The Instigator
Im_always_right
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Pro's choice

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 8/4/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,302 times Debate No: 4902
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Im_always_right

Con

Okay, I am up for a challanging debate. Pick a topic, but I will be on the side I disagree with. It can be something you agree/disagree with. Choose 3-5 topics you are willing to debate, list them in order of preferance.

I am attemptempting to argue something that is against my beliefs btw.
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

Great idea righty....

I took a gander at your positions as listed on your profile and am choosing topics that we disagree on, so we can both argue from an opposing viewpoint. That way, we may offer each other a viewpoint that will actually help our argumentts in the future.....Cool?

Here are the topics that we disagree on:

1. Abortion, I would be con, you pro.
2. Labor Unions, you con, me pro.
3. Patriotism, you con, me pro
4. Vegatarianism, you con, me pro.

Choice is up to you now, this should be fun.....
Debate Round No. 1
Im_always_right

Con

Vegatarianism

The deffinition: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Strict Vegetarianism does not give one all of the nutritional things that humans need to survive. Even with the vegie-burgers and tofu, among other things do not give enough substancial protein to live on.

It is also unnatural

unnatural, meaning something that does not happen naturally,
naturally meaning, found in nature. Yes some animals are herbavores, but humans are omnivores meaning, they are not herbavores, nor carnavores, but they need plant and animal food to survive. Our bodies need both meat and vegtables in order to function properly.

Example: Bears are omnivores as well. how often have you seen a bear in noture, not eat fish? Yes it eats berries, as well, as an omnivore should. However, the bear cannot live a very healthy life. Thus humans cannot live a life soley on fruits and vegtables.

We as the race of humanity need to live as naturally as we can, thus Vegetarianism is an abomination of our sociaty.

I have more arguements but save them for the round 2 of this debate (or round 3 if you prefer)
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

First off let me thank my opponent for the opportunity to explore this important subject. During the course of this debate three points will become abundantly clear to the reader.

1. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more healthy for humans.
2. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more humane.
3. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is better for the ecosystem.

It is my hope that the reader and my opponent see the clear advantages to vegetarianism as a more reasonable way of life.

In his opening statement my opponent makes the claim that vegetarianism doesn't provide humans with enough nutrition, specifically protein. I submit that this claim is patently false. Most foods contain at least some protein. Sources of protein for vegetarians include nuts and seeds, pulses, soya products (tofu, soya milk and textured soya protein such as soya mince), cereals (wheat, oats, and rice). The lack of protein argument is one made up by flesh eaters and is not at all supported by nutritional studies.

In fact in relation to human health, studies have shown that vegetarians often have lower incidence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, obesity and some forms of cancer, and actually tend to have longer life spans.
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org...
http://www.ajcn.org...
http://www.ajcn.org...

Vegetarianism is morally superior to the carnivore lifestyle. My opponent makes the claim that it is 'unnatural'. Many of the things that modern humans choose to do with their lives are 'unnatural', but serve to create a better, more humane experience for those around us. For instance much of modern medicine is not at all natural, yet we participate in it because it is more conducive for living a longer life and more empathetic towards other humans. I submit that as humans we have a moral responsibility to maintain the well being of other species around us. All life should be valued, and the practice of slaughtering animals, when there are valid alternatives is simply barbaric and backwards. It is something you would expect from an undereducated society, two thousand years ago, but in this day and age, we should evolve morally to avoid killing other things for our own pleasure.

If there are alternatives to meat, then in essence humans are only killing for pleasure, which is similar to watching cock fights, bull fights, dog fights or inflicting pain on animals for entertainment. We all agree that inflicting death and pain on animals for pleasure is morally reprehensible, (I hope), so it is time that we acknowledge what the carnivore lifestyle is TRULY promoting.

I will save my third point for round 3...

http://search.playlist.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Im_always_right

Con

I thank my opponent for complying in this debate and I hope I can make some good arguments.

First my opponent attacks nutrition, and protein. Other than meats, there is not a lot of protein in foods such as nuts. Besides, using cause and effect, beCAUSE people will turn to vegetarianism, less people will eat the animals designed to be eaten by humans, thus increasing the amount of cattle, poultry, and pig/hog (whatever you want to call pork), without increasing the amount of room/their food. By doing that, you cause their population to dramatically drop, due to starvation.

My opponent says that medication is not natural, when some of it is. The Native Americans used to make medication from plants, with no artificial flavors or benefits, so I can see that medication is sometimes natural. To this day you can find natural medicines for almost anything.

http://naturalmedications.com...

This is a lot more natural than going against what we are. As I have stated humans are designed to eat both plants and meats, therefore, it is only natural for us to eat such foods.

My opponent's next argument is that vegetarianism is more moral than eating meat. How would it be against our morals to eat what was intended for us to eat? Would it not be more immoral than to let the offspring suffer, and starve, due to the fact there is more of them than there is hunters of them? Why would letting living breathing creatures, their due in at least living a productive life?

No it is not like watching cocks fight, or any other animal. If most of us become vegetarians than that would be like watching animals kill each other for fun, my reasoning is the fact that I have brought up twice, that if the population suddenly is not hunted as much, they will make the same number of offspring, and less food, which btw is plants for most of the animals listed, sometimes nuts in the case of poultry.

This link is 10 reasons why man is not a vegearian, please read it. It is the rest of my arguement for this round.

http://bodybuilding.com...

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

My opponent makes some very important points.

However the fear that the world will be overrun by chickens, cows and pigs is a misnomer as nature has a way of culling overpopulations through starvation, disease and natural predation without human interference. For instance, when a pride of lions becomes too big, it faces starvation due to the lack of food. In a similar fashion, chickens, left to their own devices and unharrased by Colonel Sanders would eventually be brought back to reasonable levels by nature and interstate highways. Domestic animal populations would drop dramatically which would in turn be very good for our ecosystem, a point I was planning to bring up in later rounds but you beat me to it.

Note I never claimed that medication was unnatural, the claim was that much of modern medicine is unnatural, meaning surgical techniques like taking veins from legs and placing them in hearts is an unnatural act, yet we do it to prolong life.

Native Americans did use 'natural medicine' however I would argue that their track record for curing Malaria is quite a bit lower than that of modern inoculation, an unnatural act.

My opponent claims that humans were designed to eat meat, an assumption that explains incisors, but not reason. I contend that man evolved as meat eaters, but is still in the process of evolution and is moving towards a less carnivorous lifestyle. As proof I offer the teeth of ancient monkeys and our common ancestor as compared with modern man. We can clearly see that our incisors have been dramatically reduced, while our molars take up much more oral real estate, proof that mankind is adapting to a vegetarian existence.

Finally my opponent compels the reader to go to a body building website that promotes the murder of animals. To be blunt, when my car is broken I take it to a mechanic not a dentist, and attempting to get reasoned advice from a bodybuilder is similar to getting a molar extracted by a small engine repair man.

;-)
Debate Round No. 3
Im_always_right

Con

I think my opponent misunderstands the website I provided, but I will go in order.

"However the fear that the world will be overrun by chickens, cows and pigs is a misnomer as nature has a way of culling overpopulations through starvation, disease and natural predation without human interference. For instance, when a pride of lions becomes too big, it faces starvation due to the lack of food. In a similar fashion, chickens, left to their own devices and unharrased by Colonel Sanders would eventually be brought back to reasonable levels by nature and interstate highways. Domestic animal populations would drop dramatically which would in turn be very good for our ecosystem, a point I was planning to bring up in later rounds but you beat me to it."

My opponent clearly misunderstands me. The way we now kill our food, is MUCH more humane than letting them starve to death or become ill. I never said anything about a fear of pigs, cow or chicken. What I am saying is that we as humans, are the predator, of most animals. Of coarse there are SOME other animals that wouldn't mind having a chicken or two, such as coyotes. Most of the wild animals that would eat livestock is used to not going near it though, due to our likelihood of shooting them. I find it cruel to have the ability to humanely kill an animal, but letting it starve, be eaten alive, or become ill with decease.

"Note I never claimed that medication was unnatural, the claim was that much of modern medicine is unnatural, meaning surgical techniques like taking veins from legs and placing them in hearts is an unnatural act, yet we do it to prolong life."

Yes but not a vast majority of people get leg veins in their heart, the majority of people eat meat. Meat is natural for us as an omnivorous animal, to eat a healthy mixture of veggies, and meats.

"Native Americans did use 'natural medicine' however I would argue that their track record for curing Malaria is quite a bit lower than that of modern inoculation, an unnatural act."

Yes they used natural medication, and it wasn't as good. Now however we have more knowledge of what the human body needs to stay healthy. Now natural medicines can cure almost anything. Humans have not eaten veggies for all of our existence meaning meat is more natural, than vegetables, for our consumption.

"My opponent claims that humans were designed to eat meat, an assumption that explains incisors, but not reason. I contend that man evolved as meat eaters, but is still in the process of evolution and is moving towards a less carnivorous lifestyle. As proof I offer the teeth of ancient monkeys and our common ancestor as compared with modern man. We can clearly see that our incisors have been dramatically reduced, while our molars take up much more oral real estate, proof that mankind is adapting to a vegetarian existence."

Yes we as humans are designed to eat meat, and also that we were meat eaters, before we were omnivores. However I believe that we have changed, as far as eating habits, as much as we will. No we are not adapting to a vegetarian life, we WERE adapting to an omnivourious life. Since our teeth are designed to eat bith meats and vegtables we should eat them both not just one.

"Finally my opponent compels the reader to go to a body building website that promotes the murder of animals. To be blunt, when my car is broken I take it to a mechanic not a dentist, and attempting to get reasoned advice from a bodybuilder is similar to getting a molar extracted by a small engine repair man.'

LOL, not eating the animals is murder. Now don't go saying I am an idiot for saying that, because, instead of allowing the animals to die quickly and nearly painlessley, but forcing them to starve. Instead of murdering the animals for food that would be murdering the animals for no reason. It is worse to kill without a purpose (aka letting an animal suffer until it dies) rather than kiling it humanely, and using the meat skin fur, and sometimes even bones of the animal.

Also here are the points the link points out (without the details):

1) PH Balance

2) Cellulace

3) Man Is An Omnivore

4) Animal Testing

5) Gorillas

6) Vegetarianism For Bodybuilders

7) Nutrients

8) Milk

9) Religion

and...

10) Hippocrates, Father of Nutrition

If you accept any of the above as reasons then you must understand that man is not a vegetarian.

I hope I proved my point well, and I urge you as voters to vote con.
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

Blessed-Cheese-Maker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Im_always_right

Con

I don't like forfeits.... I hope I don't forfeit. Extend my points, will be gone 1 week.

one hundred characters...
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

Sorry about that, work and the weekend caught up with me and I haven't had the time needed to argue the merits of vegetarianism.... ;-)

Due to my opponents, likely hood of not touching meat while on vacation, I contend that my argument has persuaded him, and should therefore persuade the voter.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
BCM:
I ate lasagna for dinner and a CHHICKEN sandwitch for lunch 2day...I think I have eaten meat.

LOL....

I am not a vegetarien BTW, I like eating steak to much, I just don't disagree with people not eating meat....there are plenty of people like me who don't have enough self diciplin to not eat that nice mediem rare T-bone...

So ha his last arguement failed.... this doesn't really count though just a personal rant.

Also the he is a she, so no part holds true, lol.

============================================================

Zerosmelt:

What part of religion? thereis a pretty wide variety of topics 'religion' falls under.

============================================================

Voters:

Also how does he have all the votes? He forfeited (and apologized),but didn't argue against my round 4 points.
Posted by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
"I am attemptempting to argue something that is against my beliefs btw."

care to argue against religion with me?
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
hopefully up the win ratio...
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
LOL, yeahm IDK how good of an arguement I can give since I don't feel very strong for it, but I am not against it and have only seen one debate. I can try though, lol.

Fun way to unwind and maybe up the win ratio along the way :P.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Its a great idea, when ever I feel very strongly about a subject, I try to think about the ways I would argue the opposing position, because whenever you are emotionally attached to a position, there is a strong chance that you are missing something important...

This is gonna be a blast....
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
LOL, this was Xera's idea, and it feels kind of weird, but not all that hard, oddly enough.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
Im_always_rightBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 indianajones644 9 years ago
indianajones644
Im_always_rightBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by commontruth 9 years ago
commontruth
Im_always_rightBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by stand4something 9 years ago
stand4something
Im_always_rightBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
Im_always_rightBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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:03