The Instigator
MisterDeku
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
MikeyMike
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Veganism is immoral

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 5 votes the winner is...
MisterDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,637 times Debate No: 35497
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

MisterDeku

Pro

= Disambiguation =
Pro will argue that a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential. Con will argue that a vegan diet is moral by whatever paradigm he or she wishes.

= First round =
This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate.

If Con is in need of clarity, is should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate.

I repeat posting anything other than 'I Accept.' will lose you the debate before it even starts.

= Rules =
1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be on clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round.

2. The BOP will be shared between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast.

3. No semantics!

= Definitions =
[1]Circumstance: a condition that accompanies or influences some event or activity
[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......
MikeyMike

Con

I Accept.
Debate Round No. 1
MisterDeku

Pro

Veganism promotes wasteful consumption patterns. Vegan diets are not common, and vegans are not able to eat just any kind of food. There is a distinction between vegans and more classical vegetarians in that vegans will not eat anything that comes from an animal[2]. This includes, but is not limited to, Milk, Cheese, honey and non-organic produce.
In the United States up to 48 billion pounds of food is thrown out every year at the retail level[3]. Because vegans do not consume many of these products that are being thrown out, they aren't directly responsible for much of it. So a lot of this waste is a moral neutral. However they are responsible for all produce, organic or otherwise. But I'll get to that in a moment.
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://bit.ly...

Right now I need to introduce two concept which will be constant themes throughout this debate; Market demand and waste by omission. Vegans will only eat organic produce as there is a chance non-organic produce was grow with nitrate fertilizers or somehow utilizes animal by-products. This creates a unique demand for this produce alongside other Non-Organic fruits and vegetables. Organic produce is more expensive[4] as it is more difficult to grow, so many non-Vegans will avoid purchasing in favor of cheaper, non-organic produce.
Further, because Organic produce is still a type of perishable good, much of it goes bad before it can be sold. In fact more of it goes bad because it rots more easily[4] This waste is compacted on top of the other produce which also goes bad before it can be sold contributing to those 48 billion pounds of waste.
When we realize how many people have to go hungry because they lack any kind of food, creating demand for produce which rots at a quicker rate and take more resources[4] to grow is immoral. Remember this is all Vegans eat.
[4] http://bit.ly...

Next on the table is the issue of waste by omission. Let's say for example that there's an open bag of spinach in the refrigerator. If one chose to buy and eat a different brand of spinach, all the while knowing there was already spinach waiting to be consumed, they are responsible for the wasted spinach by their omission. This illustration is a perfect example of organic versus non-organic produce. Vegans are responsible for all wasted produce by omission of their consumption. Because they will only eat a certain type of produce, allow other types of produce to be wasted.
Another illustration would be eating at an all-you-can eat restaurant. If the restaurant already had french fries at the bar, requesting a slightly different form of french fries is wasteful since it means that less people will eat the already available french fries. I can't stress this enough, but this is the exact same thing with organic produce.

Finally there's the health issue to be considered. Many vegans will claim that their diet is superior to mainstream omnivore diets in terms of health, but vegan diets lack essential nutrients. To name a few, one cannot obtain Vitamin A, Vitamin D, B12, Complex proteins or zinc naturally through their diets. Further, vegetables simply don't have as much nutrition as meat which means that you have to eat more and eat more often to stay healthy.

So while personal malnutrition can be a huge risk to going vegan, there's also the issue of lowering the quality of one's gene's through this diet. That's right guys, eating meat makes you smarter[5]. The complex proteins in meat contribute to strong brain growth. This was essential in mankind's evolution and we can continue to see the benefits today. And while the effect of being a vegetarian won't have any immediate effects on the intelligence of humans, the long term effect is staggered intellectual progression and less nutrients for the body to work with. This is incredibly immoral as it puts one's offspring at a disadvantage.
[5] http://n.pr...

With all that I hand it over to Con.
Good luck!
MikeyMike

Con

Many thanks to Pro for presenting the opportunity to debate such a unique topic; this should be fun.

Arguments as to why a Vegan lifestyle is perfectly moral.

1. Vegan lifespan vs. Meat Eaters
Vegans, on average, tend to live longer than meat eaters by an average of 3.6 years. That's almost 4 more years to love your wife, hug your children, watch your grand kids grow. Almost 4 years on average to enjoy your life, and all I have to do is eat healthy? I'll take it. http://www.livestrong.com...

2. Being vegan is economical, healthy, environmentally friendly, helps prevent animal abuse, and far less wasteful than eating meat(contrary to what my opponent thinks).

I have so many points on why a Vegan diet is moral, that I don't have enough characters to elaborate on each one, so I'll just leave these sources here in order of least to greatest, and let my opponent pick whichever ones he wishes to dispute.

http://www.peta.org...
http://www.vegansociety.com...
http://www.rd.com...

Rebuttals:

I would like to bring to the audience's attention a quote from Pro: "Pro will argue that a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential. Con will argue that a vegan diet is moral by whatever paradigm he or she wishes."

Based on Pro's own rule, he has to forfeit the points he made regarding market demand and waste by omission seeing as how it has nothing to do with "a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential."

This leaves only one points for me to argue are his points on Vegan health, and the health of a vegan baby.

1. Vegans are malnourished.(false)
My opponent made the claim that vegans, due to their diets, cannot naturally obtain complex proteins, zinc Vitamins A, D, B12 and are malnourished in comparison to those who eat meat.

Evidence against that:
The complete range of proteins can easily be obtained through a vegan diet from plant products such as nuts, legumes, grains, and vegetables: http://www.theholykale.com...

Excellent sources of Zinc include peanuts, pumpkin & squash seeds, dark chocolate & cocoa powder, and toasted wheat germ: http://www.healthaliciousness.com...

Vitamin A can be found in plenty of vegan foods. Carrots, sweet potatoes, cantaloupes, lettuce, and dark leafy greens are all very good sources of vitamin A. One could even make the argument the vegans probably get more of this vitamin than the general population: http://www.healthaliciousness.com...

Vegans can't get Vitamin D?? Aren't mushrooms, spinach, and potatoes a good source of vitamin D?? Ha! Read it and weep: http://www.thirdage.com...

But what about B12?? Where on Earth would a vegan ever find such things, wait a minute, let me check the Internet: http://www.vrg.org...

2. Vegan Diets put babies at risk(false)
Everything a pregnant mother needs in order to have a healthy baby can be obtained through a vegan diet by making sure the diet contains a wide variety of plant based products: http://www.vrg.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MisterDeku

Pro

Thanks Con!

Right out of the batting box, it should be pointed out that Con isn't arguing for Veganism, but for vegetarianism. While the two diets are similar, there is a necessary distinction between them in regards to consumption of animal by-products and the types of produce eaten. A vegetarian will eat animal byproducts such a milk, cheese, and honey; A vegan will only eat organic produce.

With this in mind, the health argument is invalid as the Livestrong article that Con posts doesn't speak a word on the benefits of being a vegan. It talks about being vegetarian.

And while we're at it, I'd like to point out that making a claim and posting a detached article is not legitimate argumentation. It's not my job to warrant my opponent's arguments for him, he has to decide which ones he believes to be the best and argue them for himself. The economic, health, environmental and abuse arguments are out the window until Con actually makes the arguments instead of just referring to them in a general manner.

Aside from all that, can I just point how PETA is not a legitimate source? These are the people who waste millions of dollars a year on attack ads against irrelevant public figures[6] all the while killing 89.4% of the animals in their shelters[7]. Pretty immoral if you ask me.
[6] http://features.peta.org...
[7] http://www.consumerfreedom.com...

Sorry Con, but if you want to debate, you'll have to write your own arguments. I'm debating you, not the internet.

Going on to defend my own arguments, I'd like to point out that the waste is still a big issue in this Debate. As Con stated my burden is to prove that 'a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential.' So when we realize that a staggering 15% of the population goes hungry every year[8], insisting on eating only organic produce and no meat destroys human potential. We're wasting 48 million pounds of food every year at the retail level[4] in America alone. Depriving people of sustainable, affordable and nonperishable food is absolutely essential.
[8] http://www.worldhunger.org...

I'd also like to hear Con's answer as to how traditional fishing communities such as Japan, Alaska, and Kamchatka would be able to survive in the event they were told they could no longer eat meat.

Moving on to the nutrition argument, we see that Con is making the mistake of posting detached articles again. Not only that, but many of these articles fail to address the arguments I originally make. The nutrition argument was a minor one anyway.

On protein; while it is possible to obtain simple proteins from organic vegetables, it is not possible to gain complete proteins with all 9 necessary amino acids[9]. One could possibly use several different vegetables to get such nutrients, but this isn't a sustainable approach in areas where any kind of food is scarce. If you live in rural Alaksa, a single fish would do the job of several expensive vegetables.
[9] http://thinksteroids.com...

This is a similar principle with Zinc, Vitamin A, Vitamin D and B12. One may get some of these through vegetables, but a sustainable amount can't be provided to all people.

I'd also like to point out my opponent's conduct here; Con isn't treating me with a whole lot of respect in his rebuttals, and that isn't cool.

Finally as for the baby argument, Con isn't even responding to the claim I originally made. My argument was one of evolutionary adaption, and how the complex proteins in meat were essential to human evolution. In the absence of such proteins the human brain doesn't grow as much[5]. It's not an issue of 'is my baby fed?', it's an issue of 'am I doing what's best for my offspring?'

Back to you Con.
MikeyMike

Con

MikeyMike forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MisterDeku

Pro

Normally when an opponent forfeits a single round I would just say 'Extend' and be done with it. However this is the last round I have in the debate and in the event that my opponent decides to argue in the next round I wouldn't have an opportunity to respond to him. That said, do not allow Con to bring new arguments in the last round, and do not allow him to continue arguing things he's dropped.

I'm not going to be beat a dead horse and re-hash all of the arguments I've already made, I just wanted to make absolutely clear that this is my last round. I will not be able to respond to whatever Con writes on in the next round.

So,
Extend, and Vote Pro!

Thanks for the debate MikeyMike!
MikeyMike

Con

My apologies to Pro and the audience. Family emergency, debate goes to Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Aphelion 3 years ago
Aphelion
MisterDekuMikeyMikeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I side with Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Jeremy Bentham, Arthur Schopenhauer, Romain Roland, Pythagoras, Albert Schweitzer, Plutarch and Thomas Edison in believing that the enslavement, exploitation and killing of other species is an immorality and exhaustive regression of cognitive evolution.
Vote Placed by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
MisterDekuMikeyMikeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
MisterDekuMikeyMikeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F. + "debate goes to Pro."
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
MisterDekuMikeyMikeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by con.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
MisterDekuMikeyMikeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: ff