"Pink Slime" in ground meat?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
WriterSelbe
| Started: | 4/23/2012 | Category: | Health |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,137 times | Debate No: | 23114 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)
|
Pink Slime is a BIG topic in my community. "What is pink slime" you may be asking. Pink slime is a vitamin added to certain ground meats to kill any E-coli and other bacteriae. But it can also cause certain diseases. Most people say that they barely put any in, so it's not likely to get those diseases. But they usually add a substancial amount. Let's hear what you think!
Firstly, the phrase 'pink slime' is slanderous as LFTB is approved by the USDA (http://lancasterfarming.com...-). The accusations against LFTB arose from an undereducated blogger on a website called 'thelunchtray.' The woman did not really know what she was talking about. Secondly, the chemical that makes LFTB supposedly dangerous is ammonia, and ammonia is present in the human body. There is more ammonia in peanut butter and cheese than in the LFTB (http://beefproducts.com...). The human body produces ammonia to cleanse itself in small amounts and ammonia is essential for living. Ammonia naturally cleanses the meat and keeps the body safe. If any meat is dangerous and disease-causing, it is meat without ammonia in it. So, LFTB is healthy. |
![]() |
|
anything that needs to be treated with ammonia hydroxide gas doesn't belong on our plates. http://theweek.com.... Like you said, don't we have enough ammonia in our bodies? As for hydroxide. " A compound of a metal with the hydroxide ion OH". You seriously think that we need a metallic compound in our systems?
Actually, ammonium hydroxide is only liquid ammonia. Nothing more, nothing less (http://www.pumpschool.com...). Any arguments that it is bad for you are void. |
![]() |
|
Okay. But, ammonia hydroxide isn't the only thing found in pink slime. We can't forget about our old friends! Ten years ago, the rejected fat, sinew, bloody effluvia, and occasional bits of meat cut from carcasses in the slaughterhouse were a low-value waste product called 'trimmings' that were sold primarily as pet food. No more. Now, Beef Products Inc. of South Dakota transforms trimmings into something they call 'boneless lean beef.' In huge factories, the company liquefies the trimmings and uses a spinning centrifuge to separate the sinews and fats from the meat, leaving a mash that has been described as 'pink slime,' which is then frozen into small squares and sold as a low-cost additive to hamburger. Now, what are sinew and effluvia, you ask? I'll tell you! First of all, sinew is, and I quote, " A piece of tough fibrous tissue uniting muscle to bone or bone to bone; a tendon or ligament." http://www.google.com... As for effluvia, and I quote, " An unpleasant or harmful odor, secretion, or discharge." http://www.google.com.... YUM!!! How would you like to be thinking about that EVERY time you eat a burger?
Firstly, the USDA approves of it because the ammonium hydroxide cleanses the effluvia so it isn't harmful. As for connective tissue, that's the same thing you're eating when you eat a chicken wing or a drumstick. Connective tissue is the meat between the bones. Also, seeing as my opponent only provides definitions rather than evidence this effluvia is in 'pink slime,' the argument cannot be taken seriously. Finally, because LFTB is cheapest and healthiest, and also approved by the USDA, LFTB is the best choice. |
![]() |
Post a Comment
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by WriterSelbe 1 year ago

Report this Comment
Posted by zach12 1 year ago

Report this Comment
Posted by zach12 1 year ago

Report this Comment
Posted by Pejosu123 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by imachair 1 year ago

Report this Comment
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 1 year ago
| Pejosu123 | WriterSelbe | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | ![]() | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Easy vote for Pro. The only thing resembling a resolution was "it can also cause certain diseases" and no evidence for that was ever brought forth. Con's arguments seemed to revolve around misunderstood words sounding scary.
Vote Placed by seraine 1 year ago
| Pejosu123 | WriterSelbe | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | ![]() | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: The only non-definition source Con presented actually contradicted his arguments, and he had bad grammar. The first two rounds' arguments were destroyed by Pro, and the last round was just providing definitions without any sources to back it up. Clear win for Pro, 6:0.







