The Instigator
panthercub21
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Darth_Grievous_42
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Vegetarianism

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,700 times Debate No: 2662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (15)

 

panthercub21

Pro

Yummmy..... so, do you enjoy the charred slab of muscle carved from a dead body that can be ordered from any fast food place around and also known as a hamburger? What is the attraction in eating animal corpses?
Darth_Grievous_42

Con

Particularly yes, I do. I find a pepperoni pizza to be rather delicious, and hamburger very enjoyable, and don't get me started on a good steak. The attraction to eating animals is the natural human state. By that I mean that we, by nature, are omnivores. Omnivores mean we can eat not only animals, but plants. There is nothing wrong with following a process that we naturally have.

In fact, you owe your humanly life to the eating of meat. Meat is a stupendous source of protein, which powers and builds the brain. Without meat, we would not have evolved from our ape brethren, instead, we'd remain among them. As australopithecus, we ate many fruits, but that doesn't get one far brain wise, but it will make you energetic. When we found an animal carcass, we ate it because we could. This mix of two foods gave us a tremendous edge over the animals that maintain themselves on either extreme. Meat eaters are clever. They use strategy, planning, timing, scouting to find prey. Not only that, but they have a strong social basis (do you have friends? Guess why, Ms. Predator) Wolves, lions, and hyenas are good examples. Herbivores, the peaceful sort, are fast, mellow, and have good senses/reflexes but that's about it. They are not very social, nor do they have a strong intelligence. Antelope, Deer, Caribou (common preys) only stay together because there is safety in numbers. They show little remorse over the loss of fallen brethren, and will commonly leave them when faced with danger for their own sakes. They fall prey to traps by predators, and often fall to natural dangers. Their senses make up for some of it, with superb hearing, strong senses of smell, and vision. Humans have used both to their advantage. We are social, have good senses, strong intelligence, moods, and reflexive. In a sense, we are what we eat.

Bears follow the same diet that we do, as well as raccoons, some foxes, and apes. All of which are some of the cleverest, social, and naturally well equipped species on the planet.

If your issue is on animal cruelty, then I agree with you. I still think we have a right to eat animals, but we don't need to make them suffer before the process. I'd purpose larger containment's and more human treatments of the animals so they can live happy, healthy lives. When it comes to the actual death, they should be hunted so that their death applies to natural law, rather than executed.

Hopefully these explanations have covered whatever the true question you were trying to get at is. The joy I get from eating meat is nothing more than what my body is naturally capable of. If humans were naturally only vegetarians, then I would agree that we should not eat meat. But we are omnivores. Not carnivores, not herbivores, but omnivores.

Now what further arguments do you have on the topic?
Debate Round No. 1
panthercub21

Pro

I very much agree with your stance on animal cruelty. I guess that what really got me was researching the conditions that animals live in, and how they are typically killed. I have no fundamental argument with eating meat (although it is not nessisary to survive, but more about that later). As you pointed out, humans are by nature omnivores. I do have an argument with supporting an industry that treats living beings in such a manner. You made an interesting suggestion for how to kill animals for humanely. But do you really think that hunting them is a more humane way to kill them? Also, how would that affect the economy if animals were hunted instead of mass slaughtered?

About the point that eating meat makes you smarter and faster and are proving this because meat eating animals are smarter and faster..... Unless you believe that eating the same diet as a certain type of animal makes you more like that type of animal, that argument doesn't make sense. Diet is only one part of what powers an animal, and the speed of animals is dependent on their body structure. They are built to hunt, but could survive just as well in a zoo without ever hunting or eating meat in their lives, provided that the nutrients were provided in some other manner.

Care to add some philosophy and economics into the discussion?
Darth_Grievous_42

Con

I'm glad we share some agreement.
If you'll recall, I never said, humanely, only naturally. For billion's of years, the circle of life has spun, where there are predators and prey. They prey dies to feed the predator. An equally interesting concept is that herbivores are predators, killing plants for their survival. So then it is settled that for anything to live, something must die (save for plants). This means that any kind of killing for sustenance and nourishment is naturally 'okay'. For the common predator/prey scene, there is no way to do it nicely. Lions tear their prey apart, snakes inject them with painful and powerful poisons, sharks eat them alive. So how do we do it so that it is not cruel? such as this video:

At least in nature, they usually die soon...
There is a better way, problem is it is probably cost inefficient. They manner the put down dogs would be ideal. First they sleep, as the heart slowly begins to stop. Euthanasia that acts like a peaceful, natural death. Of course, this would tremendously hurt the food processing economy. The manner shown in the video above is fast and cheap, while euthanasia is slow and expensive. So The question really is, how much do you care on how the meat got on that Big Mac? Is it worth the money to make sure that your chicken nuggets were happy before getting dipped in honey BBQ sauce? I would say yes, big business will say no. Our society is riddled with over fattening meaty treats, having less of it would only be an improvement. This means that I am for taking away peoples stupid choices for their own betterment. Animals are life's as we are, and its an unfortunate evolutionary trait were one of us must die of another to live. But as we are all to fond of believing, we have the capabilities to improve upon it. That's my stance. Many will say its not practical, but I firmly believe its right.

On your second point, its important to remember what came first, nature or the zoo? Animals can survive in zoos, but their body make up was not made to accommodate a cage. Not single animals body was designed to be fed a perfect Alpo protein and nutrient rich zoo diet. No, predators had to be made to be smart and out maneuver their meals, as meat doesn't grow on trees, or from the ground for that matter. Herbivores only need to run and know when to, that's it. So yes, eating meat makes you smarter by making you more predator like, the genius's of nature. Big cats were smarter than apes and ate us, then as we ate more meat we got smarter too. We had to make up for our lack of natural predatory weaponry and made tools. First using rocks to crack open bones and suck the marrow from carcasses that had already been killed. Then killing our own, and getting more protein. Then fighting off the cats and dogs. The spear is more advanced than any claw or fang. It can kill the prey without the predator having to over exert itself, saving that protein for more brain power. We made ourselves predators, even though we started off as herbivores, thus omnivores. Diet is the largest part of an animals make up, as it determines the entire way an animal works. Predators didn't get fangs because they thought it'd be scary. Prey didn't get fast because they thought running was fun. Its all about food.

Whatever ideas you claim to be holding back, I suggest spitting them out now. This is your last round.
Debate Round No. 2
panthercub21

Pro

Unfortunately, I am under 18, so I was not able to see your gruesome YouTube video. Points to you for finding it, though.
I do acknowledge that in order for one being to live another must die. Even Disney realizes that (check out the lyrics for the Circle of Life from the Lion King). However, it doesn't mean that we must consume animal corpses - we could easily live off of plants. Since we have evolved to the stage of making nuclear weapons, I hardly think that continued consumption of meat is needed for advancing on the evolutionary scale, if you are postulating that what drives evolution is the need for improved hunting skills.

I didn't mean to say that I was holding back any ideas - if you noticed, the "more about that later" was taken care of in the next paragraph.

Interesting statement: "This means that I am for taking away peoples stupid choices for their own betterment". Care to elaborate?
Darth_Grievous_42

Con

I must disagree. We have discovered the nuke, yes, but that is only cause for us to get smarter and find a way to basically un-invent the bomb. We've grown to an age were we use the smarts from being a predator and are applying it to new ways, specifically invention. But it is not always positive. In some ways we have hurt ourselves more. This is what I mean by taking away peoples stupid choices. People now are making very dumb choices. The reason seems to be general laziness. Our society has developed to a point were we are competent in our survival skills. We sit around, we eat constantly, we pollute the Earth. There are some cases were it may be better that the peoples choices be limited for their own good. Lowering the availability of meat to be thrown around willy nilly may benefit the people, even if they don't like it so much. We need brains more now than ever, meat will help that, with a balance of plants, but never the less. That is just my opinion however, not in regards to whether people have the right to eat meat or not. I still say we are given a right by our nature to eat meat. We are omnivores, able to eat meat and vegetables. We can survive on a vegetable only diet, but it will have negative intelligence effects. I have shown that we as a species have benefited from meat, and it is very probable we will continue from its consumption.
My opinions on meat limitation and animal rights are my own and given out only to quench the curiosity of panthercub21, and should have no effect on the peoples vote. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by person_16 8 years ago
person_16
To you, SeanPC, we are considered to be top of the food chain. However, I disagree with you when you said "and were not the ones being eaten." Provoke a hungry lioness and we'll see how long that statement of yours lasts.
Posted by jacobgunter 8 years ago
jacobgunter
I spent a week as a vegetarian for my school newspaper to write about it. It was one of the most intense trials of my life. I will never do it again.

Kudos for the animal cruelty argument though. The solution is to require that everything be killed in the kosher fashion. THat is quick, painless, and clean.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Don't vegetarians by the 'food chain' idea? It's by nature in every species. Do you expect to stop lions from eating other animals? OMG let's try that! YOU! get me a lion pit!
Posted by SeanPC 8 years ago
SeanPC
Were lucky were at the top of the food chain, and were not the ones being eatin.
Posted by person_16 8 years ago
person_16
As far as I'm concerned, and I say this from a Christian standpoint, God put animals on this earth solely for us to eat the majority of them and be killed by the rest. (Meaning has anyone ever heard of a Lion Burger or Tiger-Meat spaghetti?)
Posted by GaryBacon 8 years ago
GaryBacon
I'm glad you stood up to the challenge Darth Grievous 42. It would've broken my heart if I had to vote in favour of vegetarianism.
Posted by aceofelves 8 years ago
aceofelves
Before the fall in the Garden of Eden, there was no death. When man sinned, death came into the world. God killed the first animals (or else instructed adam to) when he provided adam and eve with animal skins for clothing.

Also, God required man to kill countless animals in the old testament for offerings, which he required the priests to eat after they were cooked. God clearly intended for the Post-Fall man to be a omnivore.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
This debate was obviously won by Con. I don't even think it would be logical for Pro to vote for himself, much less anyone else.

In terms of argument presentation and organization, there is absolutely no comparison. In fact, Pro doesn't make an argument at all. Pro seems more like a student asking questions at lecture.

Any vote for pro must have been an accidental click, though that hasn't really happened yet.
Posted by mrmatt505 8 years ago
mrmatt505
I would die within 2 days of living without meat!

X X
>
_____
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
Pantherclub21,

I must say I don't really understand what you are "Pro" for. You really don't seem to have much of an argument. Are you advocating that no one should have a right to eat meat?
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by panthercub21 8 years ago
panthercub21
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Hypnodoc 8 years ago
Hypnodoc
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by bigdog 8 years ago
bigdog
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by bjm1382 8 years ago
bjm1382
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 8 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 8 years ago
griffinisright
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by kenicks 8 years ago
kenicks
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
panthercub21Darth_Grievous_42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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