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

Vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,615 times Debate No: 8896
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I have a feeling I'm going to lose this debate simply because of many of the voters' lifestyle choices, but let's go anyway. I'd like to ask the voters to consider keeping an open mind about vegetarianism and to judge the round on who is a better debater, not on who supports your opinions. Know that I'm not here to condemn you unless you condemn me first. :)

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. :)



My position, obviously, is no.
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.
Debate Round No. 1


jack_samra forfeited this round.


Since my opponent forfieted the round for some unknown reason, i shall state something else.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


jack_samra forfeited this round.


Again, my opponent has forfeit this round. As he was unable to prove his point, nor was he able to provide any arguments to counter my arguments against him, i highly recommend to vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
Defaulted CON due to multiple forfeits.
Posted by MrButtons22 7 years ago
If I vote on it, I will vote on who's argument was more convincing. However, let me state this: a meal without meat has got to be the most sadistic thing I can think of. To quote a movie I love, "What do you mean, 'He doesn't eat meat?'... It's okay; I make lamb for you.". I don't know if a vegetarian diet is particularly HEALTHIER for you, but I do know that (at least for me) it would be very dull. :)
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
Vegitarians, on average, suffer from anemia, and other iron deficiency diseases............................
Posted by jack_samra 7 years ago
And when was I snobby during the post? I assure you it wasn't intentional at all... but if you could point out where?
Posted by jack_samra 7 years ago
Oh yes, and all those omnivores out there calling vegetarians f@gs are so much better. :)

Like I said, not here to condemn. I'm fine with people eating meat. Hey, I get it; to you, it tastes good. To me, it's cardiac arrest waiting to happen.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
I'd argue that vegetarianism makes you unhealthily snobby :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
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