The Instigator
lucasd_j
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
TheMaster_Debator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Vegetarianism

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 1 vote the winner is...
lucasd_j
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 52666
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

lucasd_j

Con

I have always felt that the arguement against vegetarianism were never sufficient and could have been much better. The arguement against vegetarianism was mostly taken up by fools who love mcdonalds too much and let their stomach's decide their principles thats why I felt it neccesary to publish my thoughts on the issue. I will be arguing on grounds of health, food shortages, morality and also a religous perspective.

Firstly, I understand that the arguments given proclaiming that a life of vegitarianism leads to a lack of protein and well balanced diet are defunct as humans generally overconsume protein and unless you go out to the gym for a couple of hours a day most protein consumption ends up converted into fat. However a vegitarian lifestyle can lead to serious iron defiencies which can lead to serious health problems in the future, and for those who say just use suppliments, suppliments generally don't work as you consume large dosages in a unnatural way your body can't process it and it just ends up as expensive urine. Furthermore many people argue meat is generally bad for you because it is high in fat, this is a common misnomer as most fat that you consume is from it being cooked in oil. Also meat has far less fat naturally than most dairy products of which one would have to rely on heavily to remain a vegitarian.

Secondly, vegitarians often say that the meat industry force breeds animals and feeds them with disportional numbers of crops compared to the food provided with the animal if we banned meat consumption it would help massively with world hunger problems. I would respond to this by saying this may be true for the western world but the for the majority of developing nations of which is the majority of the worlds population these people rely on the local community and infrastructure rather than the global meat market. These people largely rely on the growing and slaughtering of animals not only as a large part of the local economy but to feed their children as these people don't have quorn mince and vegitarian meals not consuming meat for them would cause significant mal nutrition, as the only no meat they would consume would be rice wheat and the odd vegitable these people don't purchase neccesities from a nearby walmart and buy frozen sloppy joes they buy all goods from their local arket of which is all produced locally. Not only would banning meat for them not only hurt the local economy but it world worsen the problem of world hunger and malnutrition.

Thirdly, the entire premise of the morality behind vegitarianism is the assuption that life inherently has value. However if you are not religous that is entirely ilogical. If the universe was a happy accident from pure chance along with the earth and through natural selection the species of the earth evolved leaving us with the contempary world, life has no inherent meaning and is valueless. People commonly say that even though its through chance I still enjoy things I still experience emotion, sadness and joy this gives it value. I would reply but you believe such experience and emotions are just chemicals in your brain and are just telling you to like things, to refrain from things to eat and to drink and only because they were the optimal things for you to survive as species without this hightened sense of morality were more likely to be wiped out as ultimate division and lack of morality towards other in the species would help drive it to exstinction. How could one who is irreligous say that life has meaning and it is wrong to eat meat as you are killing something that still has a significant awareness. Surely that is no premise to say that is immoral as surely if you are irreligous there is no morality as they these are delusional perceptions created by natural selection in order for us to survive easier.

Finally, if you are a christian like me there are many quotes in the bible saying that the world and everything in it is a gift from God to us and likewise.
TheMaster_Debator

Pro

Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian.

Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health.
Debate Round No. 1
lucasd_j

Con

The whole point of my third paragraph was that if you are irreligious animal rights are illogical as life inherently would have no value as emotion and awareness would mean nothing as it is just chemicals in your brain telling to do so, and it is only doing so because of natural selection has caused it to be like that. That was the premise behind my main argument. However if you are christian like me or part of another religion then you must think that life has inherent meaning ad purpose because God made it so.
"Thirdly, the entire premise of the morality behind vegitarianism is the assuption that life inherently has value. However if you are not religous that is entirely ilogical. If the universe was a happy accident from pure chance along with the earth and through natural selection the species of the earth evolved leaving us with the contempary world, life has no inherent meaning and is valueless. People commonly say that even though its through chance I still enjoy things I still experience emotion, sadness and joy this gives it value. I would reply but you believe such experience and emotions are just chemicals in your brain and are just telling you to like things, to refrain from things to eat and to drink and only because they were the optimal things for you to survive as species without this hightened sense of morality were more likely to be wiped out as ultimate division and lack of morality towards other in the species would help drive it to exstinction. How could one who is irreligous say that life has meaning and it is wrong to eat meat as you are killing something that still has a significant awareness. Surely that is no premise to say that is immoral as surely if you are irreligous there is no morality as they these are delusional perceptions created by natural selection in order for us to survive easier. "
TheMaster_Debator

Pro

Animals can think too, don't say that humans are the only animals that can think. Would you want to eat a dog or cat?
Debate Round No. 2
lucasd_j

Con

I wasn't saying it was a matter of intelligence I was saying if you are irreligous life has no inherent value as I said extensively in my earlier argument
"Thirdly, the entire premise of the morality behind vegitarianism is the assuption that life inherently has value. However if you are not religous that is entirely ilogical. If the universe was a happy accident from pure chance along with the earth and through natural selection the species of the earth evolved leaving us with the contempary world, life has no inherent meaning and is valueless. People commonly say that even though its through chance I still enjoy things I still experience emotion, sadness and joy this gives it value. I would reply but you believe such experience and emotions are just chemicals in your brain and are just telling you to like things, to refrain from things to eat and to drink and only because they were the optimal things for you to survive as species without this hightened sense of morality were more likely to be wiped out as ultimate division and lack of morality towards other in the species would help drive it to exstinction. How could one who is irreligous say that life has meaning and it is wrong to eat meat as you are killing something that still has a significant awareness. Surely that is no premise to say that is immoral as surely if you are irreligous there is no morality as they these are delusional perceptions created by natural selection in order for us to survive easier. "

and if you are religious you would think that God gave us the earth to subdue it and that the animals were created for our wellbeing.
You aren't responding to my point
Furthermore I wouldn't eat a dog or a cat not for moral reasons but because i feel that they probably taste discusting and it being illegal I wouldn't want to eat something that i feel would taste discusting and risk jail for it.


Answer me this if one is irreligious as one would have to be, why would life have any inherent meaning or value so why would killing an animal matter if it didn't???
TheMaster_Debator

Pro

TheMaster_Debator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
lucasd_j

Con

well i don't know if you forfeited because you aren't paying any more attention to the debate or forget about it or can't answer suffiencently to my responses. However my last point stands
TheMaster_Debator

Pro

If you are irreligious does not mean that you think life has no meaning. How prejudice. My point still stands. Would you eat a dog? What about a cat? Also people have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to be a vegetarian or not. Being a vegetarian is a choice.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
I'm very tempted, but have little time. Can you send me a challenge so that I can accept it when it is more convenient?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
lucasd_jTheMaster_DebatorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF