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

Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 63549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




I think that vegetarianism is the only moral choice in the 21st century because eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. what do you think?


Hello, i am accepting the debate with you.

Pro Statement :
1. "Eating meat is becoming a huge problem now."
a) First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff.
b) Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous.

Rebuttal :
1) I state in the case that eating meat is not a huge problem now. It's just a small case. Pro is like to excess the problem like it's a doomsday or what.( no offense ja, Hehehe..)
a) I think that there are a distinction between a land of nature for planting trees (forest area) and a land of nature for grow animals (savannah or steppe (lots of grass and water)). If there are forest that have been cut down, it mostly used to build a resident for people to live. The area of forest is not good to grow livestock animals.
If you think that being vegetarian would save nature, it would be a wrong way of thinking. You still need to do both of your solution, maybe either do the reforestation, planting trees or be a vegan.
b) Overweight already have a source of problems. The main problems is a no good lifestyle. In detail is like Eat a high Calories food, like meat, fried food and No body training. To prevent overweight, they need to change their lifestyle into a good one, like more body training and eat a healthy foods like vegetables. But Vegetarian is not really the urgent decision to do in this 21st Century. Disastrous can be happened if your lifestyle is no good.

Arguments :
1) Freedom of Choice
i can said that you have choose to be a vegetarian. It's your choice, no one can blame you to have this choice. I think it's a good choice for someone who wants to let go desire of killing or hurt animals. But, it still not a good choice if the goal is to prevent land expanding or overcome overweight.

2) Comparing method
i can show another method that maybe in compare with this vegetarian thing, because of so many method, vegetarian become a no more or less effective choice than the other method.
a) doing a "fast" (no eating in full a day or half a day)
b) Meditate
c) Yoga
d) body exercise, workout
e) etc...
all of this method is in term to do a good lifestyle

3) Pro's Burden
a) show that vegetarian is good in ethical way
b) show that why vegetarian is the only choice
c) show that 21st Centuries is differ than the previous or the next term to do or not doing vegetarian as lifestyle

Thank You :D
Debate Round No. 1


Actually, growing the animals for meat IS becoming a huge problem. For example, McDonald's. To provide all that meat, they need several billion cows a year, and they need huge ares of land to grow all those cows. Also, there aren't much distinction between lands of nature and lands for growing animals. Forests, fields, and lots other places with the right conditions can be used for both growing nature and growing animals. Forests ARE pretty good for animals, since there is water, fresh air, basically everything an animal needs to survive. Secondly, vegetarianism might not the only way to save nature, but it may be the biggest way, don't you think?
I said that you could be vegetarian, not forced to be. I meant that vegetarian would be the best choice. You can choose not to be vegetarian, but I think it's the best choice. Also, the other methods you showed me are for good lifestyles, and have nothing to do with the other problems of eating meat, so that doesn't really count (no offence), and can you suggest some things that might prevent the other problems of not being vegetarian?
I think that vegetarianism is the only ethical choice because first, by eating vegetables, you can get all the minerals needed, like vitamin C, D, E, etc. Also, I don't think it's moral that all those animals are dying out only to give us food. Third, the minerals needed from meat can always be replaced by something else, like tofu or mushrooms, so meat isn't actually necessary.


In this Round 2, i am a little bit confused. The Pro team doesn't really see how the motion of debate need to be debate of.
since you are the one who create this motion and the one who fail to bring this motion by your own proposal, your proposal is not really going to get into the motion.

Motion : "Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century."
Your Proposal : "In the 1st round, you said that Vegetarian is the only choice to solve a huge problems of eating meat. Then in the 2nd Round you say that Vegetarian is just a Best Choice, not the Only Choice." Which is the way you prefer to stand in?
If you choose the first round stance, you are going into a straight path into solvency of this motion, but still didn't answer "Why it's the only choice and it's true?"
If you choose the second round stance, you are going into a different way, which is do not have any solvency to the motion and you are contradicting to your own proposal. In this case you need to prove that "The best choice is the same with the only choice"

Argument & Rebuttal :
1) I will assume that you use 2nd round arguments as your stances and solvency for your proposal.
a) Optional is not the only way
* To begin with word "the best choice" maybe it looks fantastic and having more power to compare with the other choices. But still, the best choice isn't something that people will follow the most. The choice they will take isn't a choice that is the best. But the choice that suit a person's decision.
b) Ultimate Goal
* If you are saying "The best choice in 21st Centuries", firstly, you already let yourself out of this motion. Secondly, it's like you don't have any goal you want to take in the end.
What i mean by Ultimate goal is, something that you targeting biggest, so it's like If you successfully bring this motion to make the other people trust to want to be a vegetarian, then the huge problems should be solved.
But what i see here, you are afraid to take this action. Do you think that just to make this choice, would make your HUGE problems to be solved? I think not, because you don't have any Spirit to take this proposal to the Ultimate Goal that i think you don't have in the first place.

2) To Begin the idea with Issue, it will being easy to read the case. Also Burden that once again PRO doesn't move to answer :
a) Issue Huge VS Small
* Actually, in this term of debate, it's not a good one. We just need to prove whether the Fact does really exist or not. It's that simple.
In this case, i will assume the fact you bring as the problems need to solve. First of all, whatever the problems you bring into this debate, still doesn't have any corresponding into what you want to do. In this case, You bring a problems about big Industries that need huge areas and land for plants to grow and overweight problems. But it doesn't make any sense "How does by just be a vegetarian would save the forest?"
b) Ethical Way
* In this debate you don't really observe your motion clearly. You said about Ethical way, but you don't bragging about that from the first round. What does Ethical way implying in this motion? There's no on them? Then you bring a wrong case to solve.
c) 21st Centuries
* What does the differences between this centuries, and the past also the future? Why we need to have a BEST CHOICE to be vegetarian just in this era not in the past or the future? Does this BEST CHOICE will be implying into the future too? Or Should it have been be a BEST CHOICE in the past too? I don't really get it how this motion come from. It's your burden to proof this motion really can solve the problems.

3) Pratical Way
* What would the PRO do? I don't think that Vegetarian would make PRO's huge problems gone clearly. Take an imagination. Assume that you are in this 21st Century. You are seeing the whole world being a livestock. Everywhere are livestocks to gain meat for everybody in MCDONOLD. So you have an Idea. You are so powerful that have a power like President to move society. You declare that, : "Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. But it just your Best choice".
then the people will start to be vegetarian. but what would you do with the livestocks? what would you do with MCDONOLD? just simply ignore it? destroy it? give them the last chance to sell the whole meat until the livestock is gone? The people in that era would be in chaos and no problem can be solve.

4) "i don't think it's moral that all those animals are dying out only to give us food"
* What is the state of morality you stand for? It's true that live is precious. precious for all the sentient being. But how it can make people to change their mind and start to do vegetarian? people create a lifestock to give food for the society. if you simply neglect or ignore the livestock right now, what would be happened with those animals? they will died inside the livestock. If you simply let them go, they will wildly attack the resident. You need to choose the option.

5) Alternative of Meat
* Yes, you have tofu or mushrooms as the alternative of meat. In this case, i would say my friends experience and i think many people does it. She is not a vegetarian in the first place. She start to being a vegetarian when she was 5. Her whole family become a vegetarian at that time. They don't eat eggs, meat etc. But do you know what they eat? They eat the fake meat, fake fish, fake shrimp, fake anything that have been process with tofu and mushroom. You can check in the nearby vegetarian restaurant to ensure that. This fake anything food mostly is fried. It's like eat the fried chicken in MCDONOLD. Now, she and her whole family is not in categorized of overweight people, but have a bigger risk of Heart attack because they get cholesterol of the food. They do vegetarian, she does not eat meat. But instead she eat those tofu and mushroom. It's good for you to think it's in proportional with ethical way and healthy?

6) Benefit
* Yes, the benefit you write in your proposal is really good for people to know. But just for people to know. Does that make your huge problems gone? Does that make them all being a Vegetarian as the only choice?.... i mean the BEST CHOICE? Does it simply make the overweight people want to change his own lifestyle?
You need to solve this problems to solve the case. The more you don't answer this problems. The less you have finish your problems. It's a problem you create. If you don't have any power to solve it, then i am sad to be you...

Thank You..
Debate Round No. 2


Firstly, I can't see why you aren't supporting other kinds of eating styles, and only stating why I am wrong. Please say why you think other kinds of food choices can be good in the 21st century.
1. I would like to stand in the "Vegetarian is just the best choice,not the only choice." (Thank you for reminding me.)
2. Also, I agree with you on the fact that the choice is the person's decision, but if a lot of people don't turn vegetarian, big problems will come in the future. Would YOU like a future with huge air pollution, all the forests cut down, etc?


Why i should win this debate?
1) I don't think it's a fair debate, because the government team have just found what he wanted to stand for in the 3rd Round.
You are the one who created this motion. But when i rebutt your case, you just avoid some question and avoid to answer my arguments but instead try to enlarge the problem with a solution by an unlogical process to get what you wanted.

2) There are lots of my Arguments that you didn't response. Does it mean that you didn't know what to do about it? or what?

3) I already said that the point in your issue is not a Huge thing that you have thinking of. But you are inssist that it's a huge problem that have the solution by choosing a Vegetarian as "Best Solution". But i still didn't see the process that would take into the goal.
I Wonder if i being a vegetarian, i didn't eat meat anymore. then everything change to be a lot of forests, no animal harming, everyone healthty and never get sick. It's just to something. So Illogical. It can't be a best solution if you just say about how worst this situation is.

4) I already bring up my other optional for your problems like going to Gym, have an exercise to lower the potential of overweight. Start to do reforestration, no illegal logging, save the gas emission to reduce the effect of Global Warming. I think this solution (Some already be done by some individual, organization, companies, industry, international organization, etc)would be more clear to get into the goal then by just be a vegetarian.

5) Why it's the best choice? why Vegetarian? why the big problems will come in the future for just not being a vegetarian? My suggestion is you show the process of what you want to do, into what you want to get. If not, it will be taste like a glass of sour wasabi with olive oil.
Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheSymbiote 2 years ago
Pro, you keep rambling on and on. Find a good way to rebut.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Ready to chomp down on a nice fat steak.My son has his freezer full of venison. Nothing like it.All 6 of his kids likes venison.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
Pro, you claim ethics, but the only benefits you identify are for human animals. What's up with that?
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
For some people, vegetarian is not healthy. If your body is very sensitive to sugars and triglycerides, then plants leave you few options, comparatively. You would need to stay away from all sugars and all starchy tubers and grains, leaving you only with nuts, leafy vegetables, and squash. You can have a few types of beans and some types of bread moderately, also. It's possible to make these tasty if you bake them with plenty of olive oil, but it will get old eventually. Meat and eggs, however, can help the diet immensely. Personally, I would like to see more organic and legitimately free-range farming practices when it comes to food animals, allowing them a moderate quality of life prior to slaughter. But, biologically, humans are not adapted to strict vegetarian lifestyles, and high intake of sugars may have a relationship with an increase of cancer risk and other problems.
Posted by PaoPao 2 years ago
To be honest, i really wanted to become a vegetarian too. but i didn't see the point @yejuneyoon said could change my mind to become a vegetarian.
No votes have been placed for this debate.