The Instigator
alyfish126
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

We should be eating bugs

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 3 votes the winner is...
alyfish126
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,501 times Debate No: 60474
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

alyfish126

Pro

HMU if you have questions, acceptance round 1, no rebuttals until round 3, no new arguments in round 4.
Aerogant

Con

Sorry, your argument is stupid, so all strict rules are null because of its amount of stupidity.

I'm just going to let you look around you and see how many people drop dead from not eating bugs, then be on my way not eating bugs, because the only thing that has to do with bugs, is you bugging me with your bugged brain. Please get a reality check some day?
Debate Round No. 1
alyfish126

Pro

I will assume that was con's form of acceptance.

1. Economic benefits
a. Farming insects is far less expensive than livestock such as cattle, swine, and poultry. A kit to farm meal worms costs around 100$ (probably less if you DIY), and will produce enough mealworms to make about 8 burger patties per month [1]. They can eat leftover scraps of food, so there is little-no overhead. Two to three pounds of beef are needed to make 8 burger patties, costing around 8 dollars per month... every month without sustaining itself. After a year, you would essentially be turning a profit (this is a very small scale farm)
b. Since the cost of farming is so low, insect farming could be used to boost the economy in developing countries where there is often malnutrition.

2. Health benefits
a. Pound for pound, edible insects have greater nutritional value than beef, pork, and chicken. Some species of edible caterpillars, for example, have the same amount of protein as and have greater levels of iron/vitamins than lean ground beef or fish [2].
b. Since the nutritional value is high, insect farming could be part of the solution to the problem of malnutrition.

3. Environmental benefits
a. Farming insects is an environmentally friendly alternative to current popular livestock. Agricultural activities are a huge cause of deforestation [3] and insect farming, which takes up less space, could cut down on cutting down. 60% more land is needed to farm chickens than bugs, to farm pigs is 70% greater, and insect farming requires only 10% of the amount of land needed to farm beef [4]. The greenhouse gas emissions are also reduced when farming switches to insects [4].

4. Unjustified taboo
a. Eating insects is more of a culturally ingrained "ick" factor than a legitimate one. Two billion people around the world already do eat insects and before the human species started growing crops, insects were considered a delicacy by all. When humans started growing crops and insects messed them up is when humans stopped eating bugs. Now, with pesticides, we don't have that problem anymore and there is little reason to be repulsed them. Consider crab, lobster, and shrimp. They are the bugs of the sea, they eat the crap that nothing else will eat, they have antennae and lots of little legs, and they are an expensive delicacy in many places. When farmed under clean conditions, bugs are even less "icky" than shrimp.

According the reality check Con recommended to me, eating bugs is far more practical, logical, and ethical than eating cattle, swine, poultry, and even fish.

[1] http://www.openbugfarm.com...
[2] http://people.howstuffworks.com...
[3] http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...
[4] http://www.livescience.com...
Aerogant

Con

1. So you're saying that if people could eat their own fecal matter if it was cheaper commerce, you'd argue it? Because that's all that you're saying "it's cheaper, therefore bugs".

2. Greater nutritional value? Not this again. Since when did nutritional numbers ever matter to the human esophagus? It can thrive off of things you wouldn't believe. There's no "greater value" - that's just the ploy.

3. Animals are many times bigger than insects, so the results you're finding is simply the result of dealing with bigger mass. It'll be a joke to do this anyways , when people still build mansions, towers, skyscrapers, or other "needlessly large sources". Humans simply were not built on eating insects.

4. People eating insects before does not mean eating insects should be a thing for humans. People also ate other people, monkey brains and plain grass.
Debate Round No. 2
alyfish126

Pro

1. No, the argument here is that bugs are more economically responsible than large livestock and should be used as an alternative more frequently. Eating feces has been linked with problems such as "seizure disorders, cerebral atrophy, and tumors [...] mental retardation, alcoholism, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, fetishes, delirium, and dementia" [1]. Eating bugs hasn't been associated with any medical disorders.

2. Nutritional value matters to the human body as a whole. If Con does not understand that fresh spinach has greater nutritional value than french fries or fried oreos, or that the number 5 has a greater value in itself than the number 2, then there is a deeper problem than arrogance here.

3. The information used was based on pound for pound production. Assuming evolution, humans were definitely built on eating insects. Another example: The production of 1 kilo of beef requires 22,000 L of water, 1 kilo of pork requires 3,500 L, and 1 kilo of chicken requires 2,300 L. For this reason and more, agricultural activities take up about 70% of our drinkable fresh water. The production of 1 kilo of crickets requires only 1 L of fresh water, again proving more environmentally responsible.

4. People eating other people and monkey brains is simply unethical, but that is a whole debate in itself. Some grasses are perfectly healthy to eat. There is little to no reason not to eat the edible bugs, and much reason in eating them.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
Aerogant

Con

1. The human brain has a guilty consciousness and a built in system that knows right from wrong. Hence nightmares are a contrast from dreams, which resemble a conscious distortion. I have never dreamed of a nightmare telling me that I need to stop eating meat or start eating bugs. Therefore I'll take the brain's design of your ignorance of it. And you are somewhat right about the feces, I forgot to say "if it had healthy benefits". That was my mistake and I'll stand corrected for only that.

2. It does not matter to the human body as a whole as evident by 100 year old's that lived a life of drugs and junk food. Stress is the number one killer - frankly, eating things we enjoy counters the need for nutrition. Happiness produces chemicals which keep our body healthy. All the healthy diets and health plans are equivalent to people afraid of germs - it's people who are too stupid to realize that they don't need to cut all of this to achieve this - by doing so, they are jeopardizing their immune system in the first place. Sorry, your argument is the same fear-toting nonsense I see in all these books people make about what we should and should not eat as if it every bloody mattered in the history of mankind. It's just people messing with people's paranoia and making money off of it. Paranoia and stress kills us - not the delusions they make us believe.

3. Humans were not built on eating insects, hence they can live to 100+ without even eating "healthy" stuff. It's all about your mood keeping the right chemicals in your body and your movement. It's not what we eat - it's what we think as well as genetics.

4. Humans make it to age 100 without eating bugs, therefore your argument is a stink bug: crushing it still makes me want to vomit.

You have never argued my points. You go back to bugs, when I have proven that bugs are not needed at all. Then you resort to paranoia, which renders your argument impractical.
Debate Round No. 3
alyfish126

Pro

"The human brain has a guilty consciousness and a built in system that knows right from wrong"
Th
therefor nightmares and dreams? 1+1=2: right; dream. 1+1=3: wrong; nightmare. Car accident: right; dream. Breathing underwater: wrong; nightmare.

"I have never dreamed of a nightmare telling me that I need to stop eating meat or start eating bugs"
Con's logical fallacy here is anecdotal, using personal experience as an argument [1]. 3,000 ethnic groups, accounting for about 2 billion people, eat insects [2, 4]. Nearly 50% of the world population (accounting for islam, hinduism, and buddhism) is against eating either beef or pork [3].

" It does not matter to the human body as a whole as evident by 100 year old's that lived a life of drugs and junk food."
Again, an anecdotal fallacy; this one using isolated examples. Granted, there are often outliers of the statistics, but a healthy diet is key to longevity. The blue zones are the places where people consistently live relatively longer lives than everywhere else. A healthy diet with low amounts of red meat are found as a constant in all of the blue zones [5]. Regardless, this debate is not about the relation of diet and health, but about eating bugs. If americans and europeans can get over the cultural bias against eating bugs, then "eating things we enjoy" could include bugs and counter the need for slaughtering cows and pigs.

"Humans were not built on eating insects."
Assuming evolution, humans were, in fact, built on eating insects. Consider the diet of humans' closest family member, the bonobo, which is often found eating insects [6]. Again, early humans like the greeks and the romans are known to eat bugs, Aristotle wrote about eating cicadas.
Assuming creation, humans were, in fact, built on eating insects. Leviticus 11:22, "Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." Also, John the baptist is said to have lived on locust.

"It's all about your mood keeping the right chemicals in your body"
Indeed it is important to keep the right chemicals in the body, which makes the nutritional chemicals provided by insects even more appealing for consumption.

"Humans make it to age 100 without eating bugs"
Humans make it to age 100 with eating bugs also, so it seems as though bugs do not hinder the ability to make it to age 100.


I have done my best to argue con's points while sticking to the topic of the debate. I have not proven that bugs are needed, but never was the argument that they were needed. All in all, we should be eating bugs because they are less expensive, more environmentally friendly, and more ethically humane to farm; they have more nutritional value than most livestock; and the bias against eating them is unjustified. Thusfar, con has broken two of the three rules seen in round one, and failed to convince me atleast of the con standpoint that we should not be eating bugs. Thank you, readers, for your time and a fair vote; I hope it was an enjoyable read. Thank you, aerogant, for arguing the con position and driving me to learn more about the topic; wouldn't have done it without you.


[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] http://people.howstuffworks.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.un.org...
[5] http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...
[6] http://pin.primate.wisc.edu...
Aerogant

Con

The dream world is not literal-minded, nor is the reality - Man chose to be literal-minded because they committed themselves to a physical illusion. Humanity came from a Universe that wasn't always physical, which is the say that humanity is metaphysical at heart despite the physical apparatuses. You not understanding the significance of the subconscious world and its inter-reflective potential tells me that you have not the potency to be discussing with someone who knows beyond the reality we take for granted.

Dreams are not personal experiences - they are universal systems of the Universe that run deeper than our conscious naivety like your own. This is where information becomes "alive" and we get to experience ourselves as the Universe's maze rats. This is why there is a connection between serial killers, voices in their head and always having night terrors. The human brain has a deeper function beyond the literal-minded activity where in the potential, the genius and the darkest nature of Man thrives with or without evil. There's no "I" - there is only "Information". This Universe defines us - we define ourselves by relating ourselves to aspects of the Universe. Learn your place. I learned mine as young as 16. When you have the privilege to venture into your darkest corridors where in your true nature constantly takes forms of deadly creatures; to have the ability to face these creatures of your mind, you won't be as naive and contrived as you are being right now. You will be respecting me and bowing down to me because the things I have achieved to those who understand the true nature of mind and subconscious activity, will see that I am beyond average minds. I am a master of chaos, after all - that is the secret to every genius.

Isolated examples do not apply to a universal property. You cannot misuse anecdotal because the human body is not an experience - it's a tool that everyone has which slightly differentiates based on genetics and what people do with it. There is no evidence that eating healthier has ever made a difference for those that do not eat healthy - keep in mind that you're the hypocrite using anecdotal evidence. While you preach about things that exist solely in your imagination and delusion, I'll continue to observe all the people who eat whatever they want, who live on beyond age 50; and see people that eat the way you want them to barely live over 50. I remember when I was younger my mother was like you "coffee is bad for you I read about it", I told her to look around her and tell me if she sees anyone killing over as they stand. She punished me for speaking the truth. I live in a world full of Neanderthals like yourself.

Humans were not built on insects, as to say humans would die without eating insects. Humans chose to eat insects. Humans need food - humans need water. Humans do not need insects, so continue on poking holes in otherwise sealed circumstances.

Insects are not important for our body, therefore they should not be eaten. There's no reason to eat something after never eating it just because some random person took small cases and twisted the context of which they unfolded themselves in to support their delusion with.

That couldn't be possible because my brain is reacting powerfully at this statement of yours. Anyone will tell you that people live much longer today than they lived back then. The longevity has increased significantly, therefore your statement is wrong or anecdotal.

You have done your best, but frankly stupidity got the best of you which renders your best ability to be the worst compared to my ability to destroy your arguments with my profound knowledge over the Universe's cosmic tapestry. It's silly to argue with a genius - go back to your little reality, you are not fit for this.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Theunkown 3 years ago
Theunkown
what's wrong with monkey brains?
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Interesting.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
alyfish126AerogantTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: there are two debaters in this debate, and only one does not attack while using sources
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
alyfish126AerogantTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Better conduct by pro, sources to back arguments.
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 3 years ago
Robert_Weiler
alyfish126AerogantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Bugs, ew. Sorry, PRO, I have to vote the more convincing argument. It would take one heck of an argument to convince most people to eat bugs,