Should Humans Eat Meat?
Debate Rounds (2)
Second, meat gives you fiber and protein both of which make you healthier. While it is true that humans can subsist on a vegetarian diet, look at these key points:
1. Meat tastes good and is naturally edible.
2. Meat makes you stronger and smarter.
3. The myth that meat makes you fat is idiotic, for dairy gives you up to 500% more fat per ounce than meat. Meat should still be eaten WITH vegetables for diet moderation.
4. Meat helps prevent the spread of cancer.
Now, the idea that humans should take sympathy to animals who can feel and should not be killed for food is completely falsely based. Who are you to judge what can feel and what cannot? After all, most of human society believed that animals were not (or barely) alive until science proved otherwise. And therefore, should we stop eating plants and dairy as well? Taken to that extent, it thus proves that prevention of subjective death among other organisms is no cause for excluding things from your diet. Is life not a battle for survival?
Of course, I would agree that eating other members of your own kind would be wrong, as they are directly apart of your society and you can communicate and work with them on a basis you cannot with any other life form. That rank is yet to be met by non-humans.
I therefore believe that life as we know it is objective and decisions should be made (as they are with other animals) as of means to survive, not of means to help members of other species survive. I rest my case.
Pro immediately mention that meat is a source of fiber and protein, however it is not an exclusive source of either of the two. Meat actually provides very little dietary fiber, and three ounces of ground beef contains 0 grams, according to the USDA. While meat is a good source of protein, other plant based sources such as dairy, eggs, tofu, and beans can provide almost as much per 100 grams, and come without the bad side effects of eating meat.
I'll now respond to my opponent's points in order.
1. Meat tasting good is entirely objective. Pro calls meat "naturally edible," but humans were not actually designed to eat meat. Let's compare a few characteristics of humans (P,) herbivores (H,) carnivores (C,) and omnivores (C,) based off information from Milton Mills MD:
Jaw Muscles: P: Masseter and ptergoids, H: Masseter and ptergoids, C: Temporalis, O: Temporlis
Chewing: P: Extensive Chewing, H: Extensive Chewing, C: None, O: None or Crushing
Canine Teeth: P: Short and Blunted, H: Dull and Short, C: Long, Sharp, and Curved, O: Long, Sharp, and Curved
Saliva: P: Carbohydrate Digestive Enzymes, H: Carbohydrate Digestive Enzymes, C: None, O: None
Stomach Acidity: P: 4-5 pH, H: 4-5 pH, C: <1 pH, O: ,1 pH
Nails: P: Flattened nails, H: Flattened nails or blunt hooves, C: Sharp claws, C: Sharp claws
As you can see, humans were not designed to eat meat.
2. Meat actually does not make you stronger. While meat does contain protein, modern factory farmed meat often contains harmful chemicals. According to the American Heart Association, eating meat is the leading cause of heart disease and high cholesterol.
3. I have nothing to respond to, as my opponent has not presented any sources in this round.
4. Meat most certainly does not help prevent the spread of cancer! Eating meat can raise your chances of pancreatic cancer by 50%, and your chance of breast cancer by almost 30%, according to CNN!
My opponent's third to last paragraph implies that we should not care about the well-being of animals, as we have no way of knowing that they can feel pain. This is simply false. Pigs, for instance, are smart, capable animals that are smarter than the average three year old human. Animals live on the same level as humans, and while life is a "battle for survival" as mentioned by my opponent, humans have no need to eat meat, and because of this, we cannot justify the suffering we bring upon animals.
Humans do bond with animals, sometimes even more than with other humans, and they are a part of society.
Even if I were to accept my opponent's last statement that "life as we know it is objective and decisions should be made as of means to survive," this is irrelevant, as I have shown that eating animals is not needed nor is it healthy. For these reasons, humans should not eat meat.
If meat tastes good to you, you should eat it. After all, God gave you your food instincts to guide your eating habits, and should you throw away something God gave you? In the wild, if you are hungry and you see a chicken, you try to catch it and eat it. That proves that humans are meant to catch and eat meat, whereas herbivores do not share that hunting instinct.
And if humans aren't supposed to eat meat --as you clearly emphasized-- then why do many vegetarians consistently buy products that look like meat but aren't (tofu and veggie burgers, hotdogs, sausages, etc.). Are those cravings for a good burger just idiocy, or are they the need for a good balanced diet. Therefore, your argument rests on animal cruelty, as vegetarians would prefer to pretend they are eating meat. Your statement concerning factory farms is correct, that is cruel. However, the ever-increasing demand for normal meat (farm-raised) has lead to a near extinction of warehouse chickens, cows, and pigs.
I don't find it cruel to feed and protect a chicken all it's life and humanely kill it for food. I think that it's a good bargain for an animal who would be mauled to death quickly in the wild.
Pro stated that "If meat tastes good to you, you should eat it," however this statement makes no sense. Antifreeze, well know to be deadly, tastes very sweet. Manchineels, a fruit that look and taste like apples, is another example of a "food" that tastes good being deadly. Whether God exists is debatable, however assuming that he does, there is still overwhelming evidence that he did not intend for humans to eat meat. For instance, in Genesis 1: 30, God says that "To every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food," but God does mention meat. My opponent stated that " In the wild, if you are hungry and you see a chicken, you try to catch it and eat it." This statement means nothing in modern society, as if a human were to be stranded in the wild today, they would only chase the chicken because they are widely eaten in modern society.
Vegetarians, vegans, and health conscious people often purchase artificial meat, as my opponent stated, however, once again, this does not show that humans were meant to eat meat. Electronic cigarettes are often used by those that once smoked real cigarettes. Does this mean that humans were meant to smoke? Of course not.
In Pro's third paragraph, my opponent makes a claim that is completely incorrect. Pro claims that "the ever-increasing demand for normal meat (farm-raised) has lead to a near extinction of warehouse chickens, cows, and pigs." As you can see at the website I link to below, there are a HUGE number of factory farms in the United States, with more than a billion factory farmed animals in the United States.
In this debate, Pro has failed to effectively show that humans were designed to, or should eat meat. Please vote con!
Thank you themightyindividual for a fun, short debate, and thank you to the readers and voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: con showed sufficiently that, not only did pro have a lack of sources supporting the benefits of meat, but also that his arguments lacked assertions that made them work, especially the ones about delicacy of the meat and the way "human was meant to eat meat", while con proved that human weren't actually made to eat meat. Good job.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.