The Instigator
SwimStar01209
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KingDebater
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Vegertarianism - yes or no?

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 2 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,167 times Debate No: 42907
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

SwimStar01209

Pro

I have to argue with everyone over this because nobody listens to what I have to say. But to be fair it's fun hearing other views on it. And it fun to argue over it.

Vegetarianism is good because eating meat is killing an innocent animal for food that we could all survive without.
KingDebater

Con

Vegetarian diets tend to severely lack Vitamin B12, a vitamin most commonly found in meat and certain types of algae [1] [2]. But algae as a source of B12 is "not bioavailable". Vitamin B12 deficiency can lead to symptoms that include losing your appetite, a sore mouth and tongue, diarrhoea, poor concentration and forgetfulness and depression [3], none of which would help a person or help motivate a person to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. Another source of Vitamin B12 would be from fortified cereals etcetera, which would also contain varying amounts of other vitamins and minerals that would make them not a good main source of B12.

Meat is also a good main source of Iron, Chromium, Phosphorus, Selenium, Vitamin B3 and Zinc [4], all of which are needed in order to have a healthy balanced diet.

Pro's main beef with eating meat is that it's "killing an innocent animal for food that we could all survive without". Indeed we could survive without meat, but for how long? As I've already pointed out, meat is a very good source of certain vital vitamins and minerals. Plus, the animals are killed as humanely as possible, and if the slaughtering were particularly bad, it would violate animal rights laws that've been put in place [5], so you can be assured it would be as humane as possible.

Red meat has also been proved by science not to cause cancer, but to have "nutritional benefits" [6].

Anyway, I want extra points, so I'll point out pro's spelling and grammar mistakes.

Pro's first mistake is the 'sentence' "And it fun to argue over it". This sentence is flawed firstly because it starts with the word "and" which is incorrect and secondly it's flawed because he writes "And it fun" instead of something like "and it's fun" or "and it is fun". His second big mistake is in the title of his own debate, where the mistake is spelling "vegetarianism" wrong.

I hope to hear Pro's arguments in a bit more depth in the next round.

Thank you.

Sources
[1] http://www.nhs.uk...
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] http://www.bupa.co.uk...
[4] http://www.webmd.com...
[5] http://www.rspca.org.uk...
[6] http://topnews.us...
Debate Round No. 1
SwimStar01209

Pro

While that all makes sense, what about the animals? there are plenty of other ways to get most of them nutrition's.

The consumption of meat can cause a transmission of a number of diseases from animals to humans. The connection between infected animal and human illness is well established in the case of salmonella; an estimated one-third to one-half of all chicken meat marketed in the United States is contaminated with salmonella. Only recently, however, have scientists begun to suspect that there is a similar connection between animal meat and human cancer, birth defects, mutations, and many other diseases in humans. The rate of disease among chickens is so high that the Department of labour has ranked the poultry industry as one of the most hazardous occupations. 20% of all cows are afflicted with a variety of cancer known as bovine leukaemia virus (BLV). Studies have increasingly linked BLV with HTLV-1, the first human retrovirus discovered to cause cancer. Scientists have found that a bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV), the equivalent of the AIDS virus in cows, can also infect human cells. It is supposed that BIV may have a role in the development of a number of malignant or slow viruses in humans.

The proximity of animals in industrial-scale animal farming leads to an increased rate of disease transmission.

Transmission of animal influenza viruses to humans has been documented, but illness from such cases is rare compared to that caused by the now common human-adapted older influenza viruses, transferred from animals to humans in the more distant past. The first documented case was in 1959, and in 1998, 18 new human cases of H5N1 influenza were diagnosed, in which six people died. In 1997 more cases of H5N1 avian influenza were found in chickens in Hong Kong.

Whether tuberculosis originated in cattle and was then transferred to humans, or diverged from a common ancestor infecting a different species, is currently unclear. The strongest evidence for a domestic-animal origin exists for measles and pertussis, although the data do not exclude a non-domestic origin
KingDebater

Con

Indeed there is a link between some chicken consumption and salmonella, but this can be prevented by following simple steps [1]. BLV can also be prevented [2]. So eating meat is not the problem, but not eating carefully is. Not being careful with any food can be dangerous.

Animal influenza, again, can be prevented [3]. So again, it's not being careful that's dangerous.

It's the same case with tuberculosis [4] [5].

Moreover, pro doesn't even try to refute my arguments, doesn't back up his/her arguments with sources (which they are seriously in need of, with all the claims (s)he's making.

Sources
[1] http://www.cdc.gov...
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] http://www.inspection.gc.ca...
[4] http://www.niaid.nih.gov...
[5] http://www.nhs.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
SwimStar01209

Pro

Good point however I have been a vegetarian for three and a half years, my friend has been one for four and a half years and her friend has been one her whole life (she's 19) and we are all perfectly healthy and being veggie hasn't affected
Any of us at all. Not to mention my cousin has been a vegan for 7 years and she also is perfectly healthy. So not eating meat can not have that big of an affect on you or else I wouldn't be as healthy as I am. Yes there is as risk when you turn veggie but if you eat the right stuff (the way I see it) it wouldn't even matter
KingDebater

Con

Again, pro does not address my arguments (so I don't have much to refute). Instead, (s)he attempts to use anecdotal 'evidence' as arguments. The first thing wrong with these arguments is that we have no ways of verifying the truth of these claims, we only have pro's word for it. The second problem is that although a person may appear healthy, they may be deficient in some minerals/vitamins (as a vegetarian or vegan typically would be), meaning they wouldn't be perfectly healthy.

I have given sound arguments and sources to back up those arguments proving that the healthiest diet is one containing meat and pro hasn't addressed them so (s)he couldn't have refuted them. Pro concludes his round 3 'argument' by giving his/her opinion, that being vegetarian wouldn't matter. I've proven that the contrary is true with facts, not opinions.

I hope to hear pro actually give arguments in the next round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
SwimStar01209

Pro

SwimStar01209 forfeited this round.
KingDebater

Con

Pro has forfeited.

This is probably because she is sick, probably due to lack of eating lovely nutritious meat.

Tell me pro, have you lost your appetite?
Or got a sore mouth/tongue?
Or diarrhoea? (I can almost hear her say "yes" at this point)
Or poor concentration? You probably do, seeing as you don't have enough concentration to concentrate on actually even posting an argument.
Or forgetfulness? This one is plausible too. Perhaps the reason you didn't post an argument is because you forgot to.
Or depression? Perhaps that's the reason why you closed your account.

Either that, or too much cabbage.

Extend all arguments.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
SwimStar01209

Pro

SwimStar01209 forfeited this round.
KingDebater

Con

Actually, on second thoughts, pro might be away from the computer because she's finally become normal and started eating delicious things like bacon, and now can't get enough. That's why she's forfeited. You can't blame her, but please vote in my favour.

All arguments extended.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Vegetarians are fine. You can just buy vitamins for b12. Plus, I found some tea with b12. Some vegans eat trace amounts of, believe it or not, dirt which contains b12.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Pro, in the disease argument, is right in one respect, wrong in another. If this debate was about factory farming, bad packaging practices, and issues with feed, then he would absolutely be right, and there are dozens of other microbiological harms involved as well (BSE, Scrapie, E. coli 0156:H7, and contaminated irrigation water, which infects plants, all come to mind), not to mention far worse ethical harms than he states.

But that's not what this debate is about, or at least, it's not where either debater has directed it. You're not talking about means. Pro could argue about the means and then bring forward these arguments, but then all Con would have to argue is that this is between vegetarianism and any other option. He could take the stance that there are ethical farms that treat their livestock very well, where conditions aren't unsanitary and crowded. He could argue that meat need not be mixed between lots, allowing the mass contamination with salmonella and other diseases. It's an optimum case, but it's also real. There are farms and slaughterhouses that do this. And since any alternative to vegetarianism is acceptable, this woul work, and it would almost completely shut Pro out of his disease arguments.
Posted by SwimStar01209 3 years ago
SwimStar01209
Either it wouldn't matter
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I guess I'd just like to know the basis for winning this argument. If I took Con, would I have to argue that vegetarianism is harmful, or would I have to ague that vegetarianism presents with no important moral or health benefits?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cermank 3 years ago
Cermank
SwimStar01209KingDebaterTied
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. Ah well.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
SwimStar01209KingDebaterTied
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 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: FF