The Instigator
jhenley9111
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AizenSousuke
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should animals be eaten or hunted for sport?

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 1 vote the winner is...
AizenSousuke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 993 times Debate No: 46045
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

jhenley9111

Con

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I would like for my opponent to go first.
Here is my argument: Animals should not be hunted or eaten for pleasure. Best of luck.
AizenSousuke

Pro

I accept the challenge.
I have no outstanding comments to make on the definitions of the terms, as they are self-explanatory.
This debate should be weighed on facts.

I will argue that it is acceptable to hunt animals for sport, and that it is acceptable to eat animal meat for pleasure.

I. Animal meat eating

Animal meat eating in itself is good, and eating for pleasure is perfectly acceptable

1. Dietary

Humans and their ancestors have, for millions of years, evolved to be omnivorous. Omnivorous being defined as "including both animal and vegetable tissue in the diet". Humans have the ability to digest and take nutrients from most any source of food. Although diets may range from being primarily vegetarian to primarily carnivorous, food sciences have shown that is is unhealthy to exclusively rely on only one of the two. Humans on an exclusively herbivore diet often suffer from a vitamin B12 deficiency(1) as well as vitamin D deficiency(2).

Humans are meant to eat meat, and it is against fundamental human biology not to.

2. Ecological

Without constant human culling, certain species' populations would flood out of control. Such species are the ones that humans provide favorable conditions to, such as rabbits, swine, cows, and chicken. If people did not eat these animals, we would find ourselves with a huge amount of surplus livestock. Today there are over "1.3 billion cattle" alone (3). It would be unreasonable to just leave them to die in the wild, or put them all down. This would result in a massive amount of wasted deaths, as we would not be using the animals, we would just have to dig mass graves for them.

3. Food is pleasure

All animals have at the very least developed a simple nervous system capable of releasing a form of pleasure. Pleasure is a natural and often necessary tool for survival. It pushes organisms to do things that have been deemed "good" by evolution.

The basic main natural sources of pleasure in great apes, such as humans, are:

Eating food
Sex
Rest/good health
Success - i.e. earning a reward
Emotional/social - i.e. from friendship, love, interpersonal bonds, etc.

When something is pleasurable, it is difficult to form an aversion to it, and thus we are more willing to repeat it.

Food is a pleasurable experience, as it keeps a person alive, and thus is extremely important to evolution, and thus is very pleasurable. To deny the pleasures of eating food is to deny the simple pleasure of being alive.


II. Hunting

Hunting is a natural part of being human, and is a responsibility that should not be ignored.

1. Ecological

Oftentimes, a species will reproduce to unacceptable levels, and need periodic culling. We usually call these animals "pests", such as rats, other vermin, mosquitoes, ants, termites, and locusts. Most of the time, culling these animals is a chore and is no fun, but occasionally, some wild animals will need culling, such as wild boar herds, and hunters will willingly take up the burden because it is much more enjoyable than exterminating ant infestations (4).

So long as hunting is regulated and kept in moderation to avoid over-hunting, hunting can be a positive balancing force on the ecosystem.

2. Natural Human behavior

Humans are super-predators. Humans alone sit on the very top of the entire food chain. Humans have no natural predators, and our prey may include any Earth life-form.

Humans are natural-born hunters. It is our basic instinct to desire stalking and killing another animal. The pleasure derived from hunting is no different from the pleasure derived from social interaction, such as friendship and love, or pleasure from physical stimulation such as sex.

Hunting for pleasure is completely natural and can be no more wrong than wanting to share intimacy with a partner, or wanting to win an achievement.

Conclusion

The pleasures of eating and hunting are natural instincts that enable people to survive. It would be inhumane to deny people this basic feeling of being human. There is nothing wrong with eating meat, and in fact several things wrong with not eating meat.

And besides, it's delicious.

Thus, I urge the judges to vote PRO. Let them eat meat!

Sources:
1.http://www.raising-rabbits.com...
2.http://www.humanherbivore.com...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
jhenley9111

Con

"sciences have shown that is is unhealthy to exclusively rely on only one of the two."

Wrong. There are no tests proving this. Even the American Heart Association has concluded and stated that a plant based diet has many healthy benefits.

"Humans on an exclusively herbivore diet often suffer from a vitamin B12 deficiency(1) as well as vitamin D deficiency(2)."

You have obviously not done your research. B12 is a type of bacteria that lives in soil. Plowing the farm lands decreases the levels of B12 in the food. So it is not just a "Vegan problem". Research is currently being done to find more B12 rich foods such as nuts and seeds. It is not a good idea to get your vitamin D from animal products. You would have to drink twenty gallons of milk to get your daily amount of vitamin D. That's the equivalent of sitting in the sun for 15 minuets.

Overall, eating meat is not healthy. Humans can not yet digest it properly. We are built like herbivores with only grinding teeth and a very long digestive track.

"Without constant human culling, certain species' populations would flood out of control. Such species are the ones that humans provide favorable conditions to, such as rabbits, swine, cows, and chicken. If people did not eat these animals, we would find ourselves with a huge amount of surplus livestock. Today there are over"

There is something called supply and demand. For example, say I made hats that I sold at baseball games. Lets say that everyone wanted one. That means I need to make a whole lot of then to feed demand. But if the demand fall, I wont need to make as many.
That is what is happening with today's livestock. We control the population. Animals on today's factory farms don't even get to have sex at all. They are often artificially fertilized with out consent.
Will there be problems if we relished all livestock into the wild? Yes, because the demand for meat is so high the population is gigantic. And these animals were raised in captivity.

"Food is a pleasurable experience, as it keeps a person alive, and thus is extremely important to evolution, and thus is very pleasurable. To deny the pleasures of eating food is to deny the simple pleasure of being alive."

You don't understand the argument. I know that eating food is a good thing. But harming the innocent is not. If I received pleasure from raping children, that is not a good thing.

"Hunting is a natural part of being human, and is a responsibility that should not be ignored."

That is a very weak argument for this level of debate. That statement may have been true in the ice age, but definitely not today.

"Oftentimes, a species will reproduce to unacceptable levels, and need periodic culling. We usually call these animals "pests", such as rats, other vermin, mosquitoes, ants, termites, and locusts. Most of the time, culling these animals is a chore and is no fun, but occasionally, some wild animals will need culling, such as wild boar herds, and hunters will willingly take up the burden because it is much more enjoyable than exterminating ant infestations (4). "

The only reason why that some animals are pests are that we are not naturally meant to be in their ecosystem. We should focus on keeping those animals out, not murdering them.

"So long as hunting is regulated and kept in moderation to avoid over-hunting, hunting can be a positive balancing force on the ecosystem."

This has not been proven. In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction. We are not the natural predators of animals such as deer and birds. Thus causing damage to the healthy population.

"Humans are super-predators. Humans alone sit on the very top of the entire food chain. Humans have no natural predators, and our prey may include any Earth life-form."

Wrong. Humans are from central Africa. There, we are not at the top. We have no natural defense agents any real predictors.

"Humans are natural-born hunters. It is our basic instinct to desire stalking and killing another animal. The pleasure derived from hunting is no different from the pleasure derived from social interaction, such as friendship and love, or pleasure from physical stimulation such as sex."

Stalking prey is a learned behavior for humans. We do not have that instinct.

"Hunting for pleasure is completely natural and can be no more wrong than wanting to share intimacy with a partner, or wanting to win an achievement."

I won't argue that you can't get pleasure from hunting. However there are better ways to revive it. Like a massage, for example. Wanting pleasure is not wrong, but ways to get it can be. Like murdering and rape.

"And besides, it's delicious."

Wow. Is that the best argument you have?

I would like to point out that you work was not original. You sited you sources, but you can copy and paste whatever you want.

Resources:
1) National Research Council, "Science and the Endangered Species Act" (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995) 21.
2) Grant Holloway, "Cloning to Revive Extinct Species," CNN.com, 28 May 2002.
3) Canadian Museum of Nature, "Great Auk," 2008.
4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation" (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2012) 22.
5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 28.
6) Illinois Department of Natural Resources, "How the Program Works," accessed 25 July 2013.
7) Stephen S. Ditchkoff et al., "Wounding Rates of White-Tailed Deer With Traditional Archery Equipment," Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1998).
8) D.J. Renny, "Merits and Demerits of Different Methods of Culling British Wild Mammals: A Veterinary Surgeon"s Perspective," Proceedings of a Symposium on the Welfare of British Wild Mammals (London: 2002).
9) Spencer Vaa, "Reducing Wounding Losses," South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, accessed 25 July 2013.
10) E.L. Bradshaw and P. Bateson, "Welfare Implications of Culling Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus)," Animal Welfare 9 (2000): 3"24.
11) John Whitfield, "Sheep Horns Downsized by Hunters" Taste for Trophies," Nature 426 (2003): 595.
12) Morgan Loew, "Arizona Organization Protects "Canned" Hunting," CBS5 9 Nov. 2012.
13) CBS News, "Can Hunting Endangered Animals Save the Species?" 60 Minutes 29 Jan. 2012.
AizenSousuke

Pro

Rebuttal to Con points.

The entirety of con's argument can be summed up as "nuh uh" without either logical reasoning or any kind of evidence. These are baseless assertions.

May I also remind the Con that the burden of proof is shared. By solely relying on rebutting my arguments without presenting your own, the Con has placed him/herself in a situation where if so much as one of my arguments goes through, I win the debate.

On to the individual rebuttals.

1. "sciences have shown that is is unhealthy to exclusively rely on only one of the two."

"Wrong. There are no tests proving this." "You have obviously not done your research." "B12 is a type of bacteria that lives in soil."

I have cited sources which are trustworthy and have data from countless medical responses to vitamin deficiency brought on by unbalanced diets. Even pro-vegetarian websites will warn people to make sure they take all their vitamins, as some of our necessary nutrients are rare in most plants. It is undeniable that vegetarians and vegans find themselves forced to take vitamin supplements in large numbers. (see previous round)

2. "Overall, eating meat is not healthy. Humans can not yet digest it properly. We are built like herbivores with only grinding teeth and a very long digestive track."

There are multiple things wrong with the above statement. Humans are evolutionarily designed to eat meat. (1)

Our digestive tract is much more similar to that of a carnivore than that of a herbivore. It may be longer than most carnivores, and several dozens of feet may seem long, but compared to other animals, the human digestive tract is surprisingly short. Short digestive tracts are the mark of a carnivore. Since humans are omnivores, it makes sense that are some herbivorous traits mixed in, but make no mistake, the body of human is nowhere near that of a pure herbivore.

Our teeth are not the flat grinding teeth of an herbivore. Look in any healthy person's mouth. Do you see flat tops or curved tops with spike-like protrusions? We have canines and incisors. The human mouth is designed to tear flesh. People do not eat like cows, which constantly using sideways chewing motions to grind food. I'm sure some of our own mothers have told us that chewing like a cow is odd or even unnatural.

3. "There is something called supply and demand" "We control the population"

While this is true, this bears no relevance to the matter at hand. My point is that we already have billions of farm animals, right here right now, who continue to exist, regardless of whether or not there is a market for them. Just because people stop buying cow meat does not mean that *poof* all the 1.3 billion cows in the world vanish suddenly. We still have to deal with them in an unwasteful manner, and the least wasteful option is to eat them.

4. " food is a good thing. But harming the innocent is not"
Food is food. There is no sin, there is no innocence. Why don't we just eat sand so that no one gets hurt? This is an immature perspective on life that ignores reality. Hurting food is not hurting the innocent. They were bred to live and die for us as tools. That is their duty, and their destiny in life.

My point is that it is not always wrong to do harm unto living things. The digestive systems of all living things inherently 'harm' whatever they break down and metabolize. They do it not out of spite and hatred, but out of necessity.

5. "Hunting is a natural part of being human, and is a responsibility that should not be ignored."

"That is a very weak argument for this level of debate. That statement may have been true in the ice age, but definitely not today."

May I throw the Con's words back on him/her by countering that just because we no longer have to struggle to survive in day-to-day life, does not mean we no longer have human nature. This is a very weak argument for this level of debate.

6. "The only reason why that some animals are pests are that we are not naturally meant to be in their ecosystem"

Please explain how mosquitoes are not meant to live in the tropics? Please explain how deer are not supposed to live in wooded areas? Con's argument is a very weak argument for this level of debate.

"We should focus on keeping those animals out, not murdering them."

I don't suppose that we should be walking up to these animals and asking very politely, "please use birth control to avoid excessive procreation!". Con's argument is a very weak argument for this level of debate.

7. "So long as hunting is regulated and kept in moderation to avoid over-hunting, hunting can be a positive balancing force on the ecosystem."

"This has not been proved."

Where are your facts, may I ask? The truth is that deer hunting in North America is well regulated by federal and state governments, which result good management of wild deer populations on the continent. They are not in decline, but they are not excessive either because we keep the population in check, but only in moderation. The deer get to live, and hunters get to hunt, everyone is happy. Why should this change?

The only places where hunting is not kept in moderation is places in the developing world where poor economic conditions force people to poach, and weak corrupt third-world governments are powerless to regulate such acts. This is a matter of administration. The system works perfectly fine, so long as it is well-implemented by a competent government.

"We are not the natural predators of animals such as deer and birds."

Let's take a look back. What did our ancestors hunt at the dawn of man? They hunted medium-to-large land herbivores who travelled in herds. Deer. They also preyed on small tree dwellers and targets of opportunity. Bird nests. Con's argument is a very weak argument for this level of debate.

8. "Humans alone sit on the very top of the entire food chain. Humans have no natural predators, and our prey may include any Earth life-form."

"Wrong. Humans are from central Africa"

(Technically East Africa, actually)
So? Just because our species evolved in one area does not mean we can't adapt to all other areas. Does that mean we should all pack our bags for Kenya because living anywhere else is "unnatural"? Con's argument is a very weak argument for this level of debate.

"There, we are not at the top"

I don't think the Con understand how the food chain works. It is true that it is not a one-way street, that once in a while, a hyena will carry off a baby from a small little African village in the dark of the night. But these are exceptions to the rule. Humans kill more of any animal than however many that animal kills people. Looking at my previous example, sometimes a hyena will kill a helpless baby (which is actually rather easy, come to think of it). But humans kill hyenas by the score, in return. The fact that is it great trouble for any animal to predate on humans, while humans can effortlessly kill whatever they want shows that people are on the top.

"We have no natural defense agents any real predictors."

Did you know that the vast majority of all animals that can sense human presence will flee and cower in fear? Even wolves will hide and chafe when the scent of man is close by. Those predators have learned to fear man. I think this is proof enough of our clear rank superiority on the food chain.

However, I will continue to argue that we do have natural defenses. Do you consider a human brain to be as good of a tool as any fist? Are the tools we create from our intelligence not an extended part of ourselves? Lions may have some impressive jaws that they are born with, but humans can use their minds to assemble AK-47s. I would chose an assault rifle over big jaws any day of the year, thank you very much. This is how humans make themselves physically superior. We can be the fastest and the strongest, because we are born smart enough to make machines that take us to those heights. Being born with a brain that can make weapons is, by proof of history, the best natural defense that trumps any set of muscle and claw.

8. "Stalking prey is a learned behavior for humans. We do not have that instinct."

Please tell me who exactly then, taught human ancestors to hunt herd animals such as deer, mastodon, and mammoth? Please tell me who taught secluded tribes the art of spear fishing. People who find themselves secluded in the wild will start hunting. No one has to teach them. It is instinct. One that let our ancestors survive and flourish. The desire to hunt, despite the lack of existential danger, is sigh enough of our natural-born instincts attempting to surface from out of our subconscious.

Human are among the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom. I don't suppose we use this mobility to chase after herds of prey but rather chase after herds of trees? The scientific evidence shows that humans evolved to be runners. (2)

9. "Wanting pleasure is not wrong, but ways to get it can be. Like murdering and rape."

Hunting is not directly harmful to people as is not wrong to society. Attempting to compare the act of the hunt to murder and rape is not reasonable. These are actions done by people unto other people. They have clear "wrong" connotations in society. Hunting never holds the intent of directly hurting another person. Hunting is an integral and important positive force on many, if not most, societies. There is a clear difference.

10. And besides, it's delicious.

"Wow. Is that the best argument you have?"

Clearly an overreaction to some simple humor :)

"I would like to point out that you work was not original. You sited you sources, but you can copy and paste whatever you want."

I denounce my opponent's accusations. I have copied nothing. All I have written is my own word. Perhaps my written articulation was so well-developed that the Con believed there was no way that a random person on the Internet could have written it! I accept the complement :)

Sources
1.http://www.beyondveg.com...
2. http://www.fas.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
jhenley9111

Con

"I have cited sources which are trustworthy and have data from countless medical responses to vitamin deficiency brought on by unbalanced diets. Even pro-vegetarian websites will warn people to make sure they take all their vitamins, as some of our necessary nutrients are rare in most plants. It is undeniable that vegetarians and vegans find themselves forced to take vitamin supplements in large numbers."

You are totally ignoring what I said regarding this issue. I stated that lack of B12 is not only a vegan or vegetation problem. Most Doctors recommend ONLY a supplement for B12 for a patient. There is no need for getting other vitamins from supplements unless you can provide evidence.

" Humans are evolutionarily designed to eat meat."

If you knew anything about evolution, you would know that our common ancestor with other great apes was, for the most part, Vegan. Yes, humans are currently evolving to eat meat and dairy, but we are not there yet. I will take a couple more millions of years.

" Since humans are omnivores, it makes sense that are some herbivorous traits mixed in, but make no mistake, the body of human is nowhere near that of a pure herbivore."

If you knew anything about mamalogy, you would know that a short digestive track is also a mark of a omnivore. Humans have the body of a herbivore, unless you can change the bodies of the 1,000's of other animals we compare ourselves with.

"Our teeth are not the flat grinding teeth of an herbivore. Look in any healthy person's mouth. Do you see flat tops or curved tops with spike-like protrusions? We have canines and incisors. The human mouth is designed to tear flesh. People do not eat like cows, which constantly using sideways chewing motions to grind food. I'm sure some of our own mothers have told us that chewing like a cow is odd or even unnatural."

It's interesting to me that meat eaters use the same arguments that have been already been proven wrong.
Humans only have about 4 pointed teeth. However those teeth are NOT for eating flesh. Unless you can prove that they are in scientific terms and tests.

"That is their duty, and their destiny in life."

I'm really confused on who your talking about

"My point is that it is not always wrong to do harm unto living things. The digestive systems of all living things inherently 'harm' whatever they break down and metabolize. They do it not out of spite and hatred, but out of necessity."

That's exactly my point. It's not wrong to harm things that cannot feel pain. Such as plants, rocks, water, Ect. It is wrong, however to harm things that can feel emotions out of sheer geed. There is no necessity of meat is today's world.

"May I throw the Con's words back on him/her by countering that just because we no longer have to struggle to survive in day-to-day life, does not mean we no longer have human nature. This is a very weak argument for this level of debate."

Nice debate strategy, I'll give you that one. But you did not clarify "human nature".

"Please explain how mosquitoes are not meant to live in the tropics? Please explain how deer are not supposed to live in wooded areas? Con's argument is a very weak argument for this level of debate."

wow. Humans are not supposed to be in this ecosystem because we migrated here. Other animals evolved here, therefor making a natural mark on the food chain.

"I don't suppose that we should be walking up to these animals and asking very politely, "please use birth control to avoid excessive procreation!". Con's argument is a very weak argument for this level of debate."

I don't know where you came up with that logic. It sounds like you goal is to be ignorant.

"The deer get to live, and hunters get to hunt, everyone is happy. Why should this change?"

Everyone is not not happy. The only reason we have law regulations on hunting is because a species might go extinct because of over hunting. Usually a hunter of another species doesn't hunt a species to extinction. That's is one reason why we don't belong in the food chain of North America. Why should we change? Because hunting is the killing of a being for almost no reason.

"Let's take a look back. What did our ancestors hunt at the dawn of man? They hunted medium-to-large land herbivores who travelled in herds. Deer. They also preyed on small tree dwellers and targets of opportunity. Bird nests. Con's argument is a very weak argument for this level of debate."

Do you not understand that humans migrated to North America? So we did not start hunting deer. In fact when humans first started eating meat, we were scavengers.

"Those predators have learned to fear man."

Can you prove it? A lion could be scared of a twig. So what?

"Please tell me who exactly then, taught human ancestors to hunt herd animals such as deer, mastodon, and mammoth? Please tell me who taught secluded tribes the art of spear fishing. People who find themselves secluded in the wild will start hunting. No one has to teach them. It is instinct. One that let our ancestors survive and flourish. The desire to hunt, despite the lack of existential danger, is sigh enough of our natural-born instincts attempting to surface from out of our subconscious."

It's called trial and error. We tough ourselves over time and tough others because we are social primates. People who find themselves in a survival situation know they need food. That doesn't mean they will get it. That's because we have no instinct to hunt. Why do you think that we sell so much survival tools?

"Human are among the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom. I don't suppose we use this mobility to chase after herds of prey but rather chase after herds of trees?"

If you think that, you don't know that the animal kingdom is. Let me inform you on something. The hunters are the track stars. They run fast for a short period of time. Prey are the cross country runners. They can't run as fast, but they can run for a larger amount of time.

"Attempting to compare the act of the hunt to murder and rape is not reasonable. These are actions done by people unto other people."

This exact logic was used to belittle African-Americans in the south decades ago. Why should we use it with animals?

^ Jump up to: a b Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M., eds. (2005). "Preface and introductory material". Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. xxvi. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
Jump up ^ "Initiatives". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN. April 2010.
Jump up ^ Rowe, T. (1988). "Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 8 (3): 241"264. doi:10.1080/02724634.1988.10011708.
Jump up ^ Lyell, Charles (1871). The Student's Elements of Geology. London: John Murray. p. 347. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
Jump up ^ Kemp, T. S. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Mammals. Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-19-850760-7.
Jump up ^ Cifelli, Richard L.; Davis, Brian M. (2003). "Marsupial origins". Science 302: 1899"1900. doi:10.1126/science.1092272.
Jump up ^ Datta, P. M. (2005). "Earliest mammal with transversely expanded upper molar from the Late Triassic (Carnian) Tiki Formation, South Rewa Gondwana Basin, India". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25 (1): 200"207. doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2005)025[0200:EMWTEU]2.0.CO;2.
Jump up ^ Luo, Zhe-Xi; Martin, Thomas (2007). "Analysis of Molar Structure and Phylogeny of Docodont Genera". Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 39: 27"47. doi:10.2992/0145-9058(2007)39[27:AOMSAP]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved April 8, 2013.
Jump up ^ van Nievelt, Alexander F. H.; Smith, Kathleen K. (2005). "To replace or not to replace: the significance of reduced functional tooth replacement in marsupial and placental mammals". Paleobiology 31 (2): 324"346.
Jump up ^ McKenna, Malcolm C.; Bell, Susan Groag (1997). Classification of Mammals above the Species Level. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-11013-8.
AizenSousuke

Pro

I. Animal meat eating

1. Dietary

A. Nutrition

“Most Doctors recommend ONLY a supplement for B12 for a patient. There is no need for getting other vitamins from supplements unless you can provide evidence.”

I used the vitamin B12 and D as examples. Con is ignoring the crux of my point.
I does not matter if there is only one or a hundred missing vital nutrients, a deficiency is a deficiency.

Meat-inclusive diet = no deficiency = balanced
Meat-exclusive diet = deficiency = not balanced

balanced is better than not balanced

Thus having a diet with meat in it is better than not eating meat.


B. Evolution

“our common ancestor with other great apes was, for the most part, Vegan. Yes, humans are currently evolving to eat meat and dairy, but we are not there yet.”

For the most part. There are also great apes that are mostly carnivorous. I don’t see why humans can’t also fit into that category. Humans were already at the meat-eating state at least a couple million years ago. Don’t compare lactose intolerance with a main staple of our natural diet.

“If you knew anything about mamalogy, you would know that a short digestive track is also a mark of a omnivore. Humans have the body of a herbivore”

Exactly! Humans have (relatively) short digestive tracts. I rest my case.

“Humans only have about 4 pointed teeth. However those teeth are NOT for eating flesh. Unless you can prove that they are in scientific terms and tests.”

Judging from a quick review of my own jaw, I count at least 12 sharp teeth. Humans have canine teeth. This is indisputable. Canine teeth are for tearing flesh. This is also indisputable. The human jaw is made to accommodate for meat foods than plant foods, otherwise our teeth would be more like flat grinding stones. If your teeth are flat and like a herbivore’s, go see a doctor immediately, as you have a serious and abnormal condition.(1)

2. Ecological

Pro points on the need to cull certain species and well as the current state of farm animals were dropped by the Con, and thus are extended as uncontested.



3. Food is pleasure

Pro point that is it good it eat food, including meats, was dropped by the Con and is thus uncontested.

Looking at the flow, in this category, con brought up the point

“It is wrong, however to harm things that can feel emotions out of sheer geed. There is no necessity of meat is today's world”

My entire argument of I.1, and I.2. is to show that it is necessary to eat meat, for the sake of proper nutrition as well as for tending to a balanced biosphere.

II. Hunting Animals

1. Ecological benefits

Pro point of pest control was dropped by the Con, who instead made the argument

“Other animals evolved here, therefor making a natural mark on the food chain.”

Just because a pest lives in an area as it’s natural habitat does not mean that it is not a pest that poses no threat to ecosystem. Locusts are native to floodplains and grasslands, yet they wreak havoc wherever they go and decimate local ecosystems.

“Humans are not supposed to be in this ecosystem because we migrated here.”

Just because were did not evolve in all world environments does not mean we are not suited for living properly in those environments. The Chinese floodplains and Indian river valleys are the two places where the human population has been most successful, demographically. Floodplains, grasslands, and river valleys are not to be found on the Savanna of Kenya and the mountain forrests of Ethiopia where humans fist evolved. Humans have adapted and made the entire planet our natural habitable area.(3,4)

If the con point of “natural human habitat” was logical, we would all be forced to move back to Africa. Since this makes no sense, it can be inferred that all ecosystems are part of the human habitable zone. At this point in time, we can be considered de facto native to everywhere on Earth.

Pro point that it is impossible to practice pest control without killing the pests was dropped by Con and is thus uncontested.

Con additional points
“The only reason we have law regulations on hunting is because a species might go extinct because of over hunting.”

That goes without saying. It is not uncommon for animals to directly cause the extinction of others. Humans are not the only ones, however humans are the only ones who can control what they do or do not kill. That it why government exists in the first place, for regulations.


2. Natural Human behavior

Pro points of humans being at the top of the food chain, and of humans having the natural capacity to hunt pretty much anything were dropped by the Con and are thus uncontested.

clarify "human nature"

The desire to act out primal instincts. Lust, violence, empathy, society. These are all parts of human nature.

On the topic of human hunting instinct

“It's called trial and error.”
Evolution is based on trial and error. Humans who were able to hunt and be proper carnivores lived, while humans who lacked to ability to be predators died out.
Modern humans have evolved to be predators.(5)

Futhermore, the fact that humans even have the capacity to try predation as a successful strategy shows that humans are natural at carnivorous behavior.

A deer, no matter how hard it tries, will never be a hunter, because a deer is a true vegetatian, and vegetarians simply cannot hunt.

“The hunters are the track stars. They run fast for a short period of time. Prey are the cross country runners. They can't run as fast, but they can run for a larger amount of time.”

This is gross generalization. There is such as thing as persistence hunting.

“Persistence hunting is a hunting technique in which hunters use a combination of running and tracking to pursue prey to the point of exhaustion. While humans can sweat to reduce body heat, their quadrupedal prey would need to slow from a gallop in order to pant.”(2)

Hunters each have their own unique strategies. Just because we don’t fish like dolphins, of catch prey like tigers does not mean that we are not fishermen and hunters in our own way.

On the subject of the human desire to hunt, and pleasure derived thereof

“This exact logic was used to belittle African-Americans in the south decades ago. Why should we use it with animals?”

Once again, you attempt a logical fallacy to confuse readers by making an argument on an unrelated point.

African-Americans are humans. Other animals are not. It is unreasonable to anthropomorphize non-humans and compare crimes against people to harm against animals. Hunting animals poses no direct harms to society nor to individuals.


Concluding statements:

Pro has provided a wide set of benefits provided by eating meat and hunting.
Pro has shown possible harms incurred by not eating meant and avoiding hunting.

Points dropped by Con which are considered uncontested:

1. All ecological reasons for eating meat were dropped, including the issue of farm animals and the culling of animal populations

2. All points relating to inherent goodness felt from eating meaty foods were dropped.

3. Points relating to pest control were dropped.

4. Human dominance of the global food chain was dropped.

Con has failed to make his/her own case. Even if the burden of proof is not shared and lies solely with me, these concessions clearly indicate that the Pro has the upper hand in terms of wieght.

Vote Pro

Sources:

1)http://www.marksdailyapple.com...
2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
4)http://en.wikipedia.org...
5)http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
jhenley9111

Con

"Thus having a diet with meat in it is better than not eating meat."

You have provided no scientific evidence proving your claim. I keep telling you this.

"There are also great apes that are mostly carnivorous."

No. Absolutely not. The only great apes that there are, are humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. All are, for the most part, vegan. (except for humans, of course)

"Exactly! Humans have (relatively) short digestive tracts. I rest my case."

Are you kidding me? I said that humans had a very long digestive system. And if you knew anything about mammology, you would know that. The way we determine if a creature has a long or short digestive system is to compare the length of the intestines to the height/length of the animal.Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through the animal relatively quickly, before it can rot and cause illness. Humans" intestinal tracts are much longer than those of carnivores of comparable size. Longer intestines allow the body more time to break down fiber and absorb the nutrients from plant-based foods, but they make it dangerous for humans to eat meat. The bacteria in meat have extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system, increasing the risk of food poisoning. Meat actually begins to rot while it makes its way through human intestines, which increases the risk of colon cancer.

Humans have short, soft fingernails and pathetically small "canine" teeth. In contrast, carnivores all have sharp claws and large canine teeth capable of tearing flesh.

Carnivores" jaws move only up and down, requiring them to tear chunks of flesh from their prey and swallow them whole. Humans and other herbivores can move their jaws up and down and from side to side, allowing them to grind up fruit and vegetables with their back teeth. Like other herbivores" teeth, human back molars are flat for grinding fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars.

Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, summarizes, "You can"t tear flesh by hand, you can"t tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don"t have large canine teeth, and we wouldn"t have been able to deal with food sources that require those large canines."

When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop and snack on them? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to these questions, congratulations"like it or not, you"re an herbivore.

"Pro point of pest control was dropped by the Con, who instead made the argument"

I really don't know what you mean.

"Just because a pest lives in an area as it"s natural habitat does not mean that it is not a pest that poses no threat to ecosystem. Locusts are native to floodplains and grasslands, yet they wreak havoc wherever they go and decimate local ecosystems."

Please provide evidence to back up your claim.

"Just because were did not evolve in all world environments does not mean we are not suited for living properly in those environments."

Actually, yes it does. Without things like clothing and fire, we would not survive on most of earth's surface.

"If the con point of "natural human habitat" was logical, we would all be forced to move back to Africa."

What logic made you come up with that?? Please read my argument once more.

"At this point in time, we can be considered de facto native to everywhere on Earth."

Yes, but that does not mean that other environments have adapted to us being here.

"Pro point that it is impossible to practice pest control without killing the pests was dropped by Con and is thus uncontested"

No you did not. And even if you did, it is still false unless you prove otherwise.

"Modern humans have evolved to be predators."

Not without the "natural" gun in your hand.

"Futhermore, the fact that humans even have the capacity to try predation as a successful strategy shows that humans are natural at carnivorous behavior."

No it does not. And I know you can not prove that.

"A deer, no matter how hard it tries, will never be a hunter, because a deer is a true vegetatian, and vegetarians simply cannot hunt."

Ever heard of natural selection?

"Hunters each have their own unique strategies. Just because we don"t fish like dolphins, of catch prey like tigers does not mean that we are not fishermen and hunters in our own way."

That can apply to anything.

"Once again, you attempt a logical fallacy to confuse readers by making an argument on an unrelated point."

You must not know what a logical fallacy is.

"Hunting animals poses no direct harms to society nor to individuals."

Thousands of people every year are kill by hunting accidents.

Pro has failed to make his/her own case. Even if the burden of proof is not shared and lies solely with me, these concessions clearly indicate that the Pro has the upper hand in terms of weight.

sources:

J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner, Eds. (2000) "The Oxford English Dictionary (volume VII) page 155.
Jump up ^ P.G.W. Glare, Ed. (1990) "The Oxford Latin Dictionary" page 791
Jump up ^ P.G.W. Glare, Ed. (1990) "The Oxford Latin Dictionary" page 2103.
Jump up ^ Abraham, Martin A. A. Sustainability Science and Engineering, Volume 1. page 123. Publisher: Elsevier 2006. ISBN 978-0444517128
Jump up ^ Thomas, Peter & Packham, John. Ecology of Woodlands and Forests: Description, Dynamics and Diversity. Publisher: Cambridge University Press 2007. ISBN 978-0521834520
Jump up ^ Sterner, Robert W.; Elser, James J.; and Vitousek, Peter. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere. Publisher: Princeton University Press 2002. ISBN 978-0691074917
Jump up ^ Likens Gene E. Lake Ecosystem Ecology: A Global Perspective. Publisher: Academic Press 2010. ISBN 978-0123820020
^ Jump up to: a b c Labandeira, C.C. (1998). "Early History Of Arthropod And Vascular Plant Associations 1". Annual Reviews in Earth and Planetary Sciences 26 (1): 329"377. doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.26.1.329.
^ Jump up to: a b c Labandeira, C. (2007). "The origin of herbivory on land: Initial patterns of plant tissue consumption by arthropods". Insect Science 14 (4): 259"275. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7917.2007.00152.x.
^ Jump up to: a b c Sahney, S., Benton, M.J. & Falcon-Lang, H.J. (2010). "Rainforest collapse triggered Pennsylvanian tetrapod diversification in Euramerica" (PDF). Geology 38 (12): 1079"1082. doi:10.1130/G31182.1.
AizenSousuke

Pro

Conclusion

This debate is weighed on facts. As the pro, I have used a mountain of facts supported by trustworthy sources as evidence to prove my claims.

I have shown exactly how and why it is beneficial to eat animal meat, through arguments of dietary needs and ecological balance.
I have shown exactly why it is beneficial and acceptable to hunt animals, through arguments of environmental preservation, and normal human behavioral habit.

The con has not made an organized case. All of con’s arguments are, at most, rebuttals, many of which consist of “prove it!”, “that’s not true!”, “i’m not listening”, etc... without providing clear logic to explain the con position.

The pro has the responsibility of burden of proof, but the con has the responsibility of negating all pro logic such that the weight of the arguments are at least on par.

Several pro arguments were completely dropped, while every single con point was refuted and contested by the pro.

Clearly, there is a much heavier factual weight behind pro arguments than behind con arguments, as well as the basic weight difference between pro and con cases, as pro had a well-organized opinion with many supporting arguments, while con had no over-arching case, built mostly of feeble contentions.

I strongly urge the judges to vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
jhenley9111

Con

jhenley9111 forfeited this round.
AizenSousuke

Pro

This round is left blank to leave an even number of rounds between the pro and con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AizenSousuke 3 years ago
AizenSousuke
Con didn't make it clear, but I am allowed a post in round 5?
If we want to have an equal amount of rounds, I should not be allowed a turn in round 5, making round 4 my final round.
It's up to you, as you started the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
jhenley9111AizenSousukeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct points for con forfeit. RFD: Pro had several important arguments that were dropped by the con. I felt that pro arguments were more on topic and that con refutations tended to go off on tangents. I also think that con logic was somewhat lacking. Con didn't take as much time or care to explain the exact logic behind points, which pro did a better job at. In terms of sources, both sides used many sources that I am sure are reputable. However pro did a better job at sourcing. Each pro source has a link that takes me to the relevant information. Con sourcing is very obfuscated and thus that much less reliable, since I cannot directly access the info for review myself. It seemed like an emotional debate, and got pretty heated.