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

Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation.

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: 8/21/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 78916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I believe that global Vegetarianism would benefit our nation and bring back a sense of humanity again. I remember when I was told how meat was made and felt very disgusted at how we slaughter innocent animals although we have plenty of other food options and sources. Other food sources may include: grains, nuts, vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates and in certain Vegetarian diets dairy products and eggs are also consumed. Going Vegetarian benefits the animals as 2.5 million innocent animals are being slaughtered everyday in the UK alone and most are killed in extreme conditions and are treated with lack of respect beforehand.

Between the years of 2010 to 2012 the numbers of Vegetarian adults and children, between 1.5 and 18, has increased significantly. In 2010, 583 children and 548 adults reported as being Vegetarian across the UK. In 2011 this figure increased to 1095 children and 1031 adults. Rising to 1582 children and 1491 adults in 2012, shows that Vegetarianism is becoming a more and more common necessity in people's diets.

In this debate I will be arguing that Vegetarian is the way to go and the position of Con should argue that it is not. I hope this will be an interesting debate. Good luck.



I believe that global veganism would not benefit the nation, or the world. My arguments are as follows:

1. Meat contains proteins and other nutrients that cannot be found in vegetables and are extremely beneficial to the well-being of the body.

Proteins are combinations of amino acid used to maintain body tissue, synthesize hormones and enzymes, and serve as an auxilary source of energy in the absence of carbohydrates or fat. While one could argue that beans and nuts also contain protein, they do not contain as much protein as actual meat and lack several essential amino acids that are necessary for the body.

2. Switching to a global vegetarian program would put millions out of work and cause the economy to take a hit.

The meat industry is worth $89.9 million US dollars. More than 6 million people are employed in this thriving industry, with their combined salaries totalling over $200 billion USD, and the sales of all meats in the industry total about $186 billion. The vegetable industry in the first eight years of the 2000s totalled only around $17.6 billion-and, while that number is expected to rise due to a growing public emphasis on health and nutrition, as well as several government iniatives including MyPlate, the vegetable industry cannot compete with that of meat-and suddenly removing 6% of the United States' GDP-would not be a very wise decision for the government of the US.

While I concede that the current methods of meat processing may be inhumane, the meat industry is far more valuable and iconic to the public than vegetables-sparking such icons as McDonald's and Burger King. Meat has paved the way for fast food chains all across the world, and has sparked the public eye much more than a dirty stalk of celery ever could.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank-you for accepting this debate challenge, Con. I wish you the very best of luck.

In counter-argument to your points I would like to state that:

1. Although meat is a high source of protein, there is several other ways to consume enough protein to have a healthy diet.

Most vegetarian diets consist of diary products and eggs. Eggs are one of the most protein-packed food there is available. They do not only have an amazing amount of protein but they also contain vital vitams such as Vitamin B which provides a lot of energy. It has been proven that eggs do NOT have a negetative impact on our cholesterol levels. I would also like to state that nuts are exteremely high in protein and they also contain all three macronutrients on top of essential micronutrients such as vitamin E, vitamin B6, magnesium, phosphorus, zinc, and potassium. Nuts are also suitable for vegans.

2. If the meat industury went down, the vegetable, nut, dairy, fruit and other vegetarian industuries would rise.

There isn't much to say about this point, it is just common sense. Just because in this modern world we are so used to having meat around that we take it for granted doesn't mean that if we slowly changed our ways and grow the vegetarian food industries to match the meat industries that the economy would take a hit. Sure, if we suddently changed our ways it would have an impact but not with years of adjusting and getting used to! The figures Con used are the figures of now. Not the figures they are stuck at. I would also like to say that there are more industries within the vegeterian food industuries that we need to account for; not just the vegetable industry as Con stated.


Now that I have counter-argued your point I would also like to put forward a few of my arguements.

1. It is immoral to kill animals.

As we have evolved though the decaded it has become our job - as the most powerful animal alive to enflict as little pain as possible for our species' survial. We began to eat meat many many decades ago as competition to survive against other species and food sources like wild fruit and vegetables where low. It has been proven that humans were not adapted to eat meat at the beginning. National Geographic say: "
Our taste for meat has also led us into some trouble—our teeth are too big for our downsized jaws and most of us need dental work." Now that we have much more knowledge and more food sources have been discovered, I do not believe that we are enflicting pain and torture on animals for survival. We are doing it because we are selfish.

2. Being vegetarian reduces the risk of food poisioning and death.

Food poisoning is an illness caused by eating contaminated food. In most cases of food poisioning, the food is contaminated by bacteria such as salmonella.
Food can become contaminated at any stage during production, processing or cooking. For example, it can be contaminated by:
  • not cooking food thoroughly (particularly meat)
  • not correctly storing food that needs to be chilled at below 5C
  • leaving cooked food for too long at warm temperatures
  • not sufficiently reheating previously cooked food
  • someone who is ill or who has dirty hands touching the food
  • eating food that has passed its "use by" date
  • the spread of bacteria between contaminated foods (cross-contamination)


In your counter-argument for my first argument, you imply that eggs, nuts, and dairy products can single-handedly replace all meat. While nuts do provide protein and several key nutrients, they lack important amino acids that are required to maintain the body as I said in Round 1. Plus, if every person in the world ate just 10 nuts a day (based on a rough estimate), a whopping 73 billion nuts would be consumed on a daily basis-which brings me to my next argument. How would we feed everyone in the world vegetables, dairy, and nuts? There are many arid regions in the world where farming isn't possible. Would vegetarian food be airlifted? Shipped? Also, please take into account that world resources are finite. Meat is helping to keep a delicate economic balance within the major food industries. Suddenly removing meat from the table would greatly increase the amount of products taken from cows, chickens, and farms across the world and, in time, these resources would be slowly depleted until humanity completely runs out of dairy, eggs, vegetables, and fruit-and is forced to return to meat.

Think: how would this be enforced? Would meat-eaters be fined? Imprisoned? While I concede that humans more closely resemble herbivores, humanity has relied on meat for millenia in order to feed themselves. Meat is a major food source and one that, I believe, the public won't want to be taken away. Public outcry would be huge. With around 3.75 million people employed in the fast food industry (adding to the 6 million employed in the meat industry) almost 10 million people in total would be put out of work. 10 million! You even concede that it would have an economic impact. As I said in my second argument, the meat industry accounts for 6% of the United States' GDP. While that may seem like a small number, keep in mind that the GDP of the US is around $16.77 trillion dollars. You go on to say that it would take "adjusting and getting used to" in order to adapt to the sudden removal of meat from the world's diet. How would this adaptation take place? Furthermore, killing is an instinct in humans. It is not morally wrong, unless you consider killing plants themselves to be immoral. And then, you'd have a problem with your new vegetarian diet.

Debate Round No. 2


lopoleaf forfeited this round.


In conclusion, vegetarianism would not globally benefit the nation because replacing it with meat would damage the world economy and deprive the world of key nutrients and amino acids. The methods of delivering vegetables and other non-meat foods would be inefficient, and many people in impoverished regions would starve. Meat has evolved to be the prominent food source across the world, and removing it from the planet's plate would be a mistake.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PlagueDoctor 2 years ago
Someone vote, please.
Posted by Antnego 2 years ago
A global-wide switch to vegetarianism would devastate the planet. Vegetable matter contains far less caloric and protein density than meat. Ounce for ounce, meat is a far more effective nutritive substrate than plant matter, and far more digestible to the human organism. Agribusinesses would have to expand farmland plots far beyond their current boundaries to supply enough vegetables to meet the caloric needs of the populace; that of course, destroys natural habitats, drains scarce water resources and puts extra chemicals into the ecosystem. Cattle, on the other hand, can partially thrive off of naturally growing grasses and weeds that need no cultivation.

There's also several scholarly articles stating the consumption and hunting of meat was partly responsible for the evolution of intelligence in humans.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Antnego 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: Pro couldn't refute Con's arguments.