The Instigator
Factsman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
32doni32nido32
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

We should all be vegans

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
32doni32nido32
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 865 times Debate No: 114157
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Factsman

Pro

We were designed to only eat vegetables and fruit. It is better for everyone and everything. Change my mind.
32doni32nido32

Con

Humans are mostly designed to be herbivores, but our system can handle meat as well, meaning we are omnivores. What you believe is right will differ from another person's view, so if you think that everyone should be vegan another will disagree. People should choose what they eat, not have it chosen for them.
Debate Round No. 1
Factsman

Pro

Yes, our bodies can handle COOKED meat. However, we are not omnivores. We sweat, we do not pant. Our teeth are flat and grinds instead of going up and down. We have special enzymes on our tongue only herbivores have. Our intestines are longer over 7 times as long as our torso. We do not have claws. Only herbivores have these traits. Not to mention that vegans have a longer lifespan than non-vegans. Animals are forced to breed while in small living spaces. They have their children taken away and slaughtered up-side-down while conscious. They are born to die for your taste buds. Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish.
32doni32nido32

Con

I never denied that humans are herbivores. That's correct. But we can handle cooked meat so there shouldn't be any problem with eating it. It all comes down to what we choose and wish to eat. We don't NEED to eat meat, but we do because we enjoy it. Bringing up the topic of lifespan isn't really necessary; people who eat candy and chips all day likely know it's unhealthy and that it will affect them negatively in the future but they do it anyways.

"Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish." How so? Please give examples if you can.

Overall, people should have the choice to be vegan or not rather than forced to do so. Encouraged, yes. Forced, no. You see, barely anyone except who agrees with you cares about your opinion. Unfortunately, that's how life works. So go ahead and wish all you like that people would change their diets, but a large majority of people won't care about what YOU want THEM to eat.
Debate Round No. 2
Factsman

Pro

Heres ONE example of how going vegan helps the environment, "The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, determined that if every American went vegan, agricultural greenhouse gas emissions would decrease 28 percent. That's a lot, but that figure does not fully counterbalance the current animal contribution of greenhouse gases of 49 percent in the team's model".
You said that people have a right to eat what they want. So, can I eat a toddler? If you say no, then whats the difference between me eating a toddler and me eating a cow. Can the toddler feel more pain when hanged upside-down and beaten to death conscious?
32doni32nido32

Con

Eating humans is different than eating cows.
Because of what the world has become, humans are more cherished than many other animals.
Thanks for giving an example of veganism helping the environment!
Debate Round No. 3
Factsman

Pro

You are right people are more cherished than animals for some reason, but that is a horrible rebuttal.
a couple decades ago, whites were more cherished than blacks. Does that make it ok to commit cannibalism?
Heres another example of how going vegan helps the environment, "If the whole world became vegan, deforestation rates plummet"
32doni32nido32

Con

I gave that reasoning because of society's views on cannibalism; why others think eating children is wrong. It's been that way since the beginning of time if you go by the Bible. Because a majority of people in the old times went by the Bible, society was formed to fit its rules. The Protestant and Catholic beliefs spread to many parts of the world, making others think the same thing as well.
If you go by evolutionary standards, it's different. The theory of evolution was started by Aristotle but took huge leaps of development in 1793 by the botanist Jean Baptiste Lamarck who presented a full-blown theory of evolution. That was the start of the theory and it took time to develop and grow. Because religious influence had spread as far as America, the indoctrinated idea wasn't fully questioned with better evidence until Lamarck presented the theory. The idea that humans were higher beings was fairly popular.
Laws were created based on some of the Bible's rules which is why murdering people is considered illegal and killing animals for food isn't. We have kept that ideology despite many people being atheists.
Debate Round No. 4
Factsman

Pro

The ideology is wrong. Suffering is suffering. The bible is BS. It lacks logic. This is not a debate about religion.
32doni32nido32

Con

I agree; it's not a debate about religion. I included both sides' (atheist and Catholic/Christian) beliefs (or lack thereof). It was a brief little history lesson to tell you WHY humans are considered superior to other animals. I didn't think it was that hard to understand but maybe the road of education isn't as smooth for you.
Also, the Bible isn't a science book (obviously).

What it comes down to:
We should choose what we eat usually based on what we believe is right. Cannibalism isn't a popular idea because of the way society has been formed.
No, but seriously, don't eat a toddler. That's weird...
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
@american_citizen
This makes sense, but keep in mind that vegans also don't believe that drinking milk is right. Also, is the digestion of plants reliant on fiber or cannot it be done without it?
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
@TimothyW
The sky is actually part green. Molecules of gas (primarily oxygen, nitrogen, and trace amounts of argon) show the blue light better than the green and/or the red light.
Posted by american_citzen 3 years ago
american_citzen
If we were designed to eat cooked meat we would have died years ago before 12000 BCE when we still were hunter-gatherers. We are designed to eat both plants and meat. Our teeth have canines used to tear apart meat and vegetables. Our digestive systems have the ability to break down high energy food like meat that contains no fiber to help digestion. In order to digest plants, we need fiber to help. In order to digest bread be need thiamine to allow us to do so. In order to digest milk, we need lactase to digest the lactose. However, no added vitamins are needed to digest meat. Therefore we were designed to eat meat. However, adding fruits and vegetables adds vitamins while meat provides the ability to have protein for growth and provide more energy than plants. Therefore we are designed to be omnivores. The in-between or growth and energy, and healthy bodies. Without meat growing and having energy is harder than with meat. Having meat and nor plants we cannot stay healthy. I respect all opinions on the matter, however current scientific evidence suggests to me that we are designed to be an Omnivore. Plus meat is delicious and in the Bible, we are told we can eat meat. I understand the fact to care for animals that are slaughtered however many are killed in a calm matter. To those who wish to prove me wrong, I will listen to all opinions but will not listen to anyone trolling me or trying to bring me down.
Posted by TimothyW 3 years ago
TimothyW
That's not how the burden of proof works. I can't just go 'the sky is green; change my mind', that's idiotic. The person making the claim (ie; the 'for' side) has to provide evidence in the form of scientific studies or such reports to satisfy the burden of proof.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Factsman32doni32nido32Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ability to: Con shows that we can eat meat. Utility to world: Con does not argue against Pro arguments that veganism would help environment. Should do: Both sides gave reasons justifying their stance, but I have to give the sliver of a point to Con for actually giving a reason, justification, history for humans and their behavior of their own importance and animal eating. I feel Con made a better argument for developing his should more than Pro and Con was able to identify that humans can eat meat. I do feel both sides arguments could have been better. How? I'm lazy, I don't want to think about how and then think how to explain how, too much work.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.