Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes it should be banned.

    I know a lot of people love to eat meat, but you can't just kill a living being like that. You can't kill a defenseless animal with no chance of surviving. Its to cruel you can't even lie about that.If you even think it's not cruel you are lying to yourselves.

  • There is no justification.

    Listing off some random group of people that you're not associated with living off in some random corner of the world isn't a valid excuse for the majority of people that indulge in meat when they happen to live in a city or town with countless alternatives and options. Of course there happen to exist valid context's for someone to eat meat, but by and large I can't imagine most of the people here are Inuits.

    Billions of animals are slaughtered for indulgence. This alone should be enough, but on top of that we're also talking about an industry that pollutes due to all the waste it creates from the animals while they're alive and dead, one that wastes valuable resources like water and food, and contributes a lot to global warming thanks to it mass producing cows.

    I doubt a ban would honestly work against a majority this huge, but I think it would devalue my point if I were to put this in the "no" section. In either case, a world without beef is a better one.

  • Environmental and health reasons.

    Beef production is a waste of resources. Just for starters only 10% of the biomass is transferred along Trophic levels. Health hazard, lots of cholesterol and fat. Also meat is more likely to cause food poisoning. Think about it you don't need to waste your hands after handling carrots. Yet, you do after handling animal carcasses.

    Https://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Trophic_level

  • Forget animal rights

    1. 50% of farming land is used to feed beef livestock. If we reallocated these lands to growing food for direct human consumption (only 1% is used today for vegetables) we could reduce food cost exponentially and increase resources.
    2. Beef is government subsidized. 1 lb of beef truly costs roughly $40. We offset the cost in our taxes - therefore our Taxes would go down!
    3. Removing all that waste runoff (we don't filter cow feces) means cleaner ground water!
    4. Removing the roughly 100 million cows which produce Massive amounts of methane (1 molecule of methane is equal to 25 carbon dioxide ), solid reduction in greenhouse gasses.
    5. Beef is a top culprit for health concerns / cancer growth / diabetes / heart failure - by getting rid of this food - health will improve, therefore healthcare costs should reduce as well!

    We could shift from beef to chickens - still get our meat proteins , and see MASSIVE benefits .

  • Harm on environment

    <THBT Meat Should be Banned>

    <Speech>

    Ladies and Gentlemen,today we are debating under the motion “THBT Meat Should be Banned”.I’m on the affirmative side of the debate and I’d like to present the 2nd argument “Harm on Environment”




    Let me explain what it means to harm the environment.It means to make the environment dirty.For example,cow’s burps and farts make the globalwarning more hotter.

    So,my argument means that banning meat is an environmentally friendly to Earth.




    For example,to grow more animals for foods,we need to cut down forests.And this becomes waste!!!Also I already told you cow’s burps and farts become Greenhouse Gases which makes the Global Warning more hotter.




    Therefore,we,the affirmative team belives that meat should be banned.

  • Actually, I say "No."

    While being pro-beef is not exactly my strongest of points (I'm a chicken-eater [http://www.Debate.Org/debates/If-you-could-only-eat-one-food-forever-chicken-would-be-better-than-beef-in-terms-of-taste/1/]), I don't think the government needs to be involved in regulated people's eating of beef. Now if it were immoral, I'd be against it. However, the only way something could be proven to be immoral, as far as I see, is if there is an infallible source saying something's immoral. I believe in the Bible, and it is against "commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Tim. 4:1-5 NKJV). Besides, if people are eating a bunch of beef, that just means more chicken for me!

  • Beef is the last thing that should be banned.

    Beef is the best meat and cows are just animals. PETA would obliviously say "Yes" but PETA believes animals have the same rights as humans. Ranchers make money off of selling them. Beef is a good meat to eat and there is no way it should be banned. If you say beef should banned you think every animal should not be killed.

  • Humans are not vegetarian by nature.

    Humanity is omnivorous. We have evolved to include meat in our diets, and the healthiest people are those that do. In fact it is a combination of our omnivorous diet and cooking that likely lead to the development of our above animal level of intelligence.

    While it is true that animals take more land to farm than plants per person, a major fact is being ignored, dung. By raising cattle and other grazing animals, you are producing fertilizers, and refreshing the ground for future plant growth.

    Those that oppose meat as 'murder' are likely to support abortion as not being murder. Despite the fact that there is no moral difference between killing a cow and killing a fetus before 20 weeks, and a certain moral difference afterward. This sort of moral hypocrisy can not be allowed to become policy.

  • Animals eat animals; why should we not eat them as well?

    Carnivorous animals eat the flesh of other animals. We are omnivores, meaning that we are able to get nutrition from both plants and meat. We cannot live healthy lives without either one. Beef is one of many meats that supplies us with nutrients needed to live. There is no harm in it, but it should be eaten in moderation as with any food.

  • Reduced? Yes. Banned? No.

    The environmental effects of raising cattle are a very compelling reason to reduce consumption of beef.

    Banning beef, however, would likely lead to unintended consequences which may not result in a net benefit. Farmers, businesses, and consumers would all be thrown into a tailspin.

    Systematically reducing subsidies on feed crops, however, could gradually reduce demand without a shock to the system.

  • If we ban beef, we must ban everything.

    Animal rights activists are doing their job by trying to protect animals and let them have a say. I think humans abuse their power to the max. We exercise our power on animals, even. We exploit them, despite whether they want to be used for food/clothing/entertainment...Etc. I see a lot of people argue that we should stop killing animals for food. Well what about the fact that some kill them for fun? What about the fact that we use animals for medical research. Truth of the matter is, animals are a huge help for humans. We use them to our advantage, and they have helped us get to where we are. I dont think we are going to stop 'exploiting' animals, because they are just too great for our benefit.

  • No, Would Be Problematic

    First, I wholeheartedly agree that we should crack down on cruel factory farming practices. However, an outright ban on beef, or beef production would be fraught with other issues. These other issues, to be blunt, are more important than a moral quandary about whether or not eating beef is cruel.

    Beef is not necessarily for everyone, but the reality is that it is a natural part of our diets at this point in the evolutionary timeline. To deny some people of it would be problematic at best, and dangerous at worst.

    Banning beef would also force some changes in diet, to which some people would simply be unable to adapt. Some people may develop reactions or intolerances to the substitute proteins, which could prove dangerous over time with so many untested GMOs.

    Financially speaking, banning beef would result in billions of dollars of revenue lost, and this would send a ripple through the agricultural industry, causing millions of people to lose their jobs.

    In addition to the loss of employment, what would happen to the cattle population? It would boom, as a result of lack of regulation, and the methane pollution levels would be even higher. But since the farming industry would have no legal responsibility over the animals, they would have no requirement to pay taxes on the expelled methane. So now you have increased methane pollution, and the farming community doesn't have to pay for it, and can't do anything to slow it down.

    If you insist on banning beef, then it would logically follow that you would prefer to also ban other types of meat. Banning meat would make Monsanto "Soy" the new largest source of protein. This is extremely irresponsible, due to the fact that Monsanto controls over 90% of all soy production, and their legally patented, genetically modified seed is genetically modified, and not even natural soy.

    So, while I do believe that factory farming is cruel and unfortunate, we would need to address all of these factors if we ever want to effectively ban the consumption of a dietary staple.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
YAZI says2015-10-30T10:15:08.493
Here we have the freedom to be a pure vegetarian as well as to eat beef .....But to banned beef is injustice in India where majority of the people eating beef.Remember Your freedom ends where my nose begins.