has heard of the word vegan and healthy vegans in magazines.

"If people who eat eggs are animal abusers than your are too simply because you are using your computer. Computer's are used at slaughterhouses so you must be cruel to animals." Con

I see no relation between using a computer and being an animal abuser.

"Ignorance does not make someone guilty. Culture is learned. They don't know any different. Ignorance does make someone innocent." Con

For how long can one remain ignorant? At what point does personal responsibility take precedence? Remember ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law. Yes, you could make a valid argument that a one year old fed an egg would be innocent. Eating out of a sense of survival. Yet, there isn't that many Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarians. Many of them at least twenty years old. The majority of them are old enough to know better.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
areeder5011

Con

areeder5011 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
I see you have your definitions squared away in this debate. A good place to start.
No votes have been placed for this debate.