The Instigator
detachment345
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
bluesteal27
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Veganism is not better than eating meat

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,074 times Debate No: 15627
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

detachment345

Pro

Vegans choose the lifestyle to refrain from eating meat products such as meat, eggs, fish, and milk for many moral, health, and environmental reasons, I believe, in all honesty, that unless being a vegan is a personal dietary choice made to suit your own health needs, veganism is riduculous.

In the first round my opponent and I will establish our positions and continue the debate from rounds 2-4

1. Eating non meat products is not morally superior to eating meat
2. Eating non meat products is not always necessarily the healthier choice
3. Eating non meat products does not necessarily benefit the environment around us
bluesteal27

Con

To start off i would like to point out that I am not a vegan, nor do I agree with them. However, i do believe that the people that choose to be vegans should not be persecuted by others.

Also, the resolution that my opponent proposed states that "Veganism is not better than eating meat." Therefore, since the resolution is so vague, in order for me to win this debate, all I have to prove is that Veganism is a better option for the individuals that choose to be Vegans rather than if they simply ate meat.

1. Veganism is a choice made by individuals to clear their own conscious. Many vegans turn to Veganism because of the fact that they do not feel morally comfortable eating meat.
2. Health is not a major factor of Veganism. Vegans obtain the protein that their bodies need in ways other than eating meat.
3. Vegans are choosing to be Vegans; therefore, they obviously think it is a BETTER OPTION for them to be Vegans. Which, as i stated previously, is all I need to prove in order to win this debate. That Veganism is a BETTER OPTION for those individuals.
Debate Round No. 1
detachment345

Pro

I established my position in the first round that people who choose to be vegans for their own health reasons should do so nor did I state that they should be "persecuted" or shouldn't be allowed to choose to be vegans. I simply think that the moral reasons for eating veganism are ridculous as well as doing so for environmental concerns. In short, I disagree with vegans and apparantly so does my opponent.

I was hoping the debate would be about how veganism was not necessarily morally, environmentally or dietary superior to diets that involved meat, not about the personal liberty to choose to be vegan.

Since this debate was not supposed to be about the personal right to choose your diet and my opponent apparantly doesn't agree with the vegan lifestyle, I really don't know how this debate is supposed to carry on. I apologize if I caused any confusion.
bluesteal27

Con

I do not think that i strayed from the topic. What i stated was about the fact that Veganism is better than eating meat for the people that choose to be Vegans. Which is indeed apart of the topic that my opponent proposed. I do not think that my opponent understands what i am saying.
Debate Round No. 2
detachment345

Pro

The debate wasn't supposed to be whose choice it was to personally decide whether one should or should not be a vegan. The debate was supposed to compare the pros and cons of vegan and meat diets on the basis of morals, health, environment, etc in general. Not among people with which is why I attempted to exclude them in the beginning. I suppose I was too vague in my title and in my first post so I apologize. I intended to be a debate about agreeing and disagreeing with the principles and reasons of vegan and meat diets.
bluesteal27

Con

the topic was a little broad and so in order to win i sort of twisted it. However, if i didn't i clearly would have lost. The only argument for Veganism is the fact that they don't feel comfortable eating meat. That is pretty much it.
Debate Round No. 3
detachment345

Pro

I agree, I suppose I was hoping for a rather easy win as well.
bluesteal27

Con

haha nice.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro has the burden of proof. Pro made three claims that defined "better," therefore at minimum he had to prove all three claims. Pro made no arguments whatsoever in support of Claim 1 (not morally superior) and 3 (not better for the environment). Con conceded claim 2 and said nothing about 1 and 3. Since Pro had to prove both 1 and 3 and did not, arguments go to Con. Even weak argument supporting 1 and 3, had they gone unanswered, would have won.

Con challenged the definition of "better" saying that it was better for vegans to follow their moral beliefs. Since Pro pretty much conceded that in the opening argument that defined "better," I think it was reasonable to understand that the subject of debate was limited to Pro's three stated contentions. Cons argument was therefore irrelevant. However it was not bad conduct since definitions are a legitimate subject of debate, and if Pro had not covered that in his opening it would have been a winning argument.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by NoahMuns 2 years ago
NoahMuns
detachment345bluesteal27Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Not eating meat is not very healthy and meat has some nutrients that plants don't have.
Vote Placed by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
detachment345bluesteal27Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both were bad but Pro didn't defend his three arguments at all.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
detachment345bluesteal27Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Next time, have a debate about the resolution along with arguments. Con could have argued his interpretation was within the bounds of the topic and he could have won. Instead, the debate was just ruined.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
detachment345bluesteal27Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
detachment345bluesteal27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ruined the debate. You're both idiots.