The Instigator
Theomega
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
candice
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

You can't be a meat eating environmentalist.

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: 3/21/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,438 times Debate No: 3334
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (18)

 

Theomega

Pro

If one believes that they are an environmentalist, then you really cant eat meat. According to the U.N., the livestock sector causes more pollution than the entire transportation sector and all other industrial sources combined.

Animals raised for food, produce 5 times more excrement than the entire human population, 86,000 pounds per second. Their excrement produce sixty five percent of world wide nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon monoxide. Methane is also released from the excrement, and it is 20 times more potent than carbon monoxide.

The run-off from factory farms also pollutes our fresh water resources more than all other industrial sources combined. The E.P.A reports that these large amounts of excrement are pushed into rivers and lakes and have contaminated 35,000 miles of rivers and contaminated ground water sources in seventeen states.
candice

Con

The exact definition of environmentalist is:
1. an expert on environmental problems.
2. any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.

So, basically you can be an environmentalist and not even recycle because being an envirnmentalist is a profession, not only a state of mind. I've never heard of a stipulation that you cannot get a college degree, and get a job as an envirnomentalist because you eat meat. That is because it does not exist. One can also be an "environmentalist" because they recycle, and recognize global warming and man's hand in it. Just because they don't practice they're earth conscious lives as you do, doesn't mean that they don't think about they're effect on the world.

So, the topic of this debate which is: You cant' be a meat eating environmentalist, is utterly false. Many PAID, and PROFESSIONAL environmentalist are in fact, not vegetarians.
Debate Round No. 1
Theomega

Pro

Sorry, let me specify. Taken from dictionary.com under noun for the word environmentalist,
"someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution".

Under this description it is impossible to eat meat, without regulation, and still be trying to protect the environment from destruction.

The practice of factory farming, in many cases, can be more damaging than any other industry.

Also, I thank you for arguing the semantics of the word, "environmentalist", when I feel it was quite obvious what I meant.

If you can debate the fact that eating meat regularly is not bad for the environment and that one who eats meat regularly can still, with logic, be against the destruction of nature, please do so. (Also I don't mean as a paid position, I mean philosphically and morally.)

For any doubters: http://www.livestocklongshadow.com...
http://www.nrdc.org...
http://www.fao.org...
candice

Con

Or, you could recognize that one can be environmentaly conscious without being a vegetarian.

Which is better: Someone not eating meat, and being environmentaly friendly, OR, someone deciding they DO indeed like meet, so they don't make an effort in the least to help the environment because you say that they're cause is meaningless. Personaly, I would like every person to be environmentaly sound.

So, I'm sorry that you didn't specify in the topic of this debate EXACTLY what you recently found you meant, after I totally called you out on the weakness of your argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Theomega

Pro

First off, all definitions came from dictionary.com

The definition of environmentalist is:
1. an expert on environmental problems.
2. any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.

First off,
advocates-One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender.

your other argument is one that works and has the title of "environmentalist"

lets look at these definitions

Hypocrite-a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. A PERSON WHOSE ACTIONS BELILE THEIR OWN STATED BELEIFS.

So, one who argues that they are, as you stated "environmentally conscious" and argues to protect the environment, is a hypocrite if they eat meat because it is horrible on the environment, something you neglected to even debate.

Now. on to the job. lets look at these definitions,

poseur-a person who habitually pretends to be something he is not

fraud-a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

If one goes to college and gets a degree to become an environmentalist, as the previos definition stated,, they are being a hypocrite, a poseur, and a fraud. so they are not actually environmentalists. Also, if your an expert on environmental problems, you know the harmful affects of meat, and if you eat meat, then your a hypocrite and a poseur.

"Or, you could recognize that one can be environmentally conscious without being a vegetarian"

This is not true because that is not what an environmentalist is, YOUR DEFINITION sated they are a supporter or one that argues for their cause. i have clearly disproved this, they are a poseur and a hypocrite.

"Which is better: Someone not eating meat, and being environmentally friendly, OR, someone deciding they DO indeed like meet, so they don't make an effort in the least to help the environment because you say that they're cause is meaningless. Personaly, I would like every person to be environmentally sound."

From your definition, these are not environmentalists so it is irrelevant.

"Many PAID, and PROFESSIONAL environmentalist are in fact, not vegetarians."

Just to restate, these people are frauds, hypocrites and poseurs, totally disproving your attempt to try to win this debate.

for the voters, Candice did not argue any of my main points and turned this into a semantics debate, and because of this she should not win, even if you do agree with her.
candice

Con

Clearly, pro has blinder's on. I would much rather have everyone recycle, regardless of they're choice to eat meat. So now that I have efficiently proven that you don't HAVE to be a vegetarian to help the environment, I'll tackle your theory or eating animals hurting our world.

If you want to be 100% environmentally friendly you can eat meat. Going to farms that give they're animals special attention, open pastures to graze in, and no chemicals is the key. These animals live healthy lives, and animals fecal mater can be gathered, and used as natural fertilizer for vegetarian's vegetables. Also, think of ALL the land that would be monopolized if every single person in the world went vegetarian. Not to mention the equipment used to harvest, process, and deliver the veggies. To live a totally comfortable life, no body is going to be perfect, environmentally. Our job should be to do everything possible to make sure we're thinking about our impact, and take steps to make our world cleaner.

Beef is the animal that releases the most carbon into the atmosphere. Human's release more. What about the carbon chickens, or chicken eggs release? The chicken close to none, and the egg absolutely none. Should we all stop eating poultry and fish because beef releases carbon? Carbon is a natural gas, and in moderation is normal. Man made production of carbon is what we need to watch out for and moderate. Would vegetarian's want to kill all of these carbon releasing animals for the ozone? I don't think so. If human's weren't polluting, then we wouldn't have to think about the carbon released from animals.

This, to me is a step off the path of making our world environmentally friendly. Thinking this way is a big deterrent for meat eating people to want to be involved in doing they're part of keeping the world clean. Don't mark meat eating people as hater's of the world. Why don't we all work together and think of feasible ways to help. Having everyone stop eating meat is impossible, and naive. Recycling meat eater's aren't "posers"... they're regular people that recycle. No one can be perfect, I'm sure that you have driven in a car... so that makes you slightly a hypocrite. What's important is that EVERYONE does something they feel helps the environment.

So, in my saying that no one environmentally perfect, living a normal life in America. We ALL should be environmentalist, and notice things around us and take steps to better our world. We're never going to be envirnomentaly perfect. What our job is, is to make sure we do what we can to be healthy, and keep the world clean. So, my opponents thoery of not being a envirnomentalist and eating meat has been proven 100% false.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
The main issue is that folks have no clue where meat comes from or how it is raised

the animals are not treated in any way like sentient beings

at least you have killed your own meat and see the real deal

My Indian buddys Elk Jerky is pretty good, actually
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
As far as slaughtering animals goes, I have seen it been there done that. Doesn't bother me a bit. I personally slaughtered my 8 pet rabbits to earn a merit badge in the boy scouts. They were yummy!!
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Solarman, Your reasons for not eating meat are solely based on personal preference and that is fine. I wonder if you think these grazing animals should be treated like house pets? I'm sorry if you find me callous towards grazing animals but I don't think to much about their living conditions because I know they will be slaughtered and consumed soon enough. That is what they are for.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I think thats true - some meat IS raised ethically for sure

I also think anyone who eats meat to see a slaughterhouse at least once

PETA- people eating tasty animals
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Of course, one can always resort to eating organic and free-range foods.
That gets you around all those problems Solar.

If one was careful enough, I daresay you could be even arrange it such that most environmentalists would approve ;-) Much easier as a vegetarian though, I'm sure.

Cheers
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
what about factory farmed animals - 99% of them?

on drugs?

sick ?

abused ?

unnatural ?

on hormones?

hmmmmm?

that is my reason for giving up meat
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Ya, If you want to look at feeding yourself from that perspective. Grazing animals are for eating and hunting. That is the way nature intendid it. You can try and make all the intellectual arguments against it based on your personal feelings but it wont change the fact that grazing animals are for hunting and eating.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
the point about the dose being the poison are accurate

at one dose, something is meidicine, at another poison

this debate I think is more on a spiritual level, rather than environmental based only

if you take in the bodies of abused , terrified, mistreated murdered beasts, you take on their karma

even if they do taste good
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
You might like to read a bit about warfarin: http://en.wikipedia.org...
One can very easily be killed by consuming too much of any medicine.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Ya, rat poison? Now you are going to the realm of absurdity. Am I to believe that people eat rat poison on a regular bases based on that example. Why would you even use that as an example other than to divert the focus on what people consume that is considered food or recreational drugs. There is a huge difference between poison and drugs.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 7 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
TheomegacandiceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by TaylorFame 8 years ago
TaylorFame
TheomegacandiceTied
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 
Vote Placed by blondesrule502 8 years ago
blondesrule502
TheomegacandiceTied
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 mo-yahoo 8 years ago
mo-yahoo
TheomegacandiceTied
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 els21 8 years ago
els21
TheomegacandiceTied
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 mikelwallace 8 years ago
mikelwallace
TheomegacandiceTied
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 gogott 8 years ago
gogott
TheomegacandiceTied
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 sully 8 years ago
sully
TheomegacandiceTied
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 bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
TheomegacandiceTied
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 beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
TheomegacandiceTied
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