The Instigator
blondesrule502
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
Protagoras
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,395 times Debate No: 4714
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (16)

 

blondesrule502

Pro

Before I start this argument, I just want to say that I am in favor of vegetarianism, I am one myself, but I do not want to force people to be vegetarian, I just want them to see that there are benefits, and like any diet, it does have risks, but it also has solutions.

A pesci vegetarian is a vegetarian that will eat dairy and fish. In many ways this is a beneficial move. Like with any diet, if done the wrong way, it can have health problems. But if done overall well, it reduces the risk for circulatory diseases such as heart disease and cholesterol problems.

People will point out problems such as iron and protein. Sufficient iron levels can be achieved through black beans, cashews, kidney beans, lentils, oatmeal, raisins, black-eyed peas, soybeans, spinach, many breakfast cereals, sunflower seeds, chickpeas, veggie burgers, tomato juice, tempeh, molasses, dairy products, eggs, fish, and whole-wheat bread. Protien is found in legumes and foods made from them (e.g., beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, peanut butter, tofu, tempeh, edamame, soy milk, and faux meats), nuts, seeds, nutritional yeast, dairy products, eggs, fish, and whole grains.

Being pesci vegetarian will also help the environment. Vast tracts of land are needed to grow crops to feed the billions of animals we raise for food each year. According to scientists at the Smithsonian Institute, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed every minute, much of it to create more room for farmed animals. Of all the agricultural land in the U.S., nearly 80 percent is used in some way to raise animals—that's roughly half of the total land mass of the U.S. More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals.

The U.S. certainly isn't alone in its misuse of land for animal agriculture. As the world's appetite for meat increases, countries across the globe are bulldozing huge swaths of land to make more room for animals and the crops to feed them. From tropical rain forests in Brazil to ancient pine forests in China, entire ecosystems are being destroyed to fuel our addiction to meat. According to scientists at the Smithsonian Institute, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed every minute to create more room for farmed animals.

In the United States and around the world, overgrazing leads to the extinction of indigenous plant and animal species, soil erosion, and eventual desertification that renders once-fertile land barren. Livestock grazing is the number one cause of threatened and extinct species both in the United States and in other parts of the world. Philip Fradkin, of the National Audubon Society, states, "The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and subdivision developments combined." As more and more land both in the U.S. and around the world is irreparably damaged at the hands of the meat industry, what little arable land does remain may not be enough to produce crops to feed the burgeoning world human population.
Protagoras

Con

I urge you to put aside your bias, as hard as that may be, and enjoy the arguments that are about to be presented to you.

They will be broken down into 5 different sections:

• Introduction
• On Health
• On Environmentalism
• On Burden
• and Conclusion
____________________

Introduction:

My opponent makes his stance very clear, he is in favor of pesci-vegetarianism because it is beneficial.

The word beneficial is where the conflict lies.

Beneficial, according to dictionary.com, is defined as producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous.

Throughout my rebuttal, I will prove to you that there lacks an inherent advantage in pesci-vegetarianism. Meaning, pesci-vegetarianism is not the most favorable way of eating comparatively.

____________________

On Health:

The advantageous aspect of pesci-vegetarianism may appear clear to most people, the first thing that comes to mind is a healthy person.

BUT being a pesci-vegetarian, does not mean you are a healthy person per say.

A pesci-vegetarian would lack, proper amounts of protein, iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B-12, vital nutrients that a healthy person would need.

My opponent tries to preempt this point by stating that he can obtain a sufficient amount of iron and protein.

I would argue that different types of proteins are made up of different permutations of amino acid chains. In order to create a "complete protein" or a protein that can be assimilated into the human body as tissue, you must consume foods that contain complementary chains of amino acids. The only way that you can achieve this complementarity is through the consumption of certain meats that are prohibited by a pesci-vegetarian diet.

Unfortunately, most, if not all of the foods that my opponent lists, lose most of there protein during the digestion process, thus they are considered "incomplete proteins", in that they fail to provide a sufficient amount of nutrients because they cannot be assimilated into the human body as tissue.

Most importantly, being a pesci-vegetarian does not inherently make you a healthier person, my opponent has yet to prove the contrary.

Furthermore, if my opponent feels as if this is an inadequate justification, I reserve the right to add new arguments in my next speech.

____________________

On environmentalism:

I do not believe that this a benefit of pesci-vegetarianism.

I would argue that the ideology of pesci-vegetarianism, points towards a pre-vegetarian state.

Meaning, the initial purpose of pesci-vegetarianism was to serve as a way for omnivores to have a smooth transition from cows and pigs, down into just fish and eventually into no meat, pesci-vegetarianism being the mid-way point.

Pyramid:

______________________*____________________
___________________-Vegans-___________________
_________________--Vegetarians--___________________
_______________-Pesci-Vegetarians-____________________
_____________--------Omnivores--------_____________________
___________------------Carnivores----------____________________
______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

This is intended to be a very simple pyramid used to chart out the different "stages" of [I guess you wold call it] "feeding preferences", please do not feel offended if your "denomination" is not mentioned, and as a reminder, this is not in order of supremacy, carnivores are not greater than vegans and vice versa.

My point being, as shown by the chart above, pesci-vegetarianism is a state of pre-vegetarianism, a step that most omnivores might want to take before becoming full fledged vegetarians.

The intention behind pesci-vegetarianism is not to save the environment, nor should that be our primary concern.

Furthermore, pesci-vegetarianism, as a practice, does not stop any over grazing or calf-raising inherently. Despite whether or not I am a vegetarian, billions of other people around the world will continue to slaughter animals and animal meat will always be in high-demand simply because it is cheaper than its alternative and needs less care.

Most importantly, we must consider how many jobs would be lost from this action. This includes the producers [farmers] to the vendors [Grocery stores and restaurants] and even to the common working class citizens [waiters, cashiers, restaurant owners etc.]. We also must recognize the negative impact this would make in regards to the financial stability of our country, whether you live in Australia, the US, or England, everyone worldwide would be affected by this movement of shutting down all, or most, animal farms.

The consequence of our action would led to a revolt from farmers, business owners, and working class citizens, whom would quickly fall below the poverty line, all around the world. They would become impoverished simply so that we could please a few extreme environmentalist.

Therefore I purpose that we ought to value human life over cropland "overuse".

Another perspective:

Say we do away with all animal farms, what do we have remaining? Easy. We would have tons of wild animals, doing what you ask? Grazing on the cropland.

So either way, animals are going to procreate, therefore in order to prevent this from going out of control, we ought to limit this growth through consumption, at the very least. To put this into perspective, imagine if all the sharks decided to only eat seaweed, the negative impact would be the immense overpopulation of fish.

____________________

On Burden:

By the definition of "beneficial", my opponent must offer a substantial and unique benefit that you gain from pesci-vegetarianism. In that my opponent has yet to provide you with said benefit, you must default CON.

____________________

Conclusion:

My opponent's points have been properly refuted within this rebuttal. His arguments have either been shown as invalid or pragmatically unsound. Therefore, in interest of the overall well being of society and of the human body, I urge you to vote in my favor.

____________________

Post Script:

I reserve the right to bring up any new arguments.

Thanks for your time,

- Protagoras of Abdera
Debate Round No. 1
blondesrule502

Pro

First of all, the he is a she.

Second, a vegetarian, even lax ones that eat some meat, live about two years older than a person who eats meat on a daily basis. The protein in soy products such as tofu helps to lower LDL (bad cholesterol) and reduces the risk of heart disease. It is also a whole chain, as are the proteins in fish, eggs, shellfish, and other seafood products that they eat. Therefore, they can easily get an adequate amount of protein just like those who eat meat. The protein argument is irrelevant because proper amounts of protein can be achieved and because this also helps your heart, it is beneficial to the body.

Iron facts. You need 14 mg a day if you are a man or a woman after menopause. You need 33 mg a day if you are a woman before menopause.

Here is a list of foods that can help to achieve iron goals. All of these foods have a better amount of iron per calorie than meat.

Food
Amount
Iron (mg)

Soybeans, cooked 1 cup 8.8
Blackstrap molasses 2 Tbsp 7.2
Lentils, cooked 1 cup 6.6
Spinach, cooked 1 cup 6.4
Quinoa, cooked 1 cup 6.3
Tofu 4 ounces 6.0
Bagel, enriched 3 ounces 5.2
Tempeh 1 cup 4.8
Lima beans, cooked 1 cup 4.4
Swiss chard, cooked 1 cup 4.0
Black beans, cooked 1 cup 3.6
Pinto beans, cooked 1 cup 3.5
Turnip greens, cooked 1 cup 3.2
Chickpeas, cooked 1 cup 3.2
Potato 1 large 3.2
Kidney beans, cooked 1 cup 3.0
Prune juice 8 ounces 3.0
Beet greens, cooked 1 cup 2.7
Tahini 2 Tbsp 2.7
Veggie hot dog 1 hot dog 2.7
Peas, cooked 1 cup 2.5
Black-eyed peas, cooked 1 cup 2.3
Cashews 1/4 cup 2.1
Brussels sprouts, cooked 1 cup 1.9
Bok choy, cooked 1 cup 1.8
Bulgur, cooked 1 cup 1.7
Raisins 1/2 cup 1.6
Almonds 1/4 cup 1.5
Apricots, dried 15 halves 1.4
Veggie burger, commercial 1 patty 1.4
Watermelon 1/8 medium 1.4
Soy yogurt 6 ounces 1.1
Tomato juice 8 ounces 1.0
Green beans, cooked 1 cup 1.2
Kale, cooked 1 cup 1.2
Sunflower seeds 1/4 cup 1.2
Broccoli, cooked 1 cup 1.1
Millet, cooked 1 cup 1.1
Sesame seeds 2 Tbsp 1.0

We store between 2 and 5 micrograms of vitamin B12 and only excrete a very small fraction of this each day. They can be found in fortified cereals and multivitamins. It can also be found in fish, and we need very little of it, and the fish can supply us with what we need. Also, the B12 vitamins in red meat come with a lot of unhealthy fats that can clog arteries and become a burden to the human body.

Calcium can be found in milk, cereal, yogurt, and cheese, all of which a pesci vegetarian would eat, and get about as much as a person who eats meat. Therefore, that argument is entirely irrelevant, becasue a meat eater achieves their calcium in the same way.

Pesci vegetarians can also eat oysters, and they have the highest zinc content. Other good food sources include beans, nuts, certain seafood, whole grains, fortified breakfast cereals, and dairy products. This argument as well, is irrelevant. Besides, you are adding two years to your life by doing this.

Pesci vegetarianism does help the environment. Over 100 animals are saved each year, reducing the amount of overgrazing as well as the demand. If many people did this, the amount of overgrazing would go down and would help the environment's weak soil.

Also, a 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. Greenhouse gases cause global warming, which studies show will increasingly lead to catastrophic disasters—like droughts, floods, hurricanes, rising sea levels, and disease outbreaks—unless we drastically reduce the amounts emitted into the atmosphere. Becoming pesci-vegetarian helps to reduce this pollution thus benefiting the environment and your lungs.

Methane: The billions of farmed animals crammed into factory farms produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Methane is more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere.5 Statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency show that animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S.6
Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.7

Eliminating the meat helps a lot with reducing emissions without drastically burdening your health. It is actually better for your health to give up meat because it helps to keep the air that you breath clean so that pollutants have a minimal effect on you.

I do believe that the transition should be made slowly, so that not too many people lose jobs. But people lose their jobs every day, and many are losing jobs today because of the recession. But as usual, they will once again find jobs.

About your "other perspective," how about we give the last of them to places that butcher for the remaining meat eaters, or, just decrease the demand so that the people who don't want to give up meat can have some, but also have people who will eat meat and just lower the amount of land used and cattle, pigs, chicken, etc.

Also, vegetarianism helps to lower high blood pressure, one type of diabetes and some cancers. With the reduced risk of these complications, a person will more likely live longer, which, most people see as beneficial.

Besides, an unhealthy meat diet, for which the average American is responsible for, can lead to the diseases mentioned above, as well as obesity, high LDL. Also, unless getting organic meat, most animals are fed with growth hormone grains, that the animals consume and then you consume, leading to clogged arteries, heart disease, and a weak immune system.
Protagoras

Con

I must admit that your picture is quite misleading. Nevertheless, I apologize for the mix up, and forgive me if I continue to make that same mistake.

Once more voters I urge you to put aside your bias, as hard as that may be, and enjoy the rebuttal that is about to be presented to you.

It will be broken down into 4 different sections:

• On Health
• On Environmentalism
• On Burden
• and Conclusion

________________________________

On Health:

My opponent leaves you with plenty of assumptions within her rebuttal. These consist of the following:

-Vegetarians live 2 years longer than non-vegetarians

-Vegetarians have a lower risk of a heart attack.

-and that My protein argument is irrelevant because proper amounts of protein can be achieved.

These three points, all given in my opponent's first paragraph are clearly assumptions on my opponent's behalf. I could easily counter these points with my own assumptions, but that is not the point of debate. Therefore, until my opponent offers evidence for as to why these points are not assumptions, these points must be dismissed.

___________

A.
-Iron facts

It appears as if a pesci-vegetarian consumes tons of iron. Almost as if the majority of there diet is in fact, iron-rich. As most of you may know, foods are to be taken on balance. Meaning, too much bread and pasta is bad, same with to much sweets. This is proven within the nutritionists approved food pyramid. Furthermore, this over-consumption of iron may have a negative impact upon your body, while my opponent advertises iron as a major part of a pesci-vegetarian diet, I warn you of the negative impact this overdose may do upon your body.

Nonetheless, of ALL of the foods that my opponent has listed, none of these are prohibited by an omnivore diet. Meaning, whatever positive impact that you can gain from a pesci-vegetarian diet, you can achieve with an omnivore diet as well. This means that there isn't an inherent advantage to being a pesci-vegetarian, as all of the foods
listed above could easily be consumed by an omnivore.

Remember: By definition of beneficial, my opponent is arguing that there is an advantageous component to being a pesci-vegetarian, something that omnivores cannot achieve.

Also note that my opponent has yet to offer a counter analysis regarding my protein argument. Therefore, she agrees that pesci-vegetarians cannot achieve a sufficient amount of protein.

___________

B.
-Calcium and Zinc

Milk, cereal, yogurt, cheese, oysters, beans, nuts, certain seafood, whole grains, fortified breakfast cereals and dairy product.

These are the main sources of iron and zinc that my opponent has listed. Once again, these foods are not prohibited by an omnivorous diet, meaning that since these foods are not a specific advantageous benefit on her behalf, she does not gain any ground by listing them.

Remember the definition of beneficial when regarding her arguments. She has yet to offer an advantageous component to pesci-vegetarianism.

____________

Overview of of "On Health"

My opponent does not take into account my definition of beneficial, which is evident within her rebuttal. With that said, you ought to dismiss ANY analysis' that she offers listing a benefit that is not specific to pesci-vegetarianism (i.e. dismiss her entire rebuttal).

Something I want you voters to remember is that being a pesci-vegetarian does not inherently make you a healthier person, whenever my opponent claims that pesci-vegetarians live longer and are healthier than non-pesci vegetarianism, she is influencing a sort of elitism, similar to that of white supremacy.

What I mean is that my opponent is saying that pesci-vegetarians are essentially BETTER that non, this seat of elitism could lead to more conflict in this world. Though a way of eating may not SEEM like a big deal, we cannot afford another means of segregation in an already segregated society.

________________________________

On environmentalism:

The assumptions once again are:

- Over 100 animals are saved each year by pesci-vegetarianism, which reduces the demand for meat.

- Greenhouse gases lead to global warming. (Global warming is highly disputable in existence, therefore it cannot be listed for means of concrete evidence.)

- Pesci-vegetarians reduce pollution.

____________

- Methane and Nitrous Oxide

http://www.goveg.com...

I will attack this from the source, the source is obviously pro-global warming theory, at the bottom of the site it even says "write to Al Gore now", everything that my opponent mentions is basically ASSUMING that global warming actually exists. This is not a debate about whether or not it exists, that debate is quite prevalent within this debate site.

What I mean is that, since the global warming theory has yet to be proven, there is no way you can accept this as concrete evidence, despite what your views are regarding global warming.

Furthermore, cows have been around for millions of years (estimation), but despite that, people have lived quite well within our time of co-existence. We cannot blame cows for our pollution issues, don't you see how absurd that assumption sounds?

___________

-Jobs

The ONLY thing that my opponent claims in regards to my analysis about lost jobs is that the transition should be made gradually. This locks my opponent into a solvency burden, meaning she must now prove how this is possible and how exactly this is beneficial to these people.

Furthermore, my opponent cannot create a gradual movement of pesci-vegetarianism, there is NO way you can force people to eat on a diet and ON TOP OF THAT , make the movement gradual and under control. Not only is my opponent forcing us to eat what she thinks is right, but she is also kicking billions of people out of employment and destroying and multi-trillion dollar industry.

The issue with pragmatism and efficiency is prevalent within my opponent's analysis, therefore you ought to dismiss it.

To my other perspective, my opponent states that we should once again, control people and "decrease the demand so that people want to give up meat", I am not quite sure how someone can achieve this, and assuming that she CAN achieve this somewhat miraculous movement of "decreasing the demand" , that movement would restrict our freedoms and still destroy an establishment that has been around since the beginning of mankind, all because we want to lower CO2 emissions...

_____________

Assumptions:

Please ignore the random assumptions that my opponent has listed at the bottom of this point. She states stuff about lowering high blood pressure and eating unhealthy meat. Both of these issues are not a specific benefit to pesci-vegetarianism because they can be achieved by vegetarians.

___________________________________

On Burden:

By the definition of "beneficial", my opponent must offer a substantial and unique benefit that you gain from pesci-vegetarianism. In that my opponent has yet to provide you with said benefit, you must default CON.

___________________________________

Conclusion:

Throughout this rebuttal, I have proven to you that there lacks an inherent advantage in pesci-vegetarianism. Meaning, pesci-vegetarianism is not the most favorable way of eating comparatively. Furthermore, my opponent has yet to meet her burden, therefore you ought to default CON.

Thanks for your time and consideration,

- Protagoras of Abdera
Debate Round No. 2
blondesrule502

Pro

Though iron, zinc, and calcium are achieved in similar ways to that of a meat eater, the fact that you limit your meat lowers cholesterol, prevents heart disease, and helps you can live two years longer, and most people would see that as beneficial to a person's health.

Yes an omnivore with no dietary restrictions can eat all of these, but it is through limiting meat that the benefit is received.

Once again, whole chains of proteins can be found in eggs, milk, yogurt, beans, brown rice, nuts, and fish.

Also, I am not promoting elitism. If the FDA says that limiting your calorie intake is better than eating 10,000 calories a day, they are not trying to create an elitism. They are merely trying to advise people as to what is healthy.

As for your segregation comment, there are quite a few vegetarians of all dominions of vegetarians (vegan, vegetarian, pesci-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian) and they are not creating any real conflict that is causing violence. Maybe they want to prevent the violence to animals in a peaceful way, just by choosing to not have meat. I used to eat lots of meat and had several vegetarian friends, and they did not try to start WWIII over it.

Very well, say global warming isn't happening. The methane and other harmful gases are polluting the environment and damaging our lungs and putting greenhouse gases into the air that also damage your skin and can possibly lower your life expectancy.

But judging by the fact that the 11 hottest years since recording global temperatures have occurred in the past 13 years, I'd say that there's a decent chance that it could be happening.

Though cows have been around for millions and millions of years, they have not been in the large numbers that we see them in today, making larger amounts of the toxic gases within them.

As for jobs, what about when cars came around? People who were in the carriage business began to lose their jobs. But if many people adopted a form of vegetarianism, manpower for the demands of soy products, vegetables, fruits, and grains would be on the rise, and people who are meat farmers could find their way into these jobs.

If you look at my opening argument, I do not want to force people. I just want them to see that there are benefits. Yes, like with any other idea there are cons, but I'm sure that humanity can solve this much more easily than others.

I know that people will still eat meat, but vegetarians are on the rise, and will decrease the demand for meat. The other perspective is a bit unrealistic. It is a possibility, but chances are that there will still be a meat industry. But if people love animals, then they will see vegetarianism as a benefit, because their goal it to help the animals.

So it is beneficial to health, the environment, it will not hurt the meat industry too much, and it saves animals such as cows, pigs (which are smarter than dogs), calfs, chickens, and ducks.
Protagoras

Con

Once more, voters I urge you to put aside your bias, as hard as that may be, and enjoy the rebuttal that is about to be presented to you.

It will be broken down into 4 different sections:

• On Health
• On Environmentalism
• On Burden
• and Conclusion

________________________________

On Health:

My opponent states, "Yes an omnivore with no dietary restrictions can eat all of these, but it is through limiting meat that the benefit is received."

Therefore, she concedes to the fact that there isn't an advantageous unique benefit to being a pesci-vegetarian, thus, I win off this point because my opponent does not achieve her burden, which is to show that there infact IS a unique benefit.

The only thing she lists as a unique benefit to being a pesci-vegetarian is that they limit their meat consumption, I, as an omnivore, have the freedom to choose whether or not I want to eat tons of meat of a limited amount, therefore, this point is moot in light of the fact that an omnivore can limit there meat consumption, just as much, or even less than, a pesci-vegetarian.

Furthermore, I would argue the benefit my opponent is discussion, is whenever a pesci-vegetarian consumes a limited amount of meat, they are helping the environment, hence, I will assert this argument in the next section titled "On environmentalism", as that would be the most relevant category.

Voters, I strongly urge you to disregard any arguments that my opponent has made about the benefits a pesci-vegetarian can acquire. Yes, a pesci-vegetarian may be able to achieve certain benefits, but, these benefits are not exclusive to pesci-vegetarians, as my opponent points out, an omnivore can achieve the same benefits, hence, this is not unique to pesci-vegetarians, thus, she is not achieving her burden which is justified through the definition of beneficial.

________________________________

On Environmentalism:

My opponent states, "Very well, say global warming isn't happening. The methane and other harmful gases are polluting the environment and damaging our lungs and putting greenhouse gases into the air that also damage your skin and can possibly lower your life expectancy."

This is a huge assumption on my opponents behalf, simply because she does not give us any evidence for as to why this is true, insofar as this lacks professional evidence, you ought to dismiss this claim.

For argument's sake, let's assume that my opponent is correct in her analysis, I would argue that we must remember that the negative impacts that exist within the status quo, in regards to pollution and breathing hazards have a highly minimal impact in our day-to-day lives.

Unless you have asthma or are overwieght, ask yourself, how often do you have breathing difficulties? As with the majority of the population, you'd answer, "not frequently, or rarely", this is because despite pollution and despite many of these "harmful" gases that exist today, we are not suffering to the point in which we ought to leave billions of people jobless.

Once again, my opponent is valuing mere pollution that comes from farms OVER that of the value of life for billions of workers internationally.

Which should we prioritize?

PRO would say that we should care more about minimizing pollution, despite whether or not people lose there jobs and trillions of dollars go down the drain.

While CON would say, despite the minimal pollution gathered through farming, we ought to value the prosperity of our world economically, because the status quo cannot afford more poverty, in the most literal sense.

________

My opponent then argues that, like carriage makers to cars, meat farmers should learn how to adjust to change.

I would argue that this is an improper comparison, this is because, unlike meat, carriages were typically for the middle class citizen, carriages were seen as a luxury, not a necessity, therefore the demand for them was significantly lower than that of present day meat.

Meat has been consumed since the beginning of time, and my opponent believes that we can simply do away with eating meat and conform to what she considers a benefit to society.

________

My opponent clearly mishandles my argument regarding segregation and elitism, she actually creates a mockery out of said notion.

What I mean by this elitism that my opponent makes is that, whenever someone claims what thy are is better than what everyone else is, thus we should try and be more like them, they are claiming a position of elitism, by definition. My opponent is essentially saying that pesci-vegetarians are healthier and care more for the environment, no, this does not mean WWIII, but, it does mean that my opponent is claiming an elitist position.

_________

You ought to dismiss my opponent's point regarding the positive environmental impact, because the negative economical impact outweighs the positive.

So, since the negatives outweigh the positives, this is in fact not a benefit, therefore this point is dismissed, leaving my opponent with no case, no justification, thus you ought to vote CON.

________________________________

On Burden:

By the definition of "beneficial", my opponent must offer a substantial and unique benefit that you gain from pesci-vegetarianism. In that my opponent has yet to provide you with said benefit, you must default CON.

________________________________

Conclusion:

My opponent has stated that there is a beneficial, meaning advantageous aspect to being a pesci-vegetarian, yet she has yet to fulfill that promise.

She gives you two points to consider, one being the health benefits, and the other being environmental.

I have properly dismissed both. The former being non-unique to pesci-vegetarians, in that omnivore's have the ability to achieve said benefit, and the latter as simply not a benefit at all, in that the negatives outweigh the positives, thus, since both claims have been properly dismissed, you must vote CON, despite an of your previous bias to this matter.
Debate Round No. 3
blondesrule502

Pro

Once again, yes you can get nutrition but you do not get the extra two years of life, according to the German Cancer Research Center, Loma Linda University, and many other studies. The oldest woman ever was a vegetarian, and even if people smoke and are vegetarians they generally have a longer life expectancy. They are also less likely to have cancer and osteoporosis.

Unless you have an IQ so low that you need a tape to tell you to breath, having these reduced risks and longevity of life would be seen as healthy due to the fact that you restrict your meat intake. Why is it so hard to comprehend?

I would like to remind voters that even though these benefits are achieved through other forms of vegetarianism, pesci-vegetarianism is still beneficial.

I would also like to remind you that there would not be billions of people jobless. We created diversified economies for this very reason. The fish industry would need more workers, as would the soy industry. Yes, jobs in the meat industry will disappear, but with new demands comes new jobs. And please remember, I never said that everyone should go vegetarian and not everyone will, but the people who do it (the number of vegetarians have increased to 10 times the number that they used to be), will benefit the environment, and if it keeps on growing at this rate, the economy will be able to go into a smooth transition.

About elitism once more, people could make the same argument about gyms and other health centers. So maybe it is a type of elitism. Does it have a negative impact? Some people could say that because people are getting healthy that TV industries are at steak, which they are. But we do not see this as something that it necessarily harmful. That will not cause a WWIII, and neither will pesci-vegetarianism, as my opponent points out, so why won't people at least have respect for the idea.

Besides, once again going back to the environment, will the environment wait for the economy to be perfect? No, which is why sometimes we have to realize that the earth itself is more important than money.

My opponent claims that economic impacts outweigh environmental impacts. Which is more important I ask you? The air you breath or the green in your wallet? The earth you live on or your job that depends on the earth give us a healthy environment. Well, with methane and nitrus oxide emitted from the animals that you eat every day make the economy worsen because the earth worsens.

When the health of the earth is at steak, we simply cannot continue to ignore it and let it get worse as we become selfish and decide to not help.

CON says that this way of eating is horrible overall, but really it is part of a solution to our problems, because we live longer, we help the earth, we take away jobs but give new ones. It helps the air in your lungs and the earth that you see every day.
Protagoras

Con

I cannot believe that my stupid computer decided to freeze after I had spent two hours writing a rebuttal for this topic! Oh well...

In interest of time and because I understand that this was an extremely lengthy debate, I will only assert the burden, remember, if my opponent does not achieve her burden she can not win.

I have expressed this point throughout ALL of my rebuttals, yet, my opponent never answers this issue.

_________________________________

Understanding the Burden:

Burden, in a debate context, is defined as something that a debater must achieve in order to win the debate.

I have expressed my opponent's burden multiple times within the past three rounds, yet, she chose to ignore this critical issue.

Beneficial, according to dictionary.com, is defined as producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous.

Thus establishing the following burden:

By the definition of "beneficial", my opponent must offer a substantial and unique benefit that you gain from pesci-vegetarianism.
_________________________________

Why I win:

My opponent NEVER shows you a unique benfit, in fact, she even admits that the benefits gained through pesci-vegetarianism are NOT unique. She agrees an omnivore can be just as healthy as a pesci-vegetarian, she even admits that a vegetarian can be HEALTHIER than a pesci-vegetarian, [recall her oldest woman alive example, whom was a vegetarian], furthermore, my opponent then concedes that the environment issue could be solved by people becoming vegetarians or vegans, thus any envoronmental benefit she offers is not unique to pesci-vegetarianism.

__________________________________

Conclusion:

Despite whether or not you personally agree with my purposed burden, you must accept it, this is because my opponent NEVER offers ANY arguments against it, hence, you must default CON in light of the fact that my opponent has not achieved her burden.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

- Protagoras of Abdera

P.S.

Please remember that I have offered valid responses to my opponent's case separate from the burden, please take that into account if you still hapen to disagree with the burden.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
We understand...besides according to s0m31john, your RL avatar, helps you get free vots, lol.
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
Thanks Xera for the sigh of relief, I was afraid others wouldn't understand my burden arguments.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
I'm voting con because pro failed to make all of her points specific to ONLY pesci-vegitarians.
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
Thank you, taking the unintuitive position is my purpose in joining this site. Also, thank you for aiding me with this movement. I agree, it is difficult to do this, but only if someone is concerned with there win ratio, to which, fortunately, I am not very concerned with presently.

Ah, I understand what you mean now in your first point, and I should've mentioned your second point, as that probably would've convinced quite a few.

Human nature is inherently selfish, which is why I agree with your last statement.

All-in-all, I think my opponent did fairly well, and I was empressed by her arguments, even stumped at times.

Great job, blondesrule502!
Posted by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
first i would like to complement u on a good debate. I like debating the unintuitive position, as you have done here. Unfortunately its always harder b/c people will vote against you w/o reading your argument at all.

-1st point- you did include my first point into your rebuttal. In fact it is your point.

"ALL of the foods that my opponent has listed, none of these are prohibited by an omnivore diet. Meaning, whatever positive impact that you can gain from a pesci-vegetarian diet, you can achieve with an omnivore diet as well. This means that there isn't an inherent advantage to being a pesci-vegetarian, as all of the foods"

2nd - The point i was making about the fish is that if everyone who is currently an omnivore became a pescitarian it would devastate the oceans severely and they are already devastated. Claiming that the environment would benefit from world wide pescitarianism is not based on solid ground to say the least. Now if she were talking about vegetarianism that would be another story.

eitherway, the problem arises (which you stated) convincing one person will do nothing to help the environment and the whole world will never be persuaded b/c ultimately when it comes down to personal hedonism vs. our children's future (whom we won't even be around to see) human nature says personal hedonism.
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
Yeah, okay, thanks for your commentary.

First point:

I was going to adapt your first point into my first rebuttal, but I found that concept somewhat obscure, therefore I chose to disregard it, but all-in-all, it is a good point.

__________

Second point:

I don't understand where you're getting at in your second point, mind to explain? I think it might actually be a good point.

__________

Domestication:

I'm not familiar for as to how we humans made cows exactly, but sure.

__________

Theory explanation:

I am quite familiar with scientific theory's I actually major in Philosophy and minor Political Science here at my University, but thanks for explaining nonetheless, for I might've forgotten what a theory was.

:P

___________

Video:

I haven't seen the video yet, but I plan to in the near future...

___________

Thanks for your comment,

- Protagoras of Abdera
Posted by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
I have to say i came into this debate siding with con, but was really swayed by pros arguments. Con made some really terrible arguments. I think Pro's arguments were better over all but there are two huge holes in her reasoning and b/c the burden is on her i have to side with con.

1.You cannot say that pesci-vegetarianism has health benefits to omnivorism b/c every thing a pescitarian can eat an omnivore can eat as well. If a pescitarian ate the slightest morsel of red meat, he would immediately have to be labeled an omnivore. ANd i doubt that one morsel of meat would have any effect on health.

> remember we're all vegetarian between meals :P <

2. Also your argument about the environment would have been stronger if you stuck with plain vegetarianism. You completely overlooked 70% of the earth's surface, our oceans. Fishermen has devastated our fish populations.

Con... just so you know, cows would not exist without humans. We created them my domesticating their ancestors just as we created dogs by domesticating wolves.

and further more... no scientific theory has ever been proven, b/c science does not prove anything to be true. I am so tired to this blatant misconception. Science proves things beyond a reasonable doubt that is all it claims to do.

i leave you with this
http://www.ted.com...
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
Good luck blonderule502, this debate has been one of my most lengthy, and interesting thus far.

I enjoyed it,

- Protagoras of Abdera
Posted by blondesrule502 9 years ago
blondesrule502
A pretty face can only get you so far, strong words inspire the minds of the people who read them. For without literary greatness, there would be no inspirational people to help solve the world's problems. A pretty face though I have it, would only consume the world in shallowness. Though both combined helps, people will be more likely to focus on what does not matter.
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
Notice the sarcasm*
(25 characters)
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 9 years ago
TheSkeptic
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pakipride 9 years ago
pakipride
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by BlondE9 9 years ago
BlondE9
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by CryastalClear 9 years ago
CryastalClear
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PBleeker999 9 years ago
PBleeker999
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kracine 9 years ago
kracine
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blondesrule502 9 years ago
blondesrule502
blondesrule502ProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30