The Instigator
alohagiraffe
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
prithviram-bala
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Vegans/CON vs omnivores/ PRO

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 2 votes the winner is...
prithviram-bala
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2016 Category: People
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 261 times Debate No: 92546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

alohagiraffe

Pro

Vegans are crazy, threatening omnivores (eat meat and veggies), several vegans threatened me saying they would kill me because I ate meat. Like dude wtf. I can eat meat if I want, humans were made to eat meat, just think of our evolution, we survived all these years from EATING MEAT. Eating meat isint murder. Farm animals are raised to be eaten.
prithviram-bala

Con

I strongly oppose the omnivorous way of life- "eating both animal and plant foods" (1) that is, consuming a diet with meat in it.
Contention 1: Meat is not a necessity, it is a choice.

Sub-point A: Meat is not needed for our survival.
Early man hunted because agriculture didn"t exist at that time. Now, in a world where many people don"t eat meat, and one can survive without it, meat is just a choice with ethical and environmental consequences. One can choose to eat it or live life without eating it and not be impacted. "Early humans eating meat, and the carnivorous diet playing a role in human development, are not reasons to keep eating meat in the 21st century". (2)

Sub-point B: Animals have rights.
As sentient living beings, animals have rights.
Dictionary.com defines "sentient" as "having the power of perception by the senses; conscious". (1)
It has been proven that non-human animals are sentient. Scientists at the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (July 7, 2012) wrote,"" humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates". (3)
And being sentient, animals have the capacity to feel pain. This makes killing them for food an ethical wrongdoing. ""the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. "All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account". (4)

The opposition said that "farm animals are raised to be killed".
We all know that killing a human is illegal, whether you raised them or not. Now, the opposition might argue:
"Isn't There an Obvious Difference between Human and Animal Life?
That's the foundational tenet of speciesism " that by virtue of species, some creatures are rightly subject to wildly different standards of treatment than others. For many of us, that's a deeply flawed and cynical conclusion, one which ignores a self-evident responsibility we humans have to animals, with all our power and intellect". (2)

Sources:
1) http://www.dictionary.com...
2) rights/http://www.bustle.com...

3) http://www.livescience.com...
4) http://www.peta.org...
Debate Round No. 1
alohagiraffe

Pro

alohagiraffe forfeited this round.
prithviram-bala

Con

ROUND 2
My opponent has forfeited his second round argument, so I consider all my arguments unanswered. There hence is no rebuttal too.
For this round's argument:
Contention 2: Meat is harmful to the health and the environment in comparison with vegetarian products.

Sub-point A: Meat could lead to water scarcity and possibly our extinction.
A study in The Huffington Post says that production of 1 lb. of beef uses up 1,847 gallons of water whereas Tofu uses 302 gallons/lb. (1)
To grow animals for slaughter, fodder is needed. To grow this fodder, water is used. This water could be used to save lives in water-scarce areas. With growing population and uneven water distribution, vegetarianism is the only way.
'Increasing water scarcity could make animal product consumption drop from 20% of an average human diet to just 5%, to feed the world population in 2050. Adopting a vegetarian diet is one option to increase the amount of water available to grow more food in an increasingly climate-erratic world, the scientists said. Animal protein-rich food consumes five to 10 times more water than a vegetarian diet. One third of the world's arable land is used to grow crops to feed animals'. (2)
'Agriculture uses 70% of the world's accessible freshwater...wasteful use of water is drying out rivers, lakes and underground aquifers. Many countries that produce large amounts of food including India, China, Australia, Spain and the United States have reached or are close to reaching their water resource limits'. (3) Only if water is conserved now, future generations will survive.

Thus, this syllogism:
Premise 1: Meat uses up a lot of water, majorly contributing to water scarcity.
Premise 2: Water scarcity is a major problem that affects millions of people in drought-hit areas.
Conclusion: Giving up meat could help save millions of lives by providing adequate water.

Sub-point B: Meat is much less healthy when compared to vegetarian products.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report, in which it said:
'It said that just 50g of processed meat a day 'less than two slices of bacon' increases the chance of developing bowel cancer by 18 per cent. Bowel cancer is the third-most common type of cancer world-wide and is responsible for more than 16,000 deaths a year in the UK'. (4)

With all these hazards, meat is not a good thing to be in our diets. In this round, my arguments are that meat isn't good for the environment, our health and on the whole, our sustainability.
Sources:
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
2) http://www.theguardian.com...
3) http://www.worldwildlife.org...
4) http://www.independent.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
alohagiraffe

Pro

alohagiraffe forfeited this round.
prithviram-bala

Con

prithviram-bala forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by nikhilworld123 7 months ago
nikhilworld123
alohagiraffeprithviram-balaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately, the forfeits destroyed of what could have been an interesting debate. Be as it may, Cons arguments were good with reliable sources.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
alohagiraffeprithviram-balaTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF