The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Teaching that is it immoral to eat meat is antichrist.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 94348
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I don't think Christians are taking the vegan movement seriously enough. By teaching that it is immoral to eat meat, animal flesh, vegans are becoming antichrist. This is because Jesus Christ is the man without sin. Jesus ate a fish. Therefore, telling people to eat is immoral to eat meat is saying Jesus Christ had sin.

Stating that Jesus Christ had sin is denying the son of God, and thus antichrist. There's no way around this, vegans will be killed by Jesus and burn in eternal damnation for being antichrist.

I think a fitting death for people who think it is immoral to hunt bears would be for God to kill the vegans via bears. This would be justice.

Vegans often tout that it is immoral to eat meat.
Jesus ate fish, Luke 24:42 [0]
Jesus had no sin. Corinthians 5:21 [1]
Jesus cannot be the son of God if he sinned.
Whoever denies the son is antichrist. John 2-22 [2]
By claiming eating meat is immoral a person is antichrist.

There's no way around this vegans are antichrist.



I accept. Hopefully this will be a constructive and interesting discussion. I'm intrigued by the topic as it revolves around biblical takes on an aspect of modern life unrelated to homosexuality.

Quick Observations

Obs. 1: This debate will be restricted to those within the vegan community ho no not eat meat for ethical reasons, as the resolution applies to immorality of eating meat rather than veganism itself being anti-Christ.

Obs. 2: As the debate is about veganism with respect to Jesus and Christianity, we will assume truth in the teachings of the Bible.

Obs. 3: I don't believe this will be relevant in the debate, but it's both vegetarians and vegans that do not eat meat. [1] Pro's opening round arguments construed it as if vegans alone are against consumption of meat. I will, however, be specific to veganism, as my opponent has framed the debate in such a manner.

Since my opponent has opened the first round with arguments, I'll do the same.

I will begin by constructing a case centered around two general ideas.

1. Immorality does not equate to sin

Pro's entire premise rests upon the idea that immorality and sin are the same concept. Something can be considered immoral but not a sin. For example, sexism is widely viewed as immoral by modern Western standards (the same ones where Veganism is gaining traction) but the Bible includes instances of sexism [Ephesians 5:22] [1 Timothy 2:12]. Slavery is also widely viewed as immoral worldwide. However, the Bible permits slavery [1 Peter 2:18]. These two examples serve as anecdotes to prove that though something may be deemed "immoral" it is not inherently sinful. Therefore, consumption of meat may be immoral but not a sin.

2. Evolution of Society

Even if you, the voters, don't buy my first argument, I still urge you to vote Con, as we are part of a completely different society today than Jesus was a couple thousand years ago. In our current globalized society we have the means of production and transportation to feed the entire planet. However, meat is one barrier to ending world hunger. A study from the University of Minnesota found that by eliminating crops that can be used to feed humans from the pool of crops used for animal feed could help to end world hunger. [2]

"Currently, 36% of the calories produced by the world's crops are being used for animal feed, and only 12% of those feed calories ultimately contribute to the human diet (as meat and other animal products)."

"We find that, given the current mix of crop uses, growing food exclusively for direct human consumption could, in principle, increase available food calories by as much as 70%, which could feed an additional 4 billion people...Even small shifts in our allocation of crops to animal feed and biofuels could significantly increase global food availability, and could be an instrumental tool in meeting the challenges of ensuring global food security."

-Emily Cassidy, Paul West, James Gerber and Jonathan Foley, University of Minnesota

Additionally, the United Nations has declared that vegan diets are less impactful on the environment, as production of meat and other animal products is the source of 19% of greenhouse gas emissions, 38% of land use, and 70% of freshwater consumption. [3] By reducing meat and animal product consumption, humanity can work to save our planet, or at least prolong its lifespan.

Factory farming is a practice widely used in recent years. This often leads to horrid treatment of animals. [4]

Now, why is this relevant to this debate? Vegans may believe that a simple change of diet allows the general population access to a greater potential calorie supply. This could work to phase out world hunger. Vegans may believe a shift in diet will save the planet. They may believe that factory farming is immoral, and consumption of meat supports perpetuating this system. All three of these reasons apply specifically to problems with meat production in the current global climate rather than the global landscape of 2000 years ago, and vegans can therefore be okay with the idea of meat/animal product consumption, but not in its current state.

I look forward to the rest of this debate. Your turn, Stupidape!

Debate Round No. 1


Jesus' actions versus what's written in the Bible.

There is a large difference between the Bible tolerating slavery versus Jesus physically enslaving a person. The Bible tolerates a lot of deeds. Nevertheless, if you could find a passage where Jesus physically enslaves a person, then teaching slavery is immoral would make the teacher antichrist.

"These two examples serve as anecdotes to prove that though something may be deemed "immoral" it is not inherently sinful." warren42

I don't see any difference in the Bible between immorality and sin. Modern culture may have deviated from the ways of God, but sin will remain constant.

Feeding the Hungry

While feeding the hungry is a noble goal. There are other ways to achieve this goal. Simply shifting your diet away from the most resource intensive of all factory farmed cattle to factory farmed catfish would be a great start.

"For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [3]

Since fish contain omega-3s, you could save on supplements this way. My main problem with veganism is the aim for 0% meat. If you want to eat a diet of 99% meat free that's fine. It is that 1% meat that worries me. I give the counter proposal of an almost vegan diet. The diet would be 99% vegan, and 1% fish. The environmental impact would be practically the same as the 100% vegan diet.

Finally, not everyone can be vegan and have a sustainable economy. There simply is not enough high-quality cropland.

"The reason is simple – fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality arable cropland. Livestock based foods (such as meat and dairy products from ruminant animals) are supported by lower quality, and far more widely available, lands that are only capable of supporting pastures.

So, based on the last set of global census data (2008) we would require 3,068,444,911 acres of arable land. At that time, the global population was 6 billion and if a global one-child programme had been enacted, the ~3,212,369,959 of arable land that was globally available may very well have sufficed." [4]

Impact, not everyone can be vegan. Animals can be raised on lower quality land and crops can't. Therefore, I suggest at least some meat should be consumed.




Thanks Stupidape,

Since my constructive provided direct clash with my opponent's, I think I will just go ahead and defend my constructive rather than wasting time dissecting their opening arguments which I have already largely refuted.

1. Defense of Immorality =/= Sin

I understand that the text of the Bible is not inherently in line with the teachings of Jesus. I was using these examples to further my argument that an action can be deemed "immoral" by today's Western society but is not sinful. Vegans can argue eating meat is immoral without arguing it is sinful. In fact, this is the general premise of veganism. I have yet to see that vegans argue eating meat is a sin Instead they argue it is immoral. In Corinthians 5:21, which Pro quoted in R1, it does not say Jesus never committed any acts that may be deemed immoral by a different society.

2. Defense of Ending Hunger

Factory farmed catfish is essentially just one form of aquaculture. I'll use "aquaculture" to refer to this from here on out. 2 pounds of feed per pound of catfish still means we're putting more resources in than 're getting out. Even if we were to shift to this lifestyle, it still has every impact discussed in my constructive, just to a slightly lesser extent. Pull through all of these impacts. That being said, this only applies to catfish. "It can take more than 5 pounds of fish from the ocean to produce just 1 pound of farmed salmon or sea bass." -Peta [1]

Pro is trying to shirk their BoP by going the easy route of "99%vegan, and 1% fish." Do not allow him/her to do so. This is because even the 1% has negative impacts, which is one reason vegans may choose the diet they do.

3. Defense of Environmental Impacts

My opponent didn't even touch this. Pull through every impact of the UN study as to how vegan diets help the environment. Vegans have a problem with meat consumption in its current manifestation, not meat consumption in general.

As a precaution, I'll argue that aquaculture also has serious environmental impacts. One of the most important is nutrient discharge. [2] Nitrates and phosphates are two of the major chemicals discharged into surrounding areas, which are both major players in eutrophication. [3] This can lead to oceanic dead zones.

4. Defense of Factory Farming Inhumane

Again, this wasn't touched. Pull through all my arguments and impacts. Vegans can be okay with the idea of meat consumption, just not the way it is produced today.

As another preventative measure, I'll make the argument that aquaculture is inhumane. The fish are confined to a small area, perfect for spreading diseases. [4] It is also often overcrowded, and there are currently no regulations on humane treatment toward fish. [1] Pull through and magnify all of my inhumane impacts.

Thank you, I look forward to the closing arguments!

Debate Round No. 2


Claim: In Christianity the words immoral and sin are used interchangeably.

Warrant: "Bible Verses About Sexual Immorality" [5]

Impact: Teaching eating meat is immoral is anti-Christ by denying that Jesus was the son of God by claiming that Jesus had sin. Since Jesus cannot be the son of God if he had sin and Jesus ate fish. Therefore, I have fulfilled my bop.

As for the other issues, they seem largely irrelevant to the discussion. Thanks for the debate. Helped me clarify a few concepts in my mind. Now I understand that veganism is pure evil.



"Well, that escalated quickly."

I implore the voters to think again when Stupidape claims to have fulfilled the Pro BoP. Pro's BoP is to prove that vegans inherently believe that consumption of meat is immoral, which has not been proven.

With that I will narrow this debate into four key issues which you should base your vote on, all of which I believe I have won as Con.

Voting Issue 1: Immorality =/= Sin
Just because sexual immorality is deemed a sin doesn't mean everything that is immoral is a sin. Slavery, sexism, etc. These are immoral concepts and are widely accepted as such, but the Bible never explicitly forbade them or deemed them sinful, or at a bare minimum Pro has not proven that the Bible deemed them sinful.

Morality is a dynamic concept, and in a modern world, morality has shifted to where something that may have been deemed moral (consumption of meat) may be currently considered immoral, as the circumstances surrounding production and its impacts have changed. Con wins this issue.

Voting Issue 2: Ending World Hunger
Extend this argument and its impacts. Veganism allows for a greater potential for feeding more people. This was not the case at the time Jesus was alive, as the meat production process has evolved. Con wins this issue.

Voting Issue 3: Environmental Impacts
This is apparently irrelevant to Pro. I disagree. Pull through every impact. Con wins this issue.

Voting Issue 4: Factory Farming/Aquaculture Inhumane
This too is irrelevant to Pro, but isn't to me and shouldn't be to the voters. Pull through the argument and the impacts.

Essentially, this entire debate revolves around one idea. Vegans can believe that meat consumption is okay, but only under circumstances where environmental impacts are minimal, it doesn't prevent someone else from accessing food they desperately need, and the animals are treated humanely. Con wins this issue.

As Jesus never ate factory farmed meat/fish, none of these apply to his consumption of meat. Therefore, vegans can still argue that while modern consumption of meat is immoral, historical consumption (such as when Jesus did so) is perfectly justified. As I have won this and all four of the supporting issues, I can see no way to cast a vote except for Con. Thank you.

*Disclaimer: I'm not a vegan, I love meat*
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.