The Instigator
seraine
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
kkjnay
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Vegetarianism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 8 votes the winner is...
seraine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,453 times Debate No: 18662
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (8)

 

seraine

Pro

Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America.

Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Rounds 2 and 3 will be arguing and clash, and Round 4 will be for summarization.

Please abstain from semantics, introducing arguments in the last round and ad hominem attacks.

Feel free to ask questions in the comments, but please do it before you accept.
Debate Round No. 1
seraine

Pro

My basic argument is as follows:

P1 Animal farming causes suffering.
P2 Meat is unnecessary.
P3 By buying something, you are supporting it.
P4 Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided.
C Eating meat is wrong and something to be avoided.

I am going to give very short arguments supporting my premises as I wish to see how my opponent responds before going all out.

P1 Animal farming causes suffering.

There is numerous examples of this. Gourmet veal comes from calves raised in torturous conditions. They live in narrow crates where they can neither walk, turn around, nor comfortably lie down. They are fed a diet deficient in iron in order to keep their flesh pale[1].

Over 90% of eggs come from conditions in which four to five hens are raised in a wire box that has about twice the floor dimensions of a phone book. The cramped conditions lead to insanity, and chicken will often madly attack each other. Of course, there is the simple solution of cutting off their beaks with a hot metal knife[1].

Not all cases are as extreme as this, but there will always be suffering in animal farming. Butchering and raising animals in cages will always cause some suffering.

P2 Meat is unnecessary.

A healthy meal should include vitamins, protein, calcium, carbohydrates, zinc, and iron[2]. All of these can be provided by a vegetarian diet[2]. In fact, vegetarian diets may be healthier than non-vegetarian diets. Studies have found a direct correlation between decreased meat consumption and increased health, and insurance companies commonly give discounts to vegetarians precisely because of that[3].

P3 By buying something, you are supporting it.

By buying meat, you are giving your money and essentially saying "I approve of this product, and I am giving this to you so that you can produce it for me". Your money is supporting those who raise animals in horrendous conditions. Thus, by boycotting it you are essentially taking money away from the meat industry and directly damaging the meat industry which raises animals in torturous conditions.

P4 Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided.

I do not see any clash over this point. If my opponent wishes to debate this, I will oblige. For now I will leave this point as is.

C Eating meat is wrong and something to be avoided.

The only purpose of eating meat is to satisfy ones taste buds. As meat is both unnecessary and immoral, why are we doing it?

Sources

[1] http://southerncrossreview.org...
[2] http://www.fitnesstipsforlife.com...
[3] http://www.wisegeek.com...
kkjnay

Con

To clarify, we are debating "Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America"
Adding the adjective 'healthy' to adults does not make this debate include that vegetarianism is more healthy. However, I will still address your argument on that.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality, such as good and evil, or right and wrong.
Having said that, there is no agreed on definition of 'ethics', as people can have very different views of what is moral or immoral. A couple examples of these would be abortion, and homosexuality.

Now, I will start my rebuttal.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a specific agency to prevent this. The Agency of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's tasks include the prevention or cessation of inhumane treatment of animals. Slaughterhouses are held to certain standars because of the Humane Slaughter Act, passed in 1958. Inspectors from the FDA or USDA are responsible for overseeing compliance, and have the authority to stop slaughter lines. I am aware that there are certain situations where animals are not killed humanely, or treated humanely. Please note that this is illegal.

Pro's next argument does not actually pertain to this debate. It states that a vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet. There are certain situations where this actually is true, such as possibly lowering the risk of heart disease or obesity. Vegetables are generally lower in cholesterol and fatty acid than meat. In today's society, meat is often consider the staple food, or main course in a meal. This is not healthy. The correlation is not between decreased meat consumption, rather it is increased vegetable consumption. There are also a number of health problems related to vegetarianism, including calcium, vitamin b, and fatty acid deficiency.

"by buying something, you are supporting it"
Buying meat or animal products does not cause the death of these animals. If you were to stop buying animal products, this would not stop the animals from being killed. As for buying these products being financial support of them. This isn't really true, I mean obviously you are buying it, but this suggests that there is a correlation between the numbe of animal products you buy, and the number produced. If you were to stop buying these products, there would not be any less amount of products made.

Your first and third point have now been rendered moot. The second never actually applied, and it still does not.

"Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided"
Of course, I agree. However, this suggests that eating animal products causes suffering, which is false.

Now I will move on to my first argument.
In nature there is something called a food chain. It is necessary to keep this balanced. Humans are what is known as a tertiary consumer, or apex predator. In nature, tertiary consumers generally are carnivores. Though humans are an example of one that is not, along with bears, both omnivores. It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers. The 3 biggest animals killed for food are pigs, chickens, and cows. Note that all of these animals are primary consumers and in the wild would be eaten by other predators. Yes, humans can survive without eating meat, but it is not wrong to eat meat.

Now, my second argument. "by buying something you are supporting it"
Vegetarianism is a vague term, as some vegetarians drink milk, eat eggs, and eat fish. Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo. Therefore, by your own argument you are actually funding the killing of animals as well. Note that I did disprove this argument, but I decided to reverse it anyway.

I have now rebutted and disproved all of Pro's points, and made two arguments.

Sources---------
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.acsh.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
seraine

Pro

I will use this round solely for refutations.
1. Inhumane farming is illegal.

"Slaughterhouses are held to certain standars because of the Humane Slaughter Act"

First off, the Humane Slaughter Act only mentions cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep and swine, even though over 9 billion chickens are slaughtered annually[1]. Secondly, it does not mention the raising of the animals. In fact, it is actually perfectly legal to raise animals in any manner possible as long as it's relatively common due to "Common Farming Exemptions"[2].

This has made it perfectly legal to put live chicks through grinders[3], castrate millions of pigs and cows without anesthetic, keep animals in cages so small they can't turn around, and kill thousands of animals to stem disease outbreaks[2]. My opponent's point on "I am aware that there are certain situations where animals are not killed humanely, or treated humanely. Please note that this is illegal" is rendered moot.

Not only that, the raising and slaughter of animals will never be fully humane. No matter what steps are taken, the animals will always feel pain and suffer during slaughter and will always suffer in cages from a variety of factors-we can only mitigate it, but never fully solve it.

2. Meat is unnecessary

"Pro's next argument does not actually pertain to this debate"

My argument was not that vegetarian diets should be taken because they are healthier, it was that meat is most definitely unnecessary if vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters. Sorry if that was misinterpreted.

3. By buying something, you are supporting it.

"Buying meat or animal products does not cause the death of these animals. If you were to stop buying animal products, this would not stop the animals from being killed."

While one person refusing to eat meat would most definitely not stop the animals from being killed, if everyone refused to eat meat it would most definitely stop the animals from being killed.

However, one person can damage the meat industry. Though his support may be small, it is still there. He is giving his money to support the companies that are raising animals in inhumane companies. My opponent's point can essentially be said as "they are supporting it, but they aren't supporting it a lot"

Remember, by buying and eating meat you are giving your money to meat producers, or supporting them. Though it is debatable that you will save lives, you are still supporting meat producers by buying meat.

"If you were to stop buying these products, there would not be any less amount of products made"

One of the laws of supply and demand is that if demand falls, the quantity sold falls[4]. When this happens, meat producers will produce less, because they do not want to produce an excess.

4. "It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers."

Though animals may be dependant on humans, that does not mean that they would otherwise die in the wild. Rather, it means that they simply would not be alive. If humans had not decided to raise the animals, then the animals would not have been born. What is better- that the animals were born to live a horrible life and then die, or that they were not born at all?

5. "Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo"

That is because vegetarianism is solely concerned with what to eat. Though I have not met many vegetarians, most I have met also abstain from leather and soaps that came from animals. Because we do not eat clothes and shampoo, these are not associated with vegetarianism.

Conclusion

My syllogism still stands. The two objections my opponent has brought up are a) It is illegal to raise animals inhumanely and b) By not buying something you won't have an effect on how many animals die. However, I have shown that Common Farming Exemptions make it perfectly legal to raise animals in torturous conditions. My opponent's second objection does not reject my syllogism precisely because it does not matter if you have an effect on how many animals die, as you are still supporting it. Not only that, my opponent did not prove his claim, and the law of supply and demand shows that it is likely that by not buying something, you are saving animals from a torturous life.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[4] http://arnoldkling.com...
kkjnay

Con

I will start with resupporting my arguments, then a rebuttal of Pro's arguments.

Common farming exemptions allow any practice as long as it is common. This does not change that the USDA has inspectors that ensure animals are treated humanely. If animals are not treated humanely, it is the duty of the specific agency, "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service" to cease this inhumane treatment. Common farming exemptions apply, so long as the USDA does not object. The Humane Slaughter Act was only one example of how the USDA and FDA protect animals from inhumane treatment or suffering. Laws still apply to chickens. I would also like to say, 9 billion is the number of total animals slaughter annually. The number of poultry slaughtered annually is still higher than any other group. This is largely due to the fact that these are smaller animals, thus they require more. Chickens are still included in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's duties. Whether they consider it common farming or not, they are subject to inspection. If it is ruled inhumane, it will be ceased. Your refutation is now rendered moot.

"My argument was not that vegetarian diets should be taken because they are healthier, it was that meat is most definitely unnecessary if vegetarians tend to be healthier than meat eaters. Sorry if that was misinterpreted."

Note: this isn't one of Pro's arguments, Pro was just clarifying. I would like to further clarify as well, even though it's not relevant to this debate. Vegetables in general have lower calories than meat. I would like to state, being a vegetarian will not make you healthier than a "meat eater". Being a "meat eater", also will not make you healthier than a vegetarian. If you only eat meat, this is obviously not healthy. Vegetables and grains are necessary to be healthy. Being healthy has little to do with whether or not you include meat in your diet. It has to do with your diet in general.

I will address Pro's group of arguments.
"While one person refusing to eat meat would most definitely not stop the animals from being killed, if everyone refused to eat meat it would most definitely stop the animals from being killed."

Everyone will not "refuse to eat meat". Further, animals are killed for more products than simply meat. It is nearly impossible to find food that doesn't use animal products, or somehow results in death of animals. People do not give their money to these companies to support raising animals or killing them inhumanely. People give their money in exchange for a product(meat, or any animal product). If these animals are in fact raised or killed inhumanely(which I have proven is illegal), it is not the duty of the consumer to stop it, as this would be impossible. Rather, it would be the duty of the company itself to stop this.

"One of the laws of supply and demand is that if demand falls, the quantity sold falls[4]. When this happens, meat producers will produce less, because they do not want to produce an excess."

My point is that one person will have no effect on the demand or the supply. Companies do not base the amount of meat they make based off of the amount people "order". If the general amount bought goes up, there will be a larger supply. Let's say everyone did stop eating meat. They would then be buying something else to replace that. Most foods do contain animal products. So, the number of animals killed really wouldn't change, it would just change what these animals' products are actually used for. As improbable as this is that everyone would stop eating meat(which would never happen), it is impossible that they would eliminate the use of animal products completely. Animal products are more than just food. Again, the animals would just be killed for a different product. If people refusing to eat meat halted animals being killed completely(it wouldn't, as I have proved) we could then argue the "morality" in laying off millions of workers. Because, remember, we are not talking about just the people that work to produce these animal products, but also every fast food chain in existence and various other companies.

It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers.
I still see no argument as to why it is wrong to eat animals. Secondary and tertiary consumers all eat animals, I can only conclude that is morally acceptable to eat these animals.

Pro argues that if we did not raise the animals they would not exist. Humans did not create these animals, they exist on their own. Maybe humans breed them for a specific purpose. Though animals still reproduce on their own in the wild. I'm not really understanding the argument because, in the wild these animals would reproduce more aggressively than humans are allowing them to now. Then we have these massive amounts of wild primary consumers. There are more than enough grains and vegetables to go around, but if we have 9 billion herbivores(remember these animals are also reproducing) a year introduced into the wild, this would have a significant impact on our staple food sources. While this massive amount of consumers goes up, the amount of predators would go up as well. Then the amount of animals being killed would not change. It would simply be a matter of whether humans kill them, or natural predators kill them. Therefore, my argument still stands.

Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo.

Since we are arguing whether vegetarianism is a more ethical diet, you're right. Vegetarians don't eat clothes or shampoo. However, the main component of your syllogism is that by eating meat, people are supporting companies killing these animals. Now, we can simply relate the purchasing of animal products to be funding this as well.
I will not only argue that vegetarians fund the companies, by purchasing animal products, but also I will argue that a vegetarian diet does not eliminate the death of animals in the diet itself.

Cultivating crops also kills animals, because when a tractor traverses a field, animals are accidentally destroyed. Studies have found that wood mouse populations from 25 per hectare to five per hectare after harvest, an estimation of about 10 animals per hectare are killed from crop farming every year. If we assume that all cropland in the continental United States was used for a vegetarian diet, 500 million animals would die each year.
Vegetarians also do not abstain from purchasing non-food animal products. Remember, these animal products also contribute to the number of animals slaughtered each year.

Now, to address the syllogism.

"Animal farming causes suffering."(illegally, yes) Animal farming results in the killing of these animals, for food. All animals that are not primary consumers, also eat animals. It is not wrong for humans to eat meat. If we did stop eating meat, these animals would simply die of natural predators, which would increase vastly.
"By buying something, you are supporting it." I have disproved this. I have shown that people buy it for food. It is not wrong to eat meat. Humans are apex predators. I have also shown that if(in Pro's opinion) buying animal products supports it, then vegetarians also financially support it. Also, I have proved that animals are still killed while farming crops.
"Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided" This falsely assumes that animal farming causes suffering(which is illegal). Animal farming causes death of animals, for the purpose of manufacturing food or products. Which vegetarians also purchase.

I have disproved Pro's syllogism. I have proved that it is not morally wrong to eat meat. I have also proved that a vegetarian diet is not more ethical than an omnivorous diet.

I will cite sources in round4, as I don't have room in this round.
Debate Round No. 3
seraine

Pro

In this round, I will have some quick refutations and then summarize.

1. Legality of inhumane treatment.

"Whether they consider it common farming or not, they are subject to inspection. If it is ruled inhumane, it will be ceased. "

However, many inhumane practices are legal. It is perfectly legal to castrate cows and pigs or debeak chickens without anesthetic or to keep animals in cages so small they can't turn around[1]. We can all agree this is inhumane, but it is common knowledge and legal. Sure, the USDA is supposed to ensure inhumane treatment. However, they are still fine with leaving it illegal.

Secondly, why does it even matter if something is legal or not? You are still supporting inhumane practices by buying illegally inhumane meat. It does not follow that by buying illegal meat, it is somehow not inhumane or you are not supporting it. My opponent has only said that it is illegal, but not how that somehow refutes my syllogism.

Thirdly, there will always be suffering when raising animals. Animals will always feel pain during slaughter.

2. By buying something you are supporting it.

"People do not give their money to these companies to support raising animals or killing them inhumanely. People give their money in exchange for a product"

And by exchanging their money, they are supporting the inhumane raising and slaughter of animals.

"If these animals are in fact raised or killed inhumanely(which I have proven is illegal), it is not the duty of the consumer to stop it, as this would be impossible. Rather, it would be the duty of the company itself to stop this.

Firstly, why does it matter if it is illegal? Secondly, it is the duty of the customer to stop this. Businesses make money by fulfilling the customers wants and needs. If the customers don't want the cheapest possible meat, businesses will switch to humane farming. Businesses don't raise animals in torturous conditions for their own sadistic pleasure. They raise them that way because customers want cheap meat, thus if the customers changed their wants, businesses would change to meet them.

"Let's say everyone did stop eating meat. They would then be buying something else to replace that. Most foods do contain animal products. So, the number of animals killed really wouldn't change, it would just change what these animals' products are actually used for."

Vegetarianism is following a plant based diet and abstaining from animal by-products. If the foods contained animal products, vegetarians wouldn't eat it. If no one was buying them, businesses wouldn't produce them and animals would be saved from a life of torture.

By buying something, you are supporting it. By buying something, you are giving your money to the meat industry. This is most definitely support. Even if it doesn't effect the amount of animals being killed, it is still supporting the meat industry.

3. The animals wouldn't be around without farmers.

My opponent presents an apparent contradiction.

"It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers."

"Pro argues that if we did not raise the animals they would not exist. Humans did not create these animals, they exist on their own. "

Is farming necessary for the animals to survive? Not only that, is it better that the animals live a life of torture or don't live at all?

Without humans, the animals would not be alive. Humans gave the animals a home, food, water, and protection. I do not see how if we stopped giving animals food, they would suddenly go out into the wild and begin breeding. Nature can support a certain number of animals. Humans are supporting these animals by giving them food. If we stopped giving them food, how would nature suddenly support them?

"Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo."

Does it matter? If you look at round 1, it states that this debate is solely about how the morality of diets. Vegetarianism is solely concerned with what you eat.

4. Cultivating crops kills animals.

Yes, but cultivating crops kills much less in a more humane fashion than farming. If a combine chops a mouse up, it dies a sudden death. However, chickens are raised in torturous conditions and often killed horribly.

Not only that, you stated that if all the farmland in the US was used for crops, 500 million animals would die annually. Over 9 billion chickens are slaughtered annually[2]. This certainly means that vegetarianism kills less animals than meat eating, thus vegetarianism is much more ethical than eating meat.

Summary

The reason I feel that I should win this debate is because my opponent has not offered any real opposition to my syllogism. If my syllogism stands, then the conclusion stands, then vegetarianism is more ethical than a meat based diet.

The opposition my opponent has offered is as follows:

P1. Animal farming causes suffering.

"(illegally, yes) Animal farming results in the killing of these animals, for food. All animals that are not primary consumers, also eat animals. It is not wrong for humans to eat meat. If we did stop eating meat, these animals would simply die of natural predators, which would increase vastly."

My opponent has not shown how the fact that some inhumane farming is illegal somehow means that it doesn't cause suffering. This does not in any way reject my syllogism. The other opposition he offered is that if we humans did not feed the animals, nature would somehow. I ask my opponent how this would happen. Humans provide the animals with plants to eat and protection from predators. How would nature suddenly produce more plants for the cows to eat? If there was tons of extra plants to be eaten, the deer population should be exploding.

P2. Meat is unnecessary.

P3. By buying something, you are supporting it.

"I have disproved this. I have shown that people buy it for food. It is not wrong to eat meat. Humans are apex predators. I have also shown that if(in Pro's opinion) buying animal products supports it, then vegetarians also financially support it. Also, I have proved that animals are still killed while farming crops."

By buying something, you are giving your money to the meat industry. If that is not support, then I don't know what is. My opponent only said that they were buying the meat for food, but he has not shown that they are not giving their money to the support of the meat industry.

His second objection is that if vegetarians are buying leather, then they are also supporting it. The first round stated that this debate was about the more ethical diet. Clothes and soap are not things you eat. The third objection my opponent offered is that growing plants kills animals. However, it kills less animals than raising animals. If we compared all the animals killed by growing plants to all the chickens killed for meat, we would find that 18 times more chickens were killed. Thus, vegetarianism would certainly be the more ethical diet.

P4. Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided

"This falsely assumes that animal farming causes suffering(which is illegal). Animal farming causes death of animals, for the purpose of manufacturing food or products. Which vegetarians also purchase."

The only opponent my opponent has offered to the fact that animal farming causing suffering is that it is sometimes illegal. I ask my opponent how this somehow makes animal farming not cause suffering. His second objection doesn't pertain to the more ethical diet.

C Eating meat is wrong and something to be avoided.

If my syllogism and conclusion stand, then vegetarianism is certainly the more ethical diet.

Sources

[1] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
kkjnay

Con

I will resupport my arguments and conclude this debate.

1. Legality of inhumane treatment

Pro continues with emphasis on this. This is a debate about whether vegetarianism is a more ethical diet. The only way that inhumane treatment would be related to diet, is with your argument that it funds it. I have disproved this argument. You keep using "animals in cages so small they can't turn around". I'm guessing this is probably your opinion. Any inhumane treatment is illegal. "Sure the USDA is supposed to ensure humane treatment. However, they are still fine with leaving it illegal". No evidence presented. Again an opinion. If there is any "illegal meat", it is not all meat.

Note: Pro accepts that inhumane treatment is illegal.

2. By buying something you are supporting it

No argument by Pro. By buying something you are not supporting it, you are buying something.
Pro doesn't respond to my argument. It is not the responsibility of a customer to stop what a company is doing, this is not possible. Again, pro doesn't actually refute my argument. If people stopped eating meat, the product would change to another animal product.

3. "Vegetarianism is following a plant based diet and abstaining from animal by-products."

Vegetarianism is a diet without animal products. Vegetarians still use animal products. Pro says "does it matter?"

Yes, it does matter. We are debating whether the diet is more ethical. You have only brought up that buying animal products funds or supports these companies. You have in no way, as of yet, argued why an omnivorous diet is less ethical than a vegetarian diet. Vegetarians also buy animal products. Thus, they are also giving money to the companies. A vegetarian diet also results in killing of animals, as I have proved.

"The only opponent my opponent has offered to the fact that animal farming causing suffering is that it is sometimes illegal. I ask my opponent how this somehow makes animal farming not cause suffering. His second objection doesn't pertain to the more ethical diet."

This is an example of a straw man. I said that animal farming sometimes causes suffering, which is illegal. Not "animals suffering is sometimes illegal". If you wish to say that my argument does not pertain to the more ethical diet, you could also say that none of yours do.(I have proved this)

"If my syllogism and conclusion stand, then vegetarianism is certainly the more ethical diet." (Disproved already)

Your syllogism does not stand, as I have proved. I will now show you how your entire syllogism is fallacious.

"Animal farming causes suffering"
"By buying something you are supporting it"

This is an example of Fallacy of Equivocation.

You have failed to recognize that not everyone is buying animal products. For example, someone could steal meat. This does not mean that they are funding it, as they haven't bought anything. Other examples would be being given animal products, as opposed to buying it. This includes children, who do not buy their own food.

I have now proven that vegetarianism is not a more ethical diet. I have presented arguments(which Pro failed to refute). I have also disproven any arguments Pro had, and shown that his syllogism is fallacious(although I disproved it).

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Vote Con.

Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Can anyone counter Crypto's votebomb?
Posted by poorenglishspeaker 5 years ago
poorenglishspeaker
I think Pro hate getting animals kept in torturous condition and killed with excruciating pain.
But we can not get enough nutrients by eating vegetable,thus taking supplements(nutraceuticals).

http://www.vegetarianbenefits.net...
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
Watch this:
http://www.hulu.com...
:]
Posted by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
I just discovered this site yesterday. Lol, I'm only in four because most of the debates on here are 72 hours to respond, which is kind of a ridiculously long amount of time.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
I know, it's just that you look kind of suspicious(you joined and within 20 hours you are already in 4 debates)
Posted by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
I can't post my round 2 until you do.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
I really hope my opponent doesn't forfeit....
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
Ah, I misinterpreted your comment there. Hmm, I see you focused on freedom of choice & the current lack of a biological imperative. One thing: the source you provided, http://www.martinfrost.ws..., cites statistics that simply don't have enough, if any, controls, and very often 'needs more data'. Combine that with the esoteric nature of individual diet and health, and what you have is a list of weak correlations in not-well-understood areas and statistically insignificant findings.

Check out that video I posted; it may be low-budget, but it's got some good content.
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
This has to do with the Ethical arguments for vegetarianism, not health. And as far as healh goes, I very strongly recommend watching this:

http://www.zimbio.com...

Very strongly.
Posted by markb 5 years ago
markb
I stumbled upon this debate on Google. I recently wrote a blog article refuting a selection of arguments against vegetarianism (e.g. "we're meant to eat meat"), which might be of interest: http://mb27.blogspot.com...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
serainekkjnayTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: countering votebomb
Vote Placed by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
serainekkjnayTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did better
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
serainekkjnayTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I did not think that Con adequately refuted the argument's presented by Pro.
Vote Placed by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
serainekkjnayTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a strong advantage in this debate. It would be hard to compare picking a vegetable to killing a cow to begin with. If you showed an example of a plant being mistreated, I would have been amused.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
serainekkjnayTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate which fell in Pro's favor. Con agreed that unnecessary suffering is immoral, animal processing causes suffering (hence the move toward illegality), and meat is unnecessary for humans. Combined, this is essentially a concession. Pro's arguments and sources successfully countered the remainder of Con's case. I suppose I should also mention that I am not a vegetarian.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
serainekkjnayTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Lordknuckle on SG and sources. These are generally reserved for cases when one side has exceptionally poor SG or sources. Debate does not warrant a ballot on these issues and Lordknuckle fails to provide justification for it. Lordknuckle has messages disabled so could not contact him about issue.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
serainekkjnayTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Note: I am a vegetarian however I tried to judge this debate without bias. Overall, I think that Pro did better. Some of the things that Con says are flat out wrong like slaughter houses are humane (meat.org). Con started out very weak but progressed to greater strength. However, it wasn't enough. Pro arguments just barely stood through the constant battering. S&G was mostly tied but I noticed a few more errors on Con's side. If any of you disagree with this RFD, PM me and we will discuss it.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
serainekkjnayTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: kkjnay refuted most of Seraines arguments, those that were not refuted did not really pertain to the topic. Both sides were very well informed, proper, and both used many legit sources so those are tied