The Instigator
jhenley9111
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Drewbater
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Vegan/Animal Rights

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...
Drewbater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,520 times Debate No: 49841
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

jhenley9111

Pro

I will argue PRO for this topic. I would like CON to go first. Best of luck!
Drewbater

Con

I realize Animals are living beings, but in this planet their is a theory called natural selection (a.k.a. survival of the fittest). We as humans have evolved to the point where we domesticate, contain, and eat animals. To go vegan and stop the murder of these animals would not only counter the effects of our evolution, but would also destroy the industries involved in the selling of these foods, which might mess up the economy. Plus, steak and bacon are amazing.
Debate Round No. 1
jhenley9111

Pro

"To go vegan and stop the murder of these animals would not only counter the effects of our evolution"

Are you saying it is wrong to stop the murder of beings? Counter the effects?? You must not know the concept of evolution. Of a member of a spices has a good gene (Like a big brain) it will carry that gene to it's offspring no matter what.

"but would also destroy the industries involved in the selling of these foods, which might mess up the economy."

Not true. Companies can change ingredients. For example Silk (The soy milk company) used to be a diary farm.
And even if businesses suffer it's ok. When slavery was abolished the same thing happened.

"Plus, steak and bacon are amazing."

I agree! But we should eat those thing from vegan based ingredients so we don't harm ourselves, non-human animals, or make people over-seas become even more impoverished.

sources:

Records of Buckinghamshire, Volume 3, BPC Letterpress, 1870, p. 68.
Jump up ^ Berry, Rynn. "A History of the Raw-Food Movement in the United States," in Brenda Davis and Vesanto Melina, Becoming Raw: The Essential Guide to Raw Vegan Diets, Book Publishing Company, 2010, p. 9ff.
^ Jump up to: a b Hart, James D. "Alcott, Amos Bronson," in The Oxford Companion to American Literature, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 14.
Also see Francis, Richard. Fruitlands: The Alcott Family and their Search for Utopia, Yale University Press, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Vegan Diets Become More Popular, More Mainstream", Associated Press/CBS News, 5 January 2011: "Ethical vegans have a moral aversion to harming animals for human consumption ... though the term often is used to describe people who follow the diet, not the larger philosophy."
Francione, Gary and Garner, Robert. The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation? Columbia University Press, 2010 (hereafter Francione and Garner 2010), p. 62: "Although veganism may represent a matter of diet or lifestyle for some, ethical veganism is a profound moral and political commitment to abolition on the individual level and extends not only to matters of food but also to the wearing or using of animal products. Ethical veganism is the personal rejection of the commodity status of nonhuman animals ..."
"Veganism", Vegetarian Times, January 1989: "Webster's dictionary provides a most dry and limiting definition of the word 'vegan': 'one that consumes no animal food or dairy products.' This description explains dietary veganism, but so-called ethical vegans " and they are the majority " carry the philosophy further."
^ Jump up to: a b Cole, Matthew. "Veganism," in Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz. Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism. ABC-Clio, 2010, p. 241.
Drewbater

Con

Bacon and steak are not really bacon and steak without the meat that goes into them. Also, in many countries, including America, the majority of the population eat meat. While some might argue that facon tastes better than bacon, it can be agreed that it does not taste the same. Plus, getting rid of the meat industry entirely would be different than transitioning from milk to soy (more milk is sold than soy anyways). With no more meat being sold, animals like pigs would no longer be useful, and many of them might be slaughtered. To cause everyone to go vegan might in a way support the cause you are fighting against. Humans aren't the only ones who kill living beings, many animals like tigers, lions, and sharks eat living beings to survive. We do not force them to eat plants though! Why are humans supposed to defy the laws of nature and stop eating something that has been part of our diet since the beginning of the human race!
Debate Round No. 2
jhenley9111

Pro

"Bacon and steak are not really bacon and steak without the meat that goes into them."

Do you know that bacon/steak really are? cut up parts of corpses and dead bodies. Why do you get to give your "food" fancy nicknames and I don't?

"Also, in many countries, including America, the majority of the population eat meat."

And your point is?? What your doing is a logical fallacy in which your saying "Since I have the majority, I must be correct." Your not.

"Plus, getting rid of the meat industry entirely would be different than transitioning from milk to soy"

Why is it??

"(more milk is sold than soy anyways)."

There you go again with the logical fallacy! your saying "Since I have the majority, I must be correct." Your not.

"With no more meat being sold, animals like pigs would no longer be useful, and many of them might be slaughtered."

That's an argument from ignorance.

"To cause everyone to go vegan might in a way support the cause you are fighting against."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

"Humans aren't the only ones who kill living beings, many animals like tigers, lions, and sharks eat living beings to survive."

A human body no ways resembles those that were born for ravenousness; it hath no hawk's bill, no sharp talon, no roughness of teeth, no such strength of stomach or heat of digestion, as can be sufficient to convert or alter such heavy and fleshy fare. ... But if you will contend that yourself was born to an inclination to such food as you have now a mind to eat, do you then yourself kill what you would eat. But do it yourself, without the help of a chopping-knife, mallet or axe"as wolves, bears, and lions do, who kill and eat at once. Rend an ox with thy teeth, worry a hog with thy mouth, tear a lamb or a hare in pieces, and fall on and eat it alive as they do. But if thou hadst rather stay until what thou eatest is to become dead, and if thou art loath to force a soul out of its body, why then dost thou against Nature eat an animate thing? Nay, there is nobody that is willing to eat even a lifeless and a dead thing as it is; but they boil it, and roast it, and alter it by fire and medicines, as it were, changing and quenching the slaughtered gore with thousands of sweet sauces, that the palate being thereby deceived may admit of such uncouth fare.

Humans are 100% herbivorous.

"Why are humans supposed to defy the laws of nature and stop eating something that has been part of our diet since the beginning of the human race!"

Humans are going that right now. We are eating something that is UNnatural. Meat, dairy, and eggs.

Sources:

Plutarch, "Of Eating of Flesh," Moral Essays (1898 translation). Reprinted in Animal Rights and Human Obligations, ed. Tom Regan and Peter Singer (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976), pp. 113-114.

2. For purposes of this essay I will use the abbreviation "meat-eater" to refer to any human who eats not only meat, but also dairy products, eggs, and honey.

3. For although there are bodies more massive than Jupiter beyond the trans-Neptunian bodies, at that distance the sun's gravitation would be too weak to hold such a massive body within an orbit about the sun.

4. Henry S. Salt, Logic of the Larder. Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet (Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914). In this context Salt is actually referring to yet another pathetic defense of meat-eating, which argues that animals should be grateful to the persons who eat them, since without a demand for these animals, they would never have existed! To be honest, I was sorely tempted to write another essay in this series, and call it The Insipid "But the Animals Wouldn't Exist if We Didn't Eat Them" Argument. However, no one can improve on what Salt has already had to say about it, so I gladly refer readers to his essay instead.
Drewbater

Con

Human's have teeth for a reason, and while they may not be sharp enough to rip open hides, with the brains we gained from evolution we have made instruments (e.t.c. forks and knives) that help us with this. You also mentioned that we use tools to help us kill these animals. This is another factor of evolution. We were given thumbs and big brains for a reason. The survival of the fittest theory says that creatures evolve in certain ways because it benefits them and allows them to produce offspring. If the consumption of meat if one of our evolutionary traits that benefits our race. Humans are neither herbivores or carnivores, they eat both meat and plants which makes them omnivores. It is not against our nature, or unnatural to eat dead animals, because we (and hundreds of other animal species), have been doing so for thousands of years.
When I stated that the majority of Americans eat meat, I did not mean to say that this proves Animal Rights are wrong. Instead I meant to say that by taking away the consummation of animals you would be denying millions of people access to a food they enjoy eating. In 2012 the US. Beef Industry was worth 85 billion dollars. If you are not talented at math, let me tell you that 85 billion dollars is a substantial amount of money, and beef is one of our bigger exports. Not only would enforcing strict animal rights be disliked by those who eat meat, but it would also take a major export a way from a country already in a tremendous debt.

Also, to correct a few minor errors in your previous argument:
Your not. -> You're not
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. -> Without going through some kind of mental list of everything you have ever heard, that statement has no data to back it and therefore should not be used in this debate.
Why do you get to give your "food" fancy nicknames and I don't? -> This debate is not about me telling you that you cannot give names to your food. Go ahead and call it whatever you want to. Unless it does not infringe on any trademarks, I believe it is legal.
Humans are 100% herbivorous. -> That statement is 100% false as I proved above. Since humans consume meat, and have for a while now, we cannot be called herbivorous.
Humans are going that right now. -> Humans are doing that right now

If it is possible, in your next argument could you try to bring up some new points instead of just picking fun and making snide comments about mine. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
jhenley9111

Pro

"we have made instruments (e.t.c. forks and knives) that help us with this."

I thought you were arguing that eating meat is 100% natural...

"You also mentioned that we use tools to help us kill these animals. This is another factor of evolution."

You must not know what evolution is. What is your point??

"We were given thumbs and big brains for a reason. The survival of the fittest theory says that creatures evolve in certain ways because it benefits them and allows them to produce offspring."

We were not "given" theses things. They were carried by our genes because they helped for survival.

" If the consumption of meat if one of our evolutionary traits that benefits our race."

It may have 5000 years ago. Not anymore.

"Humans are neither herbivores or carnivores, they eat both meat and plants which makes them omnivores."

We classify animals by the way they are built. We are built like herbivores. Most people believe humans are carnivorous/omnivorous creatures"atop the food chain"who have been eating meat, eggs and dairy since the beginning of time. I believe a few sharks, piranhas, hyenas, bears and lions would like to have a word with us about who's ahead of who in the food chain. Most large herbivores such as rhinos, hippos, elephants and gorillas could also kill a human easily, if provoked. These animals are also ahead of us in the food chain. Humans, historically and scientifically, have always been near the bottom of the food chain. Killing during a one-on-one confrontation without weapons, and the ability to consume bloody raw flesh right from the bone without having it cause disease later on in life, have always been the only true factors in determining physiology and placement in the food chain. All genuine carnivores and omnivores eat an animal's eyes, nose, face, toes, tail, anus, inner organs, blood, brain and fur UNCOOKED. Humans have to cook certain parts of the dismembered animal so we don't become violently ill. That unequivocally makes us fake carnivores/omnivores.
Our human physiology is such that all the tools, weapons, hubris, deceit and technology have not magically transformed us into carnivorous/omnivorous creatures. Many anthropologists and medical experts attest to the fact that humans are completely herbivorous, plant-eating creatures. Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and a professor at Baylor University, states, "Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh"which contains cholesterol and saturated fat"was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores." Dr. Milton Mills wrote an indisputable essay about human physiology as well. In their book The Vegetarian Way, nutritionists Virginia and Mark Messina compiled an easy-to-understand chart comparing human bodies to those of herbivores, omnivores and carnivores.

" I meant to say that by taking away the consummation of animals you would be denying millions of people access to a food they enjoy eating"

You feel bad for taking away something that would kill people??

"it would also take a major export a way from a country already in a tremendous debt."

You wanna talk about debt? It takes hundreds of gallons of water to make 1 pound of meat. Hundreds of pounds of corn, soy, and other grains. The meat industry is putting us in debt.

"Also, to correct a few minor errors in your previous argument:"

Do you see me cherry picking you arguments for grammar errors?? No. Sounds like you are just trying to win votes.

"If it is possible, in your next argument could you try to bring up some new points instead of just picking fun and making snide comments about mine. Thank you."

Sure...

Let's compare the bodies of humans and herbivores to the bodies of carnivores and omnivores. First, the length of intestines in humans and other herbivores falls somewhere between 7 to 13 times the length of the trunk/torso section of the body (I am being generous compared to the research of Mills and the Messinas). In contrast, the length of intestines in carnivores/omnivores is only 3 to 6 times the length of the trunk/torso. (The length of the trunk/torso is used as the means of comparison rather than overall body length or height because humans are bipedal animals whereas most other animals are quadrupeds.) Moreover, the interior surface of human intestines is heavily fluted and striated, whereas the interior intestinal surfaces of carnivores/omnivores tend to be smooth in comparison. The relatively short intestinal length in carnivores/omnivores, along with the relatively smooth interior surface, allow rotting animal flesh, animal protein, casein, cholesterol, trans fatty acids and the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products to pass through quickly; that is why it's impossible for any real carnivore/omnivore to clog their arteries. Clogged arteries, however, affects more than 50% percent of all meat, dairy and egg-eaters in this day and age! In previous generations atherosclerosis affected around 35% of the meat, dairy and egg-eating population. The only surprising aspect of the aforementioned study was the scientists' refusal to blame animal products as the main cause of atherosclerosis. Scientists, however, like all meat- dairy and egg-eating addicts, succumb to the same idiocy and incoherency of addiction-related problem-solving, too. Fortunately, some medical professionals aren't addicts and are capable of explaining the truth. Dr. William Castelli, director of the Framingham Heart Study (the world's longest running heart study), supports the aforementioned findings with additional claims about cancer rates dropping 60 percent if people stopped eating meat, cheese, milk and eggs. Other dietary and non-dietary factors can affect heart health, too. Sugar, the excessive amount of fat found in oils, stress, a lack of sleep, the excessive amount of refined carbohydrates found in white rice, white bread, and pasta, smoking tobacco, and a lack of exercise can wreak havoc on the body. Therefore, it is essential to eat plant-based foods exclusively, and control the non-dietary factors to the best of your ability. Check out this 2014 University of Southern California study which clearly indicts animal protein as a deadly toxin.

Veganism not only ensures a greater reduction of cruelty on this planet than any other measure you could take; it also prevents, treats or cures heart diseases, prostate, colon, breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancers, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, obesity, asthma and impotence, just to name a few.

According to a plethora of scientific articles, most meat, dairy and egg-eaters will get cancer, osteoporosis or diabetes, while more than 50 percent will have a non-genetically-induced heart attack or stroke.

Concerning cancer, there's no doubt that sugar, the oil and fat in fried foods, artificial additives, human-made trans fatty acids found in junk food, and the excessive amount of refined carbohydrates found in white rice, white bread, and pasta cause health problems, while non-dietary factors harm us, too. Stress, a lack of sleep, smoking tobacco, chemical pollution, and a lack of exercise can wreak havoc on the body. However, since animal flesh and the things that come out of animals are always toxic, the main cause of cancer will always be animal protein, casein, the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products, and the 2-9 percent of naturally-occurring trans-fatty acids found in meat and dairy. Even though we're all born with cancer cells, the cells won't "activate" and turn deadly unless they are "expressed". So, preemptively amputating one's breasts (mastectomy), or taking some other drastic action, will NOT prevent cancer development if the cell "activators" are still present. Since cancer thrives in the acidic environment that animal protein creates, it is essential to eat plant-based foods exclusively, and control the non-dietary factors to the best of your ability. Check out this 2014 University of Southern California study which clearly indicts animal protein as a deadly toxin.

cited:

For purposes of this essay I will use the abbreviation "meat-eater" to refer to any human who eats not only meat, but also dairy products, eggs, and honey.

3. For although there are bodies more massive than Jupiter beyond the trans-Neptunian bodies, at that distance the sun's gravitation would be too weak to hold such a massive body within an orbit about the sun.

4. Henry S. Salt, Logic of the Larder. Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet (Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914). In this context Salt is actually referring to yet another pathetic defense of meat-eating, which argues that animals should be grateful to the persons who eat them, since without a demand for these animals, they would never have existed! To be honest, I was sorely tempted to write another essay in this series, and call it The Insipid "But the Animals Wouldn't Exist if We Didn't Eat Them" Argument. However, no one can improve on what Salt has already had to say about it, so I gladly refer readers to his essay instead.
Drewbater

Con

You obviously did not seem to understand my previous argument so I will try to put it in simpler terms. Our nature has humans has made it so we usually don't end up in 1v1 fights against animals higher in the food chain. As I said earlier, our brains help us build tools, which due to our build we can use. These tools allow us to kill animals and make food out of them.

"It may have 5000 years ago. Not anymore." -> What proof do you have that eating meat no longer benefits us in any way? Meat is not all that harmful, and it provides us with helpful things like protein.

" I believe a few sharks, piranhas, hyenas, bears and lions would like to have a word with us about who's ahead of who in the food chain." -> It's too bad they don't speak our language

You must not know what evolution is. What is your point?? -> My point is that because we are not able to beat some animals in one on one fights we developed brains to help us build tools. This in turn helped us be able to beat these animals.

All genuine carnivores and omnivores eat an animal's eyes, nose, face, toes, tail, anus, inner organs, blood, brain and fur UNCOOKED. -> We are not full carnivores, and I never said that. We are actually closer to herbivores than carnivores but WE DO EAT MEAT. This means we aren't herbivores. It is fairly simple.

You feel bad for taking away something that would kill people?? -> Meat, when prepared in the right way (which we can do because of our traits! Evolution at work.) is not poisonous to humans. Compare this to chocolate. If you eat to much chocolate, you can die. It is good and bad for you at the same time. Yet still, I do not see you arguing about getting rid of all chocolate. Everything can have negative side effects but that does not mean we should ban them. Also, in case you were arguing that the animal itself could kill us, pigs and cows are not violent creatures.

Finally, even if you believe that consumption of animals is wrong, cows, pigs, and other animals we eat are domesticated and rely greatly on us to survive. If we stopped using them for food, we would not have a really good reason to continue keeping them in our care and feeding them with our resources. If we let them out into the wild they probably would die, and if we kept them here we would be wasting money keeping them alive, when there is no longer a market for them.
Debate Round No. 4
jhenley9111

Pro

Before I start, I would like to point out that several of my arguments were dropped.

"and it provides us with helpful things like protein."

So your saying we should kill animals, kill the environment, and make people over-seas further impoverished for protein???

As for osteoporosis, animal protein contributes to this problem because keeping blood and tissues at a neutral Ph balance always takes priority over keeping calcium phosphate in the bones. Bones can hold out for years with insufficient calcium, but blood and tissue cannot because they need phosphate to offset the acidity. When the body becomes acidic with animal protein, it withdraws calcium phosphate from the bones and uses the alkaline mineral phosphate to keep the Ph levels of blood and tissues balanced. The calcium is then excreted through our urine. Epidemiological evidence proves that people who consume the least amount of animal protein always have the lowest rates of osteoporosis and bone fractures. I'm still looking for the first medical report in history that can indict broccoli, bananas or asparagus as a cause of illness.

As for diabetes, most people are unaware that fat raises blood sugar as much as stress, refined carbohydrates and sugar! Since fat and animal protein go hand-in-hand, diabetes can be treated, controlled or cured with lots of cardio exercise, a minimum amount of stress, and a low-protein, low-fat, low-sugar, low-refined-carbohydrate vegan diet. A 2013 study also showed that marijuana is of great benefit to diabetics. As you regain control of your blood sugar, you will probably have to continue taking insulin shots for a time. However, within one year, you should be able to do away with insulin completely! (Pig serum used to be the key ingredient in insulin until doctors discovered it exacerbated foot neuropathy and ocular issues. All insulin is now made synthetically from human insulin.)

" It's too bad they don't speak our language"

Actions speak louder than words...

"My point is that because we are not able to beat some animals in one on one fights we developed brains to help us build tools. This in turn helped us be able to beat these animals."

Are you saying it is because we suck at fighting we got bigger brains?

"This means we aren't herbivores. It is fairly simple."

As I said earlier, classification is based on how the animal is BUILT. We are built 100% like a herbivore. It is fairly simple.

"Meat, when prepared in the right way (which we can do because of our traits! Evolution at work.)"

Preparing food is a learned behavior NOT an evolutionary trait.

" is not poisonous to humans. Compare this to chocolate. If you eat to much chocolate, you can die. It is good and bad for you at the same time. Yet still, I do not see you arguing about getting rid of all chocolate. Everything can have negative side effects but that does not mean we should ban them. Also, in case you were arguing that the animal itself could kill us, pigs and cows are not violent creatures."

You can say the same thing for smoking. What is your point?

"Finally, even if you believe that consumption of animals is wrong, cows, pigs, and other animals we eat are domesticated and rely greatly on us to survive. "

How do we rely on animals as food to live? A pound of beef is $15.05 and a pound of soy is $2.75

"If we stopped using them for food, we would not have a really good reason to continue keeping them in our care and feeding them with our resources. If we let them out into the wild they probably would die, and if we kept them here we would be wasting money keeping them alive, when there is no longer a market for them."

So based on your logic we should eat all our pets. What use are they to us? Most would die if we let the go.

Societies that exploit animals for food are the main cause of world hunger because they feed a disproportionate percentage of the world's crops to 60 billion land animals annually killed by the meat, dairy and egg industires worldwide and tens of billions of marine animals (yes, we have fish farms nowadays)"instead of 7.5 billion people on the planet! Do the math. You don't have to be Einstein to figure out this equation. Every 2-3 seconds some human (most likely a child) starves to death, while pigs and cows continually get fat. Even the Council for Agriculture Science and Technology, a group
comprised of people involved in animal agriculture, acknowledges that 10 billion people could be fed with the available crop land in America if everyone became vegan. One acre of land can yield 30,000 pounds of carrots, 40,000 pounds of potatoes or 50,000 pounds of tomatoes. However, one acre of land can yield only 250 pounds of meat. Why? Depending on the animal in question, it takes from three to twenty pounds of vegetable protein to create one pound of animal protein. Thus it has been said in many places that animal agriculture works like "a protein factory in reverse." However, not only does this process squander protein resources; it obliterates carbohydrates and fiber, antioxidants, phytochemicals, and many other nutrients altogether.

Citation:

"All About Veganism." N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://www.adaptt.org...;.
Drewbater

Con

So your saying we should kill animals, kill the environment, and make people over-seas further impoverished for protein??? -> You say we kill the environment, yet (according to a study by ANU) there has been an 11% increase in foliage over the past hundred years of so. Also, there are currently over 1 billion pigs on the earth, and besides humans they are on of the most common mammals. We kill these pigs to gain valuable things like protein, and at the same time help their species grown. While individual pigs may not enjoy dying, it is essentially a win-win situation. The pigs get the food and shelter and a growth and population size, and in turn we get food, and nutrients.

Actions speak louder than words... -> You never asked, "what would they do about it?" You instead said, "what would they say about it."

Are you saying it is because we suck at fighting we got bigger brains? -> To put it VERY simply, yes. I have explained this topic throughout my whole debate yet every time you seem to not get the basics of natural selection. When looked up and Google the definition can be seen as, "Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment." The species with bigger brains were more successful at reproducing, because this trait helped them survive even when they lacked giant fangs or claws. Since the bigger brained (smarter) humans survived more often than the less smart ones, this trait carried on throughout our species.

A person/creature built like a herbivore probably would not be eating meat. All though we cannot tear apart raw flesh very easily, we still CAN eat meat. I will say once again that this makes us omnivores. "https://www.vrg.org...; says that:

"The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice."

Build is not everything, and even if it was we still are built so we can eat meat. We as humans will eat many things, meat or not meat. We have traits that aren't specifically herbivore or carnivore. To put it generally, we are in the middle. If we wanted, we could survive only on meat. In the same way though, we could eat only meat!

Keep in mind though, that this debate is not about whether humans are herbivores or omnivores, it is about whether we should eat meat. I think we should have a choice.
You can choose to not eat meat, and I will totally respect that.
On the same note, I can choose to eat meat whenever I would like, and I believe that you should give me that right.
Meat has its pros and cons, but in the end it is up to the consumer to choose what they eat. Don't ban the entire meat industry because of your personal views. I'm not saying the majority makes me right, but 97% of Americans eat meat and to not let them do that anymore would be preposterous.

Thank you for debating with me.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by CloudKylion 3 years ago
CloudKylion
Pro didn't make any arguments. You simply refuted the Con. In debate we have this thing called presumption, which means that, all in all, if the debate arguments are equal, we vote for the status quo. Con is the status quo, meaning that Con should win. Next time actually give legitimate reasons. You must have something that stands alone. Don't rely on Con to provide you with ground. Good luck.
Posted by jhenley9111 3 years ago
jhenley9111
It's his/choice
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Yes to which?
Posted by jhenley9111 3 years ago
jhenley9111
Yes, overall
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
So...What's this debate about? Would I have to argue that being a vegan is bad, or that animal rights are bad? Or would I be arguing that eating meat is morally permissible?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sewook123 3 years ago
sewook123
jhenley9111DrewbaterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. I think this debate went off-topic as animal rights was not discussed. 2. Some of Pro's arguements were difficult to understand (eg.Round3 argument that uses Elizabethan English for some reason. 3. Both sides missed points that could have been exploited with rebuttals 4. Some of the arguments of Pro was dubious. (eg. most meat, dairy and egg-eaters will get cancer, osteoporosis or diabetes, while more than 50 percent will have a non-genetically-induced heart attack or stroke) 5. Although Pro cited sources, I had no idea which part was cited. I suggest Pro use a different format for citing sources (in my opinion) 6. Some of the rebuttals by both sides (but more of Pro) contained heavily-biased statements. (eg. "and it provides us with helpful things like protein." So your saying we should kill animals, kill the environment, and make people over-seas further impoverished for protein???) No where in his arguments does Con states that. I hope this comment helped...