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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,215 times Debate No: 52779
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Ok this is a debate about veganism in a general sense, and whether it is a good or bad lifestyle choice. Any type of argument can be used. There will be three rounds, first will be opening arguments, second will be rebuttals, and third will be final rebuttals/closing statement. I'll start the argument here, so all you have to do is accept the debate and get right into your opening statement.

I will start with an argument about the purpose of eating meat. Since the dawn of man, animals have been a primary source of food, and they appeared long before any humanoid creature. Whether God or just natural forces placed animals on this earth, all signs point to a natural inclination of human beings to consume meat. Almost every Paleolithic diet included, and usually was dominated by, meat. (An exception is the Paranthropus, which died out due to a possible lack of a limited diet). Humans were naturally intended to consume animal meat. This is furthered by the presence of necessary nutrients found only in meat. For example, vitamin B12 is found almost exclusively in meat and egg products, as are vitamin D3 and Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA). If you need more information on these nutrients, here's a link:
Although it is possible to gain these nutrients through supplements, a diet including naturally occurring nutrients will be healthier, easier, and will save money on supplements. Another problem with veganism is a lack of protein. Protein helps heal the body's muscles and in athletes, make the body stronger. Synthetic protein sources technically do work, however are unnatural and expensive, and often include large amounts of unhealthy saturated fat. A natural diet is the best way to go, as evidenced by the large amounts of obese Americans who eat a largely unnatural, fast food filled diet. Especially bad cases for veganism occur when an athlete uses the diet. It can be very difficult for a vegan athlete to achieve the nutrients they need for recovery without meat or eggs. Although veganism in theory could be successful to an extent, it could not work as well as a full, "normal" diet, comprised of all of the available foods given to us. Fruits, vegetables, and meat should all be eaten in order to maintain a healthy diet. Veganism is in no way as healthy or as successful a diet as omnivorism.


I would like to accept this debate it seems like fun.


1)A low fat vegan diet can improve glycemic control and in a person. In a recent study conducted by the ADA 43% of people on a low fat vegan diet had a reduction of medication and an average of a 1.23 point drop on their hemoglobin A1C tests, as opposed to the control group who had no change in medications and only a 0.38 point drop in a hemoglobin A1C[1]. Hemoglobin A1C is a test to measure the average blood sugars in a person over the course of a month[2].

2)A low fat vegan diet can help relive the symptoms of certain diseases such as Rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. In a study on fibromyalgia published in the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology stated that there was a slight difference in joint pain, quality of sleep, health assessment questionnaires, and pain in the experimental vegan group as opposed to the control omnivorous diet[3]. Likewise the oxford journal published a study on RA that showed that 40.5% of the patients in the experimental vegan group showed improvement and only 4% of the control group showed any improvement.[4].

3)People with a high vegan diet have an increased intake of antioxidants. In a study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Showed that middle aged female who followed a strict vegan diet had higher circulating blood concentrations of antioxidants[5]. Antioxidants are important ions that some research believes help prevent illness and aging[6].

I await the next round for my rebuttals.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks a lot for your argument, it is much appreciated.

My rebuttal for all three of the above arguments offered by pro is very similar. All of these studies are observational. They demonstrate correlation, but not causation [1]. I can attribute this to the fact that many vegan eaters are more health conscious in general, as veganism is normally applied as a health choice, and are more likely to be healthy, not because of their vegan habits, but because vegans are more likely to exercise, less likely to smoke, and more likely to be married [2]. All of these factors have also been attributed to longer life. This is especially applicable to the third argument offered. There is no reason antioxidants cannot be obtained from an omnivorous diet, as omnivores can eat all of the same foods vegans can, and therefore have the same amount of sources for antioxidants, with additional benefits and nutrients as well as essential amino acids offered from meat, eggs, etc. Although the above arguments cannot be proven to stem from causation, even playing the devil's advocate, if they could be proven so, they still could not outweigh the positive effects of omnivorism, e.g. protein, certain vitamins, amino acids, omega-3's. A health conscious, natural-eating omnivore has a better chance at a healthy life than a vegan. In a recent study, Adkins-diet (high fat, low carbs, a healthy, omnivorous diet) using overweight women were compared with Ornish diet (high carbs, low fat. Basically a vegan diet) using overweight women. (These women were randomly assigned to the diets) The Adkins diet users lost more weight and had more beneficial metabolic results [3]. This study DOES demonstrate causation as the women were randomly assigned to the diets and were not pre-existing omnivores/vegans. Thank you for your time.


And here's another interesting article, if you would like to take a look:


1) You can find all of your necessary nutrients in vegetables, fruits and supplements[1]. The price of the food or the supplements does not make this diet any less beneficial than an omnivorous diet.

2) There are vegan foods that have proteins, both simple and complex. Vegetables such as beans and Nuts such as peanuts and almonds can provide enough protein for your body in order to repair any tissue damage[2].

3) My last rebuttal is your source. This author of this website does not have any authority on nutrition. He is a medical student, not a doctor, and not a dietician[3]. On top of that a simple Google search shows a lot of what he says is not true. For example the first tip “The only good food sources of B12 are animal foods like meat, fish and eggs.” That is not true Fortified Soy and Bran have plenty of B12 in them[4]. He selectively chooses the articles he uses for his research. For example he makes the claim that 92% of vegans had a B12 deficiency and sites an article off of If he would have finished reading the abstract of the article he would have read “ However, their complete blood count values did not deviate greatly from those found for nonvegetarians…”[5].

In the last turn I will post my arguments for your rebuttals.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank pro for his rebuttals, and now I will move on to my final rebuttals and conclusion.

1) Sure, I will concede that all nutrients nowadays can be obtained through supplements, but in a healthy, natural diet, supplements have no place. Supplements have been linked to prostate cancer and possible early death, as well as giving the possibility of overdosing on certain micronutrients [1]. suggests that nutrients be obtained from diet whenever possible. Secondly, as I stated in my opening argument, I am arguing whether or not veganism is a good lifestyle choice. I also stated all arguments that related were welcome. In this vein, the cost of food does in fact change the benefit of a diet. This would be an economic benefit, and though small in relation to other arguments, it is a viable argument in this particular debate.

2) On this Men's Health list [2] of the top 10 foods with the highest protein concentration, only one, soy protein, is edible by vegans (whey protein contains dairy products). This would make quite a difficult road for athletes. Also, I spotted a small fallacy in this argument, and it's that peanuts are not nuts and, in fact, are legumes [3]. Not only that, they have a whole host of health problems associated with them [4]. Actual nuts are fairly healthy and should be included as part of a balanced diet, but are not high enough in protein to be considered a viable protein source. I grabbed a bag of mixed nuts I had at my house and the nutrition facts stated that there were 170 calories per serving, with 4 grams of protein per serving. I divided that into a 2000 calorie diet, and it came out to roughly 47 grams of protein per day. The average non-athlete man is recommended to take in 56 grams of protein per day [5], while the athlete needs much more. I can concede that unless a large amount of soy protein, a non-naturally occurring supplement, is eaten, which would detract from other nutrients (and could possibly raise estrogen levels), an adequate amount of protein cannot be derived from a vegan diet.

3) The author of the article was referencing NATURALLY found vitamin B12. Although fortified soy and brand have B12, they are fortified. This means that the B12 was added to them, not naturally occurring. As you can see from this article [6], all of the natural foods that contain the highest amount of vitamin B12 are not able to be consumed by vegans. So naturally, a vegan cannot obtain adequate amounts of all micronutrients.

In conclusion, a full, healthy diet is comprised of all foods given to us by God (Or nature if you prefer, but according to your profile you are Christian). Vitamins, Minerals, Fat, Carbohydrates, and Protein, are spread across a wide range of foods and cannot possibly be obtained by subtracting entire food groups from a diet. This is the reason the food pyramid was created. Although a vegan diet is possible, it is much more difficult and a less viable option to get a complete, healthy, natural diet. A vegan diet requires supplements and unnatural food in order to replicate the benefits of an omnivorous diet. Therefore, an omnivorous diet is a much easier, healthier, less costly, and overall better diet. Thank you for your time, with that I will end my argument. Good luck to you!



I must apologize for my tardiness in posting this argument but I have been busy with work and school.

Lets recap this debate.. What was it about? The point of this debate was to determine if Veganism is bad for your health. I Have provided evidence that shows that veganism helps provide glycemic control, and may even help control pain in people with auto immune disease. I have seen and I believe my opponent has conceded that it is possible to gain all of your essential nutrients threw a vegan diet as well as supplements.

My opponent has argued that my sources are guilty of “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” However the study never claimed causation. The studies talk about a strong correlation between veganism and glycemic control and pain in some autoimmune disorders.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Sorry, I forgot to put the link in for my final rebuttal
Here it is
Posted by LiberalLogic101 2 years ago
Following this debate.
Excited to see how it plays out. I'm on the side of PRO, and have a similar debate on the intention of the species to be vegans if you'd like to see that.

Happy debating!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
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: "The point of this debate was to determine if veganism is bad for your health". Sorry, Pro, that's just not true, the debate is solely on veganism. However, the debate came down to whether meat was a preferable source of nutrients to supplements. While I think it is, Con provided no good reason as to why, saying only certain buzzwords like "fresher". That is meaningless, and ultimately Con provided no examples as to how meat offers a better diet than a vegan one.