Vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet.
Debate Rounds (3)
For the purposes of this debate, "vegetarianism" will be defined as a person whose diet completely excludes meat (including fish), gelatin, and eggs. Otherwise known as a lacto-vegetarian.
Pro burden: Prove that vegetarianism is, on balance, healthier than an omnivorous diet.
Con burden: Prove that an omnivorous diet is healthier than a vegetarian diet.
Now that those very-obvious burdens are out of the way...
We're not looking towards the health of the environment or towards the health of animals, but only to the health of human beings. I myself firmly believe that a vegetarian diet, while it may have its drawbacks, ultimately has more advantages than an omnivorous diet. However, many people have voice the complete opposite, and so we find ourselves debating today.
According to the BBC, "Vegetarians 'avoid more cancers.'" Vegetarians got significantly fewer cases of stomach, bladder, and other common cancers. For example, vegetarians are only a third as likely to contract stomach cancer than a meat-eater is. N-Nitroso compounds in meat can damage cells' DNA and cooked meat often contains carcinogens, so obviously eating meat puts you at a higher risk of cancer (not to mention the saturated fats and hardly digestible proteins found in meat, asking to clog your arteries). Granted, vegetarian females are more likely to get cancer of the ovaries, but this is the *only* cancer that has a high occurrence in vegetarians. Thus, overall, vegetarianism guards against all cancers (except ovary and colon cancer. There was no noticeable difference in the amount of colon cancer cases.) (((Source 1)))
A common belief about vegetarianism is that it lacks important nutrients like protein and calcium. However, this is simply not true. The amount of protein that a person needs can easily be obtained from bread, cereal, rice, pasta, tofu, beans, nuts, or any other grain or soy based food. As for calcium, vegetarians (unlike vegans) have the opportunity to drink milk, a major source of the stuff. Leafy greens also provide calcium for the body. So, not only does a vegetarian diet provide the nutrients needed, but it encourages the individual to use healthier sources (instead of that unhealthy meat discussed earlier). (((Source 2)))
I have more arguments, but I'd rather not make my first speech too long-winded. I'll leave it up to my opponent to refute my points and post their own -- may the best debater win. :)
First, i shall define what an omnivore, or someone with an omnivorous diet, is.
For the sake of Simplicity, I shall define an omnivore, as someone who eats plants and animals, indiscriminately.
Secondly, I shall address my opponents arguments.
I have a problem with the con burden. The Burden for the Con side should consist of proving that an omnivorous diet is just as healthy, if not healthier than a vegetarian diet. Nowhere in the topic does it consist of having to prove that an omnivorous diet is necessarily MORE healthier than a vegetarian diet.
Regarding the rate of cancer between Vegetarians and Omnivores:
Let me first state the obvious. You've traded a knife for a hatchet. In other words, youve decreased one type of cancer, but increased the chance of another. Both Colorectal and ovarian cancer is higher in people who have vegetarian diets. Furthermore, the existance of Carcinogens are only prevalant on meats that have been cooked; that is, raw meat or otherwise rarely done meat, will have little to no chance of producing cancer.
Now, onto the health benefits of a omnivorous diet compared to a vegetarian diet.
A properly managed Omnivorous diet can be just as healthy as a vegetarian diet. My opponent mentioned saturated fats and how these will clog your arteries. Not only are Dairy products an abundant source of saturated fats, but you can receive the same amount of fat by eating a well trimmed lean peice of meat.(1)
We mustnt forget that certain people are unable to eat wheat or dairy products. For people such as these, Calcium and proteins must be obtained from outside sources, such as meat, and bones of fish. Clearly people like these cannot be vegetarians at all.
It is also interesting to note that Fish eaters have a longer survival rate than Lacto-vegetarians.(2)
I shall post my sources later as i do not have time to do it now, and the deadline is closing in.
jack_samra forfeited this round.
The question of Whether vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet, can only be made from an extremely spoiled point of view. We, as citizens of a first world country, have access to a variety of foods. Yet, people in third world countries, or even second world countries, dont have access. Therefore, having a vegetarian diet is not only fatal to their health, they would even go to the point of starvation without meat. And yet these people who eat meat, such as those living in china, live to be well over 90 years old.
jack_samra forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years 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||7|
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.