Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation.
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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:
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Antnego 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro couldn't refute Con's arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.