The Instigator
traww_dave
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mrsatan
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Vegetarians. Right or Wrong?

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 2 votes the winner is...
mrsatan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,203 times Debate No: 39185
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

traww_dave

Pro

Many people are becoming vegetarian each day. Becoming one saves an innocent animal's life and saves our soul and body from committing such sins. Before you start to argue let me please state a few facts:
1) Saying it is natural is not valid because religions long time ago did not consume any meat at all.
2) It is a proven fact that becoming a balanced vegetarian is far healthier than someone who eats meat. Don't try to fight around that.
3) It is generically cruel to kill and eat animals.
4) Do not say killing plants is also mean. It is a PROVEN fact that plants cannot feel anything when you pull them. They have no stimuli.
LET THE DEBATING BEGIN>
mrsatan

Con

I would like to thank Pro for initiating this debate, and to clarify my stance, that it is beneficial to include meat as part of ones diet.

I will start by addressing the supposed facts that my opponent has presented.

1) Saying it is natural is not valid because religions long time ago did not consume any meat at all.

Whether or not any religion condones the consumption of meat has no bearing on the validity of it being natural. However, our bodies themselves are proof we are naturally omnivores, that the eating of both meats and plants is natural.

Our bodies consist of elements shared with both with carnivores and herbivores. For example, our teeth are mixture of what would be expected of carnivores and omnivores. Our stomachs, unlike herbivores stomachs, produce hydrocloric acid to help digest meats, whereas our intestines are closer in length to what would be expected of herbivores rather than carnivores. So, yes, eating meat is natural for humans. [1]

2)It is a proven fact that becoming a balanced vegetarian is far healthier than someone who eats meat. Don't try to fight around that.

If this is a proven fact, I would most certainly like to see the proof itself.

There are problems with eating both plantlife and meats, but not because either is inherently bad. The problems lie with the methods used by factory style farms, for both plantlife and meats.

If you're going to eat meat, you want to be sure to purchase unprocessed lean meats that come from certified free-range farms. Otherwise, you're likely to be eating meat from unhealthy animals who are crammed into unhealthy living conditions. Likewise, if you're going to eat plantlife, be sure to buy organic. Otherwise, the plantlife you're eating has probably been pumped full of pesticides, which could very possibly have negative impacts on your health. [2]

I'm sure we agree that vegetables and other plantlife are beneficial when included in ones diet, so I'll focus on the benefits of including meat. Although a vegetarian diet can be supplemented with vitamin pills, that takes extra effort, and apathy is very capable of getting the better of people. As such, vegetarians are at greater risk of deficiencies in iron, zinc, and cholesterol. Iron deficiences can cause fatigue, dizziness, headaches, pale skin and concentration problems. A zinc deficiency can have a negative impact on the sense of smell and taste, as well as reducing the effectiveness of your immune system. And cholesterol, while too much is bad, so is too little.

"It [cholestorol] is in the membranes of each cell in your body and is essential for the synthesis of sex hormones, the production of vitamin D following sun exposure and learning and memory."[3]


3)It is generically cruel to kill and eat animals.

This is nothing more than an opinion.


4) Do not say killing plants is also mean. It is a PROVEN fact that plants cannot feel anything when you pull them. They have no stimuli.

Again, I would like to see the supposed proof that plants do not react to stimuli, as what I've found is very much to the contrary.

Plants react to many stimuli, including light, gravity (if you try to grow a plant upside down, it will still grow upwards, and its roots will still grow downwards), moisture gradient, touch, temperature and chemicals.[4] And, although clearly different from our own nervous system, it has been found that plants can store and process information to respond to stimuli in their environment, both threatening and non-threatening. They have systems that send information through electrical signals in response to stimuli, much like our own nerves. [5]

Granted, this does not prove that plants can feel pain, but it's certainly a possibility, because simply put, pain is simply one of many responses to stimuli. But, regardless of whether or not plants can feel pain, the simple fact is that they are living, they are innocent, and consumption of them is only possible through ending that life. And from a moral standpoint, life is life, and ending one isn't any better than ending another.

So we can see that if it's immoral to eat meat, its immoral to eat plantlife as well. But we must eat, otherwise we are killing ourselves by starvation, and since killing is immoral, it doesn't matter what we do. Whatever decision we make, it's going to be immoral.

Either that, or none of it's immoral, and is simply a necessity of life. This is the case as I see it.

--------------------------------------------------------

So, with morality out of the way, we move onto choice. Let's suppose, just for a moment, that meat is unhealthy. Does that make it wrong to eat it? Not at all. Life is short, because death is inevitable. Of course, the healthier you are, the longer you will live. But is a longer life better than a shorter life if the shorter life is more enjoyable? Personally, I don't think it is. Like many other people, I thoroughly enjoy eating meat, and to not eat it would drastically reduce my enjoyment of life, so including meat in my diet is in fact the right choice for me, regardless of whether it's healthy or not.


So, from all of this, I conclude that meat is healthy part of a balanced diet. But even if I'm mistaken in this conclusion, if one enjoys eating meat then they should continue to do so.


Sources:
[1] http://www.rense.com...

[2] http://www.marksdailyapple.com...

[3] http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...

[4] http://www.plant-and-flower-guide.com...

[5] http://www.popsci.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
traww_dave

Pro

traww_dave forfeited this round.
mrsatan

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
traww_dave

Pro

traww_dave forfeited this round.
mrsatan

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
traww_davemrsatanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, dropped arguments and provided sources.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
traww_davemrsatanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well that was disappointing. Conduct, obviously, for the forfeits. Con rebutted Pro's assertions, asking for evidence for his claims--Pro never provided it, and so his ipse dixit gambit fails. Con also used sources, while Pro did not, using evidence to support his points, and so gets sources. S&G was equal enough, though it's not as though Pro gave enough text to really judge.