is a universal vegan lifestyle a good idea?
(I am not vegan, I am just debating for fun)
I assume the burden of proof is shared, as it was not stated at the beginning.
Con states that if veganism is universal, then humans would no longer be predators, which will cause a spike in population in animals that humans consume, which will cause overpopulation in animals.
The argument is flawed in several ways.
First of all, there are much more secondary consumers (meat eating animals) than just humans, such as lions, wolves and bears. Some of them are apex predators, which play a major role in the ecosystem. 
The reduction of hunting for primary consumers (animals that consume plants) would naturally result in the increase of secondary consumers (animals who eat meat) , because there will be more food for the secondary consumers to feed on. That would, in turn, reduce the number of primary consumers, making it impossible to have too much secondary consumers. This would make the food chain get back in balance again, and will not affect the ecosystem really much, especially if the adaption to a vegan lifestyle was more gradual. This means that it won't cause disease and famine or mass deaths of animals.
Con also gives a claim that humans will suffer and die, without any reasoning behind it. The ecosystem is not affected, as explained in my previous argument, so it can't affect the food chain. There won't be famine, because growing food is more efficient than feeding the food to animals to produce meat. 
Con does not give enough evidence to support his claims, and more reasons are needed.
As far as the claim that a raise in the number of apex predators would increase due to a rise in the population of prey, the claim is in of itself a total lie. Just because there is a raise in prey doesn't mean that the population of predators will raise. A decline in food will result in a quick and drastic drop in population but if there was a rise in the amount of food any change in the population of the consumer would be small and take time to develop.(2)
Over population in any animal species such as cows would result in a destruction of environmental resources and essential nutrients needed for survival.(2) A lack in essential nutrients can cause serious problems in both wild and domestic animals. Without nutrients and sustenance such things as cancer can occur in animals, not to mention the drop in the immune systems capabilities to fight off contagions.
Perhaps more important than any of this is the fact that red meat gives humans many important vitamins and minerals they could not live without such as vitamin B12 which is only naturally occurring in red meat. a list of other important parts of a diet found in meat include iron, vitamin D, magnesium, and Zinc.(3)
Con claims that the argument that the argument that the rise in the amount of food does not result in a rise in the amount of predators. He gives this source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Note that the source states that:
In an ideal setting, when animal populations grow, so do the number of predators that feed on that particular animal. Animals that have birth defects or weak genes(such as the runt of the litter) also die off, unable to compete over food with stronger, healthier animals.
In reality, an animal that is not native to an environment may have advantages over the native ones, such being unsuitable for the local predators. If left uncontrolled, such an animal can quickly overpopulate and ultimately destroy its environment."
It says nothing about the rise in food resulting in the rise of the amount of predators being a total lie. It just states that it won't work if the animal is not native to an envoironment.
Since overpopulation is ruled out, the arguments based on it are ruled out too.
Next, onto the nutrients.
Growing plant food is more efficient than feeding plants to animals and then eating the animals. ((5:55) www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD-yN2G5BY0)
This results in lower food prices and reduced world hunger.
Now, why does that matter?
That is because lower food prices means that people can fortify food with those nutrients without it being too expensive.
Is that unnatural?
No. For example, vitamin B12 can be acquired through plants contaminated with B12 creating microbes, which was why plant-eating primates do not have a vitamin B12 deficiency. (http://www.vegetarian.org.uk...) There is no reason for us to add the vitamins created by the microbes that we removed during the sanitation process of food back.
Some of the other nutrients con mentioned: iron, vitamin D, magnesium, and Zinc, can also be obtained.
Iron can be obtained in certain plant and grain products, like artichoke, asparagus or spinach. (http://www.dietitians.ca...)
Zinc can be found in sesame seeds, pumpkin seeds, oats, and peas. (http://www.whfoods.com...)
Con does not give a sufficient argument on the ecological effects of Veganism. Vitamin B12 can be created through B12 creating microbes, and the other nutrients that con mentioned can be found in plants or can be created by the human body naturally.
On top of the Youtube reference being unreliable, it didn't only back up his points it referred to overpopulation saying that it causes famine, starvation, and illness on a mass scale. A point of mine that Pro has tried to refute since the first argument.
Note that in the youtube video the man goes into how cattle eat most of the crop we grow for food. This begs the question. if there are 1.5 billion cows on earth and they eat most of the crop we grow; how will 7 billion people be able to be fed off of a strict vegan diet. The math does not add up
The video does not talk about wether or not the removal of humans as predators will cause problems.
". if there are 1.5 billion cows on earth and they eat most of the crop we grow; how will 7 billion people be able to be fed off of a strict vegan diet. The math does not add up"
Con uses a fallacious argument. If we are feeding off a strict vegan diet, we will not feed 1.5 billion cows with crops.
Con does not give any additional arguments or refute my arguments on his arguments on overpopulation being flawed or my arguments on the fact that his source does not say what he said.
As he did not make useful arguments, I extend my case.
as long as we continue to support animal livestock at the rate it is right now we will have to feed them. This is assuming that as Vegans we follow the Vegan ethical code as well as the diet. Trying to feed 7 billion people and 1.5 billion cattle along with countless other animals would not work.
Cows eat 24 pounds of dry matter per day. (1)
Humans eat 5 pounds of food (minimum) to be healthy. (2)
5*7,000,000,000,000=35,000,000,000,000*365=12,770,000,000,000,000 pounds of food per year for humans.(not taking into account our waste, which is a lot)
Now 24*1.5 billion=37.5 billion pounds per day. multiply by 365 = somewhere around 13,687,500,000,000,000 pounds per year.
Now take into account that the U.S. has a surplus of wheat and corn to help us in a situation where we don't have enough crops. So, we would be fine for the first few years living off of surplus.(3)
After the surplus ran out we would be facing farm animal overpopulation, wild animal overpopulation, the rise in apex predators will not have been noticeable yet, and environmental destruction.
Environmental destruction would result in loss of farm land to grow crops.
Apex predator rise would not have been noticeable yet and we couldn't kill animals so population would continue to rise.
overpopulation in animals leads to disease and famine.
the argument is weather a universal vegan lifestyle is a good idea or not. Making any change to the planet this drastic is a bad idea. Along with any form of radicalism.
Con drops all the other arguments other than the cow argument.
The cow argument is bull (pun intended).
If we are going to all be vegans, there is no reason to keep 1.5 billion cattle in farms. We can just release them to the wild, in which case they will become a part of the food chain.
Con has failed to address my refutation on his overpopulation argument, yet he still uses the same argument to back up the cow argument.
aume.matt084 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|