query: Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

positive: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Milk has been a part of the human diet for centuries. It is the best drink to consume for re hydration besides water. Milk deficiency can lead to osteoporosis. Milk supplies the body with a good source of calcium and vitamin B and D. Milk is good for the skin which is why it is an ingredient in most lotions. In addition, it provides protection for the enamel on teeth and prevents decay.

positive: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. I have greatly enjoyed this debate and hope to engage in another one with my opponent in the future. As for now, let us finish up. 1. Providing the actual source now is inadequate. As I have said before, the research is being used out of context. Does calcium excretion increase if protein levels increase? Yes, because as any student who took anatomy&physiology knows, charged proteins maintain an ionic balance and charged calcium ions can flow differently depending on the amount of protein in the blood. However, animal proteins are broken down into amino acids and their net charge becomes neutral. This in addition to the amount of protein in the blood made up by albumin and blood cells, as well as the fact that Dr. Heaney is talking about extracellular calcium as opposed to the calcium in bones, makes my opponent's point negligible in terms of calcium loss. This is simply a propaganda ploy. 2. I have never said that there is no trace of those chemicals in cows. I have provided sources showing that they have been tested to healthy levels, my opponent is making a strawman argument. Furthermore, my opponent's source is flawed. Anyone who indicates that inflammation is treated with antibiotics is either an idiot, or is talking about a bacterial infection. As such is the case, we can assume that antibiotics are not given for long term prevention, but when the need arises. In such case, the presence of antibiotics would be minimal. And yes, the chemicals are linked to cancer, but the concentration in milk is nowhere near a cancerous dose in any way, shape or form. A point that my opponent's biased source cares not to mention. 3. In regards to testing for beta lactams: beta lactam antibiotics make up the most common types of antibiotics. The other families are not widely used in cows and many of them are heat labile or denature quickly in hostile environments outside body pH and temperature. Thus, they are a minimal concern. 4. My opponent in his next section, uses some pretty sneaky tactics. First of all, he puts my source into question by stating that a citation is needed. However, the citation is only needed on a statement saying that a panel agreed with the FDA's declaration that milk contained safe levels of animal hormones. The actual FDA statement contains a citation. 5. In addition, my opponent criticizes the "huge jump". Yes, while the jump is big, the numbers were still low, and as I have said before, the study DID take into consideration the fact that milk was widely used. The source even stated that as the reason the investigation was being performed. 6. In such case, how is my opponent to know that this cow's milk is actually going to be used? It seems to me that he just google-imaged a picture of a cow with swollen udders. Logically speaking, FDA moderated farms and centers for milk production would be mechanized such that this could be prevented. 7. As I have stated, I was referring to the original journal articles regarding the experiments that my opponent's site has cited as a source. In other words, the source of your source said nothing about milk. How are they connecting the dots? This is to show that my opponent's source is drawing information incorrectly. I have provided sources that show that IGF-1 is at safe levels in milk, and that the assumption that it causes problems in the body is founded on half-logic. 8. In reference to the biased and unreliable experiments/trials http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent did not scan through well enough. See "Constroversies" "none of the studies were performed in a manner to create an unbiased scientific opinion" "indicated no statistically significant findings" "Evidence for efficacy of these diets is currently unsubstantiated" 9. I was not declaring that moderate drinking causes liver damage. I was stating that those who are on prescription medication to allow for moderate drinking would be susceptible to liver damage. 10. It actually is not relevant. Number of "drug abusers" is irrelevant to this debate because your definition of a "drug abuser" is incorrect. However, the number of people on prescription medication is relevant. In developed countries, use of prescription medication is almost exactly the same as in the U.S. In underdeveloped countries, the benefits of beer that you list are of no consequence because the benefits are only good for a civilization with cardiovascular impairment. Developing countries would be more focused on sustenance, and milk would be healthier for them than beer in that regard, because their children are starving. 11. I am familiar with the generic and brand names of these drugs, but are you also aware that OTC does not mean "take as you please"? Have you ever tried the combination of alcohol and sleeping pill? Zantac should NOT be taken with alcohol, the fact that you are advocating it is like a stab to the professional side of me. 12. In that case, we will not discuss non-alcoholic beer because I find it ridiculous anyway. However, I accepted your definition of "milk" and apologize for including soy milk. However, I can very freely mention lactose-free milk if the milk simply has the lactose removed or cleaved. Things are added to beer and they can still be called beer. Simply adding lactase to milk destroys the lactose and makes lactose intolerance irrelevant. Removing the lactose or the fat is perfectly fine too, because the fluid itself came from the cow or the goat, but lactose is a sugar, a solid. You made no mention of the solid. I would also like to note that while watching "Yakitate Japan!", an anime about making bread, I learned that goat milk actually has little to none of the controversial problems that cow's milk has, and have found verification online, since my opponent has mentioned goat milk several times. http://altmedangel.com... http://www.goatworld.com... http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com... http://www.crohns.net... http://www.associatedcontent.com... Goat milk is consumed more than cow milk worldwide, and those with lactose intolerance can somehow consume goats milk without any problems. In addition, goat milk is devoid of all the high-industry chemicals, has healthier fats and cholesterol that help rather than harm, has a different type of casein that people are insensitive to, and is responsible for nearly no allergies. Goat milk is widely used as a replacement for cow milk worldwide. My opponent's burden in this debate is to show that beer is more healthy than milk. He himself has specified that the debate was limited to milk that comes from animals. I have not only shown most (if not all) of his sources against cow milk to be questionable, but also that his arguments for the "average person" show that the inclusion of alcohol in an average person's lifestyle will be more harmful than helpful. Furthermore, in my curiosity as to why my opponent has mentioned but not spoken about goat milk, decided to research it for my opponent, and found that it has absolutely none of the defects my opponent complains about in terms of cow milk. Thus, I have not only reduced my opponents points to the speculation that it is, but also provided an example of a milk that is far healthier than beer. Thank you for the debate. I urge a CON vote.

positive: is chocolate milk good for you hello everyone here is my opinion... i think chocolate milk is good for you because it's healthy for your body and teeth

positive: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Thanks Kleptin, good luck in the final round. "My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones" My source was the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993. It does not have a link because it's not on the Internet. The research was done by Dr. Robert P. Heaney. I did find the excerpt that I was referring to on the Internet however: (http://www.ecopolitan.com...) (scroll about halfway down). In the text he says: "The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent." The other article that I cited was referring to my claim there was pesticides and and antibiotics in milk. I will take a paragraph directly out of the source that I used in round one: "Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow's body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.27 Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer." (http://www.pcrm.org...) In regards to my opponent's sources, one source says: "The newly approved tests detect only four, or at most, five beta lactams. What about the several other families of antibiotics currently available for use?" (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...). Another source, when looking at the "Human Health" section, is one big "citation needed" after another(http://en.wikipedia.org...). His third source says: All 739 milk samples tested contained residues, and in fact the average sample had 2.88 residues – a HUGE jump from the testing just eight years earlier." and it also says "The good news is that the levels of DDE, DPA, and other pesticides found in milk in 2004 were very low. Most fell below one part per billion (ppb). The highest residue levels found were, at most, one-quarter of the applicable EPA tolerance (the maximum allowable limit of a pesticide in a given food)." (http://www.organic-center.org...). These pesticides build up in the body. The samples that contained high amounts of pesticides could easily build up to harmful levels. "I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders." Not EVERY cow has swollen udders, but there are cows that do, here's a picture. (http://www.milksucks.co.uk...) "Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylactic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly." I probably did mix up the words antibiotics and anti-inflammatory, but when cow's udders drag on the ground (see above picture), they are sure to be cut. Those cuts may also come into contact with the manure left on the ground in the cow's living space, and can infect the udders. "The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word "milk" appears a total of 0 times." Again, you must have missed a part in my article. In my source (http://www.pcrm.org...), it says: "Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I). IGF-I is found in cow's milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis. Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow's milk." In the section labeled "Cancer," the word "milk" shows up five times. "This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable" The Wikipedia article? I didn't see that in the article anywhere. "You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage." Moderate Drinking does not cause liver damage. (http://www.liverfoundation.org...) "In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate." It is relevant, because although those numbers are high in the US, other countries may not take nearly as many drugs. Since we are dealing with a worldwide scale here, those figures may not be nearly as high. Ranitidine is also known as Zantac, and famotidine is know as Pepcid, both are over the counter prescriptions. These can be taken with alcohol, how many other prescriptions can be taken with alcohol as well? "Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free." That is true, but in R1 you defined beer to be "an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste." and in R2 I defined milk as "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc." You did not alter my definition of milk and I accepted your definition of beer. Your definition of beer says it is an alcoholic beverage and my definition of milk says it is a liquid secreted by animals like cows and goats. Cow's and goat's milk has lactose in it. So to bring up non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks is irrelevant. Even if we were to argue non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks, who says non-alcoholic beers aren't healthy? And they are not hard to find, I can walk down to my local grocery store and a buy a 24-pack if I wanted to. Granted, lactose-free and fat-free milks probably remove some of the health problems that arise from milk, it isn't just the fat or lactose in the milk that is the problem. It is the casein and the chemicals too. Also, my sources are not biased, they are merely compilations of evidence that have found milk to be detrimental to one's health. If I wanted to read a book on communism, it isn't biased because it doesn't mention fascist ideas as well. I was researching how milk is unhealthy for a person, and that is what I found. So, in conclusion: Beer has no fat, ten times less sodium, no cholesterol and less calories then milk. Beer can protect against diabetes, strokes, heart disease, dementia and lower stress. Milk has small amounts pesticides and antibiotics that can build up in the body that can effect the immune system, central nervous system and reproductive system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer too. Milk has casein, which breaks down into casomorphine, which can aggravate autism. My opponent has misread my sources, claiming they are saying something completely different that what they are actually saying. He has gone so far as to twist my resolution and say my restriction was on people who drive, which is not what I said. Cow's milk is made for baby cows, not humans of all ages. We do not need milk to maintain a healthy diet beyond the age of 12 months old. Thanks to Kleptin for the great debate.

positive: should chocolate milk be served in school Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamin

positive: Milk is bad to the bone. StructureR1 ArgumentsR2 RebuttalsR3 Defend your R1 argument against opponent's R2 rebuttal Bad to the bone = immoral. Full resolution: Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma. Burden of proof will be on me to prove that drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. OutlineI. IntroII. Animal ethicsIII. HealthIV. EnvironmentV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroWe shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable. II. Animal ethics"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare." [0]Animals on so called "humane" farms don't fare much better. [1][2] "Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals “humanely” is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today’s business standards." [3]Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.III. HealthMilk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins. "These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. " [4]" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. " [5]"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population." [6]As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk. "These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates." [7]Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes. “Total protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. “ [8] “" Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found. Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ."” [9] “The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. “ [10] Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards. IV. EnvironmentInherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. [11]V. ConclusionIn conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.VI. Sources0. http://www.aspca.org... 1. http://humanefacts.org... 2. http://humanemyth.org... 3. http://freefromharm.org... 4. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... 9. http://www.webmd.com... 10. http://www.webmd.com...11. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...

positive: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff What does the research say about sugar and flavored milk? Sugar is a contributor to the health problems that are harming our kids. Sugary drinks are often called “liquid candy”, and are an easy way for kids to consume large amounts of added sugar. Several studies have shown that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity and risk for chronic disease;8 it seems to be the one part of kids’ diets most linked to increased weight.9 Flavored milk is a sugary drink, along with soda, sports drinks and many juice drinks, but the majority of these studies did not include it, and there has been very little research to directly investigate the effects of flavored milk on children’s health. The few studies that have been conducted were sponsored by the dairy industry. How much sugar is too much? Recommendations for sugar consumption vary depending on age, gender, and level of physical activity. Health experts recommend that sugar should come from our daily “budget” of discretionary, or spare calories. For example, girls between 9 and 13 who get less than 30 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, only have 130 calories to spare.10 The American Heart Association recommends that no more than half of your discretionary calories come from added sugar,11 so in this case, just 65 calories. One serving of flavored milk provides 64 calories of added sugar, which would equal a whole day’s allowance. What about using cane sugar or non-caloric natural or artificial sweeteners? Replacing high fructose corn syrup with another sugar, such as cane sugar, does not reduce the added sugar content. Cane sugar is similar in composition to high fructose corn syrup (it’s 50% fructose), and neither is beneficial for children’s health when consumed in high quantities. Some processors are considering adding non-caloric sweeteners to milk, but adding any kind of sweetener teaches kids that foods need to be sweeter or flavored in order to be enjoyable, rather than encouraging them to appreciate the taste of whole, natural foods, such as plain milk. Furthermore, not enough research has been conducted to assure the safety of giving children alternative sweeteners on a regular, prolonged basis. If we take away flavored milk, will kids get less calcium and other essential nutrients? Isn’t it worth giving them the extra sugar to make sure they get these? A Dairy Council sponsored study reported that children who drink flavored milk consume more servings of milk daily.12 However, in the majority of age groups, the flavored milk drinkers did not have a significantly higher intake of calcium, or other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium than kids who just drank plain milk. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. Exercise also contributes to good bone health. MORE AND MORE SCHOOLS ARE MAKING THE MOVE TOWARDS PLAIN MILK Pioneering school districts – New Haven, CT; Boulder Valley, Colorado; Washington, DC; Ventura, California – have replaced flavored milk with white. They say that although selection drops initially, once the kids get used to it, the selection goes back up again. Many more districts are following suit – more than 50 in all, led by places like Los Angeles and Minneapolis this year. WILL SCHOOLS LOSE MONEY IF THEY SWITCH OUT FLAVORED FOR WHITE? Schools can still receive their full federal reimbursement for school lunch by offering just plain milk. Generally flavored milk costs more than white milk for the schools to purchase, though suppliers may vary. So school meal budgets should not be impacted by the switch. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FAQS: Why is the Food Revolution focusing on flavored milk? Jamie’s position on flavored milk is that it has no place in schools, and right from the start of the Food Revolution, he has advocated going back to plain, white milk. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are highly processed and contain unnecessary sugars and additives which don’t add any nutritional value. How can we encourage kids to choose white milk? Chef Ann Cooper, better known as the “Renegade Lunch Lady”, serves only white milk in the Boulder, CO schools. She says that it is important to serve the milk cold, and preferably in a glass as opposed to a carton.7 Kate Adamick, who has led the same change in districts in central California, says that educating the cafeteria staff and teachers around the sugar math helps them to explain the reasons to the kids. In Washington, DC, Jeff Mills started fresh in the fall and got very little push back. Switching at the start of a new semester is always going to be less controversial than half way through. Flavored milk can still be served on special occasions only, so the kids come to view it as a treat. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are a processed food product, and contain unnecessary sugars and additives, which don’t add any nutritional value. The food industry has convinced many schools and parents that they need to serve flavored milk to ensure kids get essential vitamins and minerals, and is backing chocolate and flavored milk with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign, led by “Raise Your Hand for Chocolate Milk.”4 Science and common sense don’t back that position up. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. All that’s needed is to invest those marketing dollars behind good old, white milk. We know that with the right backing from the school community to promote plain milk, kids are happy to drink it. An 8 oz carton of flavored milk typically has about 4 teaspoons (64 calories) of added sugar. 1 Industry claims that beginning this school year chocolate milk will average 2.5 teaspoons (40 calories) of added sugar.2 Milk always has 12 grams (about 3 tsp) of its natural sugar, lactose.* If a child drinks flavored milk at breakfast and lunch they are getting 5-8 teaspoons of added sugar, 80-128 extra calories, every day. An 8oz serving size of Coca-Cola has just under 7 teaspoons of sugar. Over a 180-day school year, that adds up to almost 8 pounds of unnecessary sugar (and at least 14,400 calories!). Imagine if they drank it all 365 days… *Calculate your added sugar at www.jamiesfoodrevolution.com/MilkAction *Formulations and sugar content varies by school district. Read your labels! KIDS ARE DRINKING A LOT OF FLAVORED MILK AT SCHOOL About 70% of the milk consumed in schools is flavored.4 Low-fat chocolate milk is the most popular choice.5 80% of flavored milk sold in America is to schools. It’s the place kids get flavored milk. “Flavored milk is not the nutritional equivalent of unflavored milk. It is significantly higher in calories, sugar, and sodium, and usually contains artificial colors and flavors.” – Marlene Schwartz, PhD, Deputy Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesityat Yale University

positive: Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk Stating that chocolate milk tastes better is purely opinion. People do indeed drink chocolate milk more than "that other milk" you describe it as, but this does not make it healthy to humans. To be complete with this debate, I'll be covering all aspects of chocolate milk, including: Its elemental buildup, its usage today, and how it influences the human body. After graphing the general overview of chocolate milk, I will then compare it to the overview of "that other milk". Sound good? Good. The most common way chocolate milk is made, is by taking regular whole milk (or "that other milk" by your preference) and blending that whole milk with a powder (typically cocoa) and sweeteners such as sugars. Both "that other milk" and chocolate milk come from the same cows, contrary to some people's beliefs, but the key difference between the two is that chocolate milk is richer in sugars and carbohydrates than whole milk is. Yes, we are taught that carbohydrates are used as the basic unit of energy storage, but there are different types of carbohydrates, the most unhealthy being sugar. A small amount of consumption of these sugars won't have a significant amount of harm to your body, but large amounts can lead to obesity and diabetes in its consumers, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Source: http://www.self.com...) While most people from the Pro stance of this topic do think that flavored milk is tastier, it is not healthier, similar to most things we eat. We can continue to drink chocolate milk, but this will only damage us as time passes. It is much safer to drink the regular whole milk, with a little less flavor, but removing those excess sugars that grow to harm us in the future, than to drink chocolate milk, which has been shown to have those influences on the human body.

positive: Vegan/Animal Rights "we have made instruments (e.t.c. forks and knives) that help us with this." I thought you were arguing that eating meat is 100% natural... "You also mentioned that we use tools to help us kill these animals. This is another factor of evolution." You must not know what evolution is. What is your point?? "We were given thumbs and big brains for a reason. The survival of the fittest theory says that creatures evolve in certain ways because it benefits them and allows them to produce offspring." We were not "given" theses things. They were carried by our genes because they helped for survival. " If the consumption of meat if one of our evolutionary traits that benefits our race." It may have 5000 years ago. Not anymore. "Humans are neither herbivores or carnivores, they eat both meat and plants which makes them omnivores." We classify animals by the way they are built. We are built like herbivores. Most people believe humans are carnivorous/omnivorous creatures"atop the food chain"who have been eating meat, eggs and dairy since the beginning of time. I believe a few sharks, piranhas, hyenas, bears and lions would like to have a word with us about who's ahead of who in the food chain. Most large herbivores such as rhinos, hippos, elephants and gorillas could also kill a human easily, if provoked. These animals are also ahead of us in the food chain. Humans, historically and scientifically, have always been near the bottom of the food chain. Killing during a one-on-one confrontation without weapons, and the ability to consume bloody raw flesh right from the bone without having it cause disease later on in life, have always been the only true factors in determining physiology and placement in the food chain. All genuine carnivores and omnivores eat an animal's eyes, nose, face, toes, tail, anus, inner organs, blood, brain and fur UNCOOKED. Humans have to cook certain parts of the dismembered animal so we don't become violently ill. That unequivocally makes us fake carnivores/omnivores. Our human physiology is such that all the tools, weapons, hubris, deceit and technology have not magically transformed us into carnivorous/omnivorous creatures. Many anthropologists and medical experts attest to the fact that humans are completely herbivorous, plant-eating creatures. Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and a professor at Baylor University, states, "Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh"which contains cholesterol and saturated fat"was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores." Dr. Milton Mills wrote an indisputable essay about human physiology as well. In their book The Vegetarian Way, nutritionists Virginia and Mark Messina compiled an easy-to-understand chart comparing human bodies to those of herbivores, omnivores and carnivores. " I meant to say that by taking away the consummation of animals you would be denying millions of people access to a food they enjoy eating" You feel bad for taking away something that would kill people?? "it would also take a major export a way from a country already in a tremendous debt." You wanna talk about debt? It takes hundreds of gallons of water to make 1 pound of meat. Hundreds of pounds of corn, soy, and other grains. The meat industry is putting us in debt. "Also, to correct a few minor errors in your previous argument:" Do you see me cherry picking you arguments for grammar errors?? No. Sounds like you are just trying to win votes. "If it is possible, in your next argument could you try to bring up some new points instead of just picking fun and making snide comments about mine. Thank you." Sure... Let's compare the bodies of humans and herbivores to the bodies of carnivores and omnivores. First, the length of intestines in humans and other herbivores falls somewhere between 7 to 13 times the length of the trunk/torso section of the body (I am being generous compared to the research of Mills and the Messinas). In contrast, the length of intestines in carnivores/omnivores is only 3 to 6 times the length of the trunk/torso. (The length of the trunk/torso is used as the means of comparison rather than overall body length or height because humans are bipedal animals whereas most other animals are quadrupeds.) Moreover, the interior surface of human intestines is heavily fluted and striated, whereas the interior intestinal surfaces of carnivores/omnivores tend to be smooth in comparison. The relatively short intestinal length in carnivores/omnivores, along with the relatively smooth interior surface, allow rotting animal flesh, animal protein, casein, cholesterol, trans fatty acids and the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products to pass through quickly; that is why it's impossible for any real carnivore/omnivore to clog their arteries. Clogged arteries, however, affects more than 50% percent of all meat, dairy and egg-eaters in this day and age! In previous generations atherosclerosis affected around 35% of the meat, dairy and egg-eating population. The only surprising aspect of the aforementioned study was the scientists' refusal to blame animal products as the main cause of atherosclerosis. Scientists, however, like all meat- dairy and egg-eating addicts, succumb to the same idiocy and incoherency of addiction-related problem-solving, too. Fortunately, some medical professionals aren't addicts and are capable of explaining the truth. Dr. William Castelli, director of the Framingham Heart Study (the world's longest running heart study), supports the aforementioned findings with additional claims about cancer rates dropping 60 percent if people stopped eating meat, cheese, milk and eggs. Other dietary and non-dietary factors can affect heart health, too. Sugar, the excessive amount of fat found in oils, stress, a lack of sleep, the excessive amount of refined carbohydrates found in white rice, white bread, and pasta, smoking tobacco, and a lack of exercise can wreak havoc on the body. Therefore, it is essential to eat plant-based foods exclusively, and control the non-dietary factors to the best of your ability. Check out this 2014 University of Southern California study which clearly indicts animal protein as a deadly toxin. Veganism not only ensures a greater reduction of cruelty on this planet than any other measure you could take; it also prevents, treats or cures heart diseases, prostate, colon, breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancers, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, obesity, asthma and impotence, just to name a few. According to a plethora of scientific articles, most meat, dairy and egg-eaters will get cancer, osteoporosis or diabetes, while more than 50 percent will have a non-genetically-induced heart attack or stroke. Concerning cancer, there's no doubt that sugar, the oil and fat in fried foods, artificial additives, human-made trans fatty acids found in junk food, and the excessive amount of refined carbohydrates found in white rice, white bread, and pasta cause health problems, while non-dietary factors harm us, too. Stress, a lack of sleep, smoking tobacco, chemical pollution, and a lack of exercise can wreak havoc on the body. However, since animal flesh and the things that come out of animals are always toxic, the main cause of cancer will always be animal protein, casein, the excessive amount of fat found in all animal products, and the 2-9 percent of naturally-occurring trans-fatty acids found in meat and dairy. Even though we're all born with cancer cells, the cells won't "activate" and turn deadly unless they are "expressed". So, preemptively amputating one's breasts (mastectomy), or taking some other drastic action, will NOT prevent cancer development if the cell "activators" are still present. Since cancer thrives in the acidic environment that animal protein creates, it is essential to eat plant-based foods exclusively, and control the non-dietary factors to the best of your ability. Check out this 2014 University of Southern California study which clearly indicts animal protein as a deadly toxin. cited: For purposes of this essay I will use the abbreviation "meat-eater" to refer to any human who eats not only meat, but also dairy products, eggs, and honey. 3. For although there are bodies more massive than Jupiter beyond the trans-Neptunian bodies, at that distance the sun's gravitation would be too weak to hold such a massive body within an orbit about the sun. 4. Henry S. Salt, Logic of the Larder. Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet (Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914). In this context Salt is actually referring to yet another pathetic defense of meat-eating, which argues that animals should be grateful to the persons who eat them, since without a demand for these animals, they would never have existed! To be honest, I was sorely tempted to write another essay in this series, and call it The Insipid "But the Animals Wouldn't Exist if We Didn't Eat Them" Argument. However, no one can improve on what Salt has already had to say about it, so I gladly refer readers to his essay instead.

positive: Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets/diets with animal products Why? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating "well-planned diets," not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.

positive: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Pro will make a brief summary. Pro has proven meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy. Pro has also proven that a person can receive enough nutrients on a vegan diet. Finally Pro has proven that a vegan diet is healthier. Con's arguments are redundant and non-persuasive. Pro has proven the environmental harm of non-vegan foods. Pro has also proven animal cruelty. Last, but not least Pro has shown that more people could be fed if every was vegan. Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

positive: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Hello, ladies, gentlemen, judges my name is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise which is that we should not ban all meat, dairy and eggs. So my roadmap will include divulging 3 of my own points since the pro has introduces none. My first assertion is that meat, eggs and dairy are required to maintain a healthy diet. What kind of diet if without meat, eggs and dairy? A diet that will cause life long health and eating problems. Without eggs, meat and dairy, people will suffer due to mal nutrition. http://authoritynutrition.com... quality, unprocessed meat is among the most nutritious foods in the world. A 100 gram portion (3.5 ounces) of raw ground beef contains large amounts of Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and plenty of other vitamins and minerals (5). Vitamin B12 is particularly important because it can not be gotten in ANY amount from plants. Studies show that out of vegans who don"t supplement with B12, 92% are deficient in this critical nutrient (6). Unprocessed meat is also loaded with healthy fats, but meat from grass-fed animals contains up to 5 times as much Omega-3 as meat from grain-fed animals (7, 8, 9). Milk and dairy products contain many nutrients and provide a quick and easy way of supplying these nutrients to the diet within relatively few calories. Creatine forms an energy reserve in the muscles and brain and is found only in animal foods. Vegetarians are deficient in creatine, leading to reduced physical and mental performance (10, 11, 12, 13). "Carnosine functions as a powerful anti-oxidant and provides protection against many degenerative processes. Carnosine is only found in animal foods (14, 15, 16). "DHA and EPA are the active forms of Omega-3 in the human body and found primarily in animal foods. The body is inefficient at converting ALA (the plant form of Omega-3) to the active forms (17, 18, 19). This is really just the tip of the iceberg. There is an immense amount of important trace nutrients in both plants and animals, some of which science has yet to uncover. http://www.milk.co.uk... Milk, cheese and yogurt all provide the following beneficial nutrients in varying quantities. "Calcium - for healthy bones and teeth "Phosphorous - for energy release "Magnesium - for muscle function "Protein - for growth and repair "Vitamin B12 - for production of healthy cells "Vitamin A - for good eyesight and immune function "Zinc - for immune function "Riboflavin - for healthy skin "Folate - for production of healthy cells "Vitamin C - for formation of healthy connective tissues. "Iodine - for regulation of the body's rate of metabolism (how quickly the body burns energy and the rate. http://authoritynutrition.com... single large boiled egg contains (1): "Vitamin A: 6% of the RDA. "Folate: 5% of the RDA. "Vitamin B5: 7% of the RDA. "Vitamin B12: 9% of the RDA. "Vitamin B2: 15% of the RDA. "Phosphorus: 9% of the RDA. "Selenium: 22% of the RDA. "Eggs also contain decent amounts of Vitamin D, Vitamin E, Vitamin K, Vitamin B6, Calcium and Zinc. All of these are extremely important in order to sustain a healthy life style. Without these, people may develop eating disorders and a ban on eggs, milk and meat worldwide could lead to other consequences. My second assertion is that most of the population consumes these products. Most of the people in the world (if they have money and resources) consume meat one way or another. And as long as the majority buys meat, we can by no means ban it. In addition, there are workers and farmers relying on the meat, dairy and eggs industry. The meat and poultry industry is the largest segment of U.S. agriculture. Total meat and poultry production in 2012 reached more than 93 billion pounds. https://www.meatinstitute.org... In 2013, the meat and poultry industry processed:8.6 billion chickens 33.2 million cattle 239.4 million turkeys 2.3 million sheep and lambs 112 million hogs. In 2013, American meat companies produced:25.8 billion pounds of beef23.2 billion pounds of pork5.8 billion pounds of turkey286 million pounds of veal, lamb and mutton 38.4 billion pounds of chicken. In 2013, more than 482,100 workers were employed in the meat and poultry packing and processing industries. Their combined salaries total more than $19 billion. Through its production and distribution linkages, the meat and poultry industry impacts firms in all 509 sectors of the U.S. economy, in every state and every congressional district in the country. In all, companies involved in meat production, along with their suppliers, distributors, retailers and ancillary industries employ 6.2 million people in the U.S. with jobs that total $200 billion in wages. Through direct taxes paid, these companies and their employees provide $81.2 billion in revenues to federal, state and local governments. The consumption of meat and poultry generates $2.4 billion in state sales taxes. The meat and poultry industry's economic ripple effect generates $864.2 billion annually to the U.S. economy, or roughly 6% of the entire GDP. In 2014, meat and poultry industry sales totaled $186 billion. Stopping the meat egg and dairy industry would take the jobs of millions. Now, this is my most prominent assertion and is based on the feasibility of this topic. It is impossible to issue a world wide ban. Every single country will not agree to ban meat, dairy and eggs. Even if we are trying to reach the peak of morality here, no other nation will agree to this. According to https://www.meatinstitute.org..., there have been only 4 or 5 worldwide bans. And all of those were very detrimental to the economy and the people. Meat, dairy and eggs will never be issued. As the conclusion of each of my speeches, I will talk about the benefits of each of the foods mention. I will start with meat. In my second speech- dairy. In my third speech- eggs, So I quote directly from http://healthyeating.sfgate.com..., Protein The protein you consume each day supplies your body with a pool of amino acids, which are the building blocks of protein molecules. Your cells use these amino acids to synthesize new proteins as you need them " for example, to build muscle tissue, manufacture antibodies or replace red blood cells. Of the 20 amino acids in proteins, your body can make 11 of them. The other nine, known as essential amino acids, must be included in the foods you eat to avoid a protein deficiency. Meat is important in your diet because it is a protein-rich food that supplies you with all the essential amino acids you need for good health. Minerals In addition to offering significant protein, meat provides a wide variety of minerals to support the optimal functioning of your cells and tissues. For instance, it is an important source of both iron and zinc. Iron helps carry oxygen to and throughout your tissues, while zinc is required for a strong immune system, wound healing and enzyme activity within your cells. The phosphorus content of meat helps keep your bones strong, the sulfur it contains can be incorporated into new amino acids and the chromium found in meat assists in metabolizing your dietary sugars. Vitamins A number of B vitamins are available from the meat you consume. Thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid and biotin help your cells extract energy from the foods you eat each day. Vitamin B-6 keeps your nervous and circulatory systems healthy, and it functions in both protein synthesis and protein metabolism. This vitamin also assists in the absorption of vitamin B-12, another vitamin essential for circulatory and nerve health, as well as energy production. Meat is an especially important source of vitamin B-12, because, unlike other B vitamins, B-12 is not found in any plant-based foods. Fats Although you need a limited supply of fats in your diet for good health, the saturated fats found in meat can be detrimental to your well-being. Consuming high levels of saturated fats can increase your risk of atherosclerosis, a condition in which plaque deposits form on the walls of your arteries, and can lead to heart disease. Taking in too many dietary fats, such as from fatty cuts of meat, can result in accumulation of fat stores in and around your organs, causing eventual organ damage. High fat intake can also lead to an increased risk of obesity and diabetes. Selecting lean cuts of meat and trimming off excess fat help minimize the harmful effects of meat while allowing you to benefit from its rich nutrient content. Dear judges, if you are looking to be healthy and happy, vote pro. If you do NOT wish to suffer of health diseases. Vote pro. If you want to stay you. Vote pro. Thank you.

positive: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Hello ladies, gentlemen, judges I am Forever 23 and I am on the behalf of the premise which is that we CAN NOT ban eggs, dairy and milk worldwide. So allow me to first refute my opponents claims and then rebuild on my own points. Their first claim was that dairy, meat and eggs are unhealthy. However, meat has a lot of proteins. Proteins are necessary for cells and overall growth of the body. http://www.healthyeating.org... Cheese contains a host of nutrients like calcium, protein, phosphorus, zinc, vitamin A and vitamin B12. Calcium is one of the nutrients most likely to be lacking in the American diet. According to government statistics, nine out of 10 women and six out of 10 men fall short of calcium recommendations. The high-quality protein in cheese provides the body with essential building blocks for strong muscles. For a complete listing of the nutrients in cheese, see the table below. If you are lactose intolerant, many cheeses, particularly aged cheeses such as Cheddar and Swiss, contain little or no lactose and are often well tolerated. For the past 30 years or so, saturated fat""found in meats, eggs, cheese, butter, whole milk, lard and some oils""was considered a primary cause of heart disease. New research, however, is showing that saturated fat has a minimal impact on heart disease risk, which is changing the "saturated fat is bad" paradigm and allowing people to enjoy more cheese and other favorite foods. Further research is needed showing significant scientific agreement. Even if saturated fat is less of a concern, calories still matter. To reduce calories, you can grate or sprinkle harder cheeses over your dishes or use small amounts of aromatic and sharp cheeses for their delicious cheese flavor. Many reduced-fat varieties of cheeses are also available. This 2014 article in the Food and Nutrition Magazine provides more information on the Charms and Challenges of Cheese. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that individuals ages 9 and older consume at least 3 servings of milk, cheese or yogurt each day; children aged 4-8 years need 2-1/2 cups per day. One serving of cheese is one and one-half ounces of hard cheese, one-third cup for grated cheese and two ounces for processed cheese. Their second claim was that meat dairy and eggs productions are unhealthy for the environment. However, cars are too! Do you see a ban on cars? No. But to get more topical, lets go over on the unhealthy production of vegetables and different herbs. I am sure that you know that pesticides are used to grow vegetables and fruits. http://www.toxicsaction.org... When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, she raised public awareness about the effects of pesticide use on our health and our environment. However, almost forty years after Carson drew attention to the health and environmental impacts of DDT, use of equally hazardous pesticides has only increased. And all the time there is more evidence surfacing that human exposure to pesticides is linked to health problems. For example, in May 2010, scientists from the University of Montreal and Harvard University released a study that found that exposure to pesticide residues on vegetables and fruit may double a child’s risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition that can cause inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children. Acute dangers - such as nerve, skin, and eye irritation and damage, headaches, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, and systemic poisoning - can sometimes be dramatic, and even occasionally fatal. Chronic health effects may occur years after even minimal exposure to pesticides in the environment, or result from the pesticide residues which we ingest through our food and water. A July 2007 study conducted by researchers at the Public Health Institute, the California Department of Health Services, and the UC Berkeley School of Public Health found a sixfold increase in risk factor for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) for children of women who were exposed to organochlorine pesticides. Pesticides can cause many types of cancer in humans. Some of the most prevalent forms include leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, brain, bone, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular and liver cancers. In February 2009, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a study that found that children who live in homes where their parents use pesticides are twice as likely to develop brain cancer versus those that live in residences in which no pesticides are used. Studies by the National Cancer Institute found that American farmers, who in most respects are healthier than the population at large, had startling incidences of leukemia, Hodgkins disease, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and many other forms of cancer. However, the pro doesn't just want to starve the planet... I wonder why? So judges, you should really consider how illogical it would be to ban the production of all meat, dairy and eggs. Their third point was that farming is cruel. However, farming is not cruel. It is true that many factory farms can be cruel to animals. However, the family, mom and pop farms treat animals with kindness and even respect. Perhaps instead of completely banning animals and all animal products, we could come up with a much more radical solution. An example of which could be to lower how much we rely on factory farms. Their fourth assertion was about production agitating world hunger. He said that we should feed humans what we are feeding animals. However, lets assume it like that. We will now replace the animals in this food chain. We will eat all the grain and will the poverty issue be solved? NO! Now to quickly repeat my arguments. 1. The three food are extremely healthy. 2. They help the economy 3. This plan is not feasible. Now, as promised in my last speech, I will point out the health factor of each category. Second up, we have dairy. http://www.healthyeating.org... "Milk and dairy foods are healthy foods and considered nutrient-rich because they serve as good sources of calcium and vitamin D as well as protein and other essential nutrients. They provide phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and vitamins A, B12, and riboflavin1. The calcium in milk, yogurt, and cheese is significant yet most people don't get enough calcium or vitamin D each day2. Getting the recommended three servings of dairy per day can help build bone mass, leading to improved bone health throughout the life cycle. To meet daily calcium requirements, most people should have two to three cups of milk or servings of dairy foods each day. There are many ways to ensure you are eating healthy and getting enough milk and milk products each day. Start with a healthy breakfast of cereal, milk and fruit or a yogurt parfait, include cheese in your lunch or afternoon snack and consider pudding or hot chocolate made with milk as an evening dessert. To learn more about the amounts of food to eat each day, use the Healthy Eating Planner. Some Key Benefits of Dairy Foods The calcium in milk is easily absorbed and used in the body, which is why milk and milk products are reliable as well as economical sources of calcium. A diet rich in protein and vitamin D contributes to bone health. Due to their high protein, vitamin D, and calcium content, dairy foods are a good choice for maintaining strong bones. A diet rich in fruit, vegetables and low-fat dairy foods, with reduced saturated fat, is as effective as some medications in reducing blood pressure in people with increased blood pressure. It has also been shown to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes1. Cultured dairy products like yogurt contain probiotics which provide a wide array of health benefits. Probiotics in the diet can enhance the good bacteria in the gut, improve health and reduce the risk of certain diseases" I just want to have a closing statement about one particular very healthy example of dairy. Yogurt. http://www.webmd.com..., "First off, your body needs to have a healthy amount of 'good' bacteria in the digestive tract, and many yogurts are made using active, good bacteria. One of the words you"ll be hearing more of in relation to yogurt is 'probiotics.' Probiotic, which literally means 'for life,' refers to living organisms that can result in a health benefit when eaten in adequate amounts. Miguel Freitas, PhD, medical marketing manager for Dannon Co., says the benefits associated with probiotics are specific to certain strains of these "good" bacteria. Many provide their benefits by adjusting the microflora (the natural balance of organisms) in the intestines, or by acting directly on body functions, such as digestion or immune function. (Keep in mind that the only yogurts that contain probiotics are those that say "live and active cultures" on the label.)" Vote pro for health problems. However, if you don't want to loose your meats and dairies, vote con. A vote for con, is a vote for health. Thank you.

positive: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Milk is extremely healthy for people because it contains vitamin D

positive: Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life 1) There is no nutrient in meat that cannot be found in a vegetarian diet. No one can deny this. 2) There is no disease where eating meat is required for the treatment or cure of the disease. 3) Therefore, eating meat is absolutely unnecessary. 4) Eating meat causes death to other animals, obviously. And, despite attempts to make slaughter "humane", whether it be "kosher", "halal" or otherwise, it quite probably, or even certainly, causes stress and pain as well. 5) Therefore, eating meat is immoral and unethical. And abhorrently selfish, since the person who eats meat does so only for the hedonistic and temporary satisfaction of his taste buds. Especially when there are so many vegetarian and tasteful alternatives (from meatless and healthful soy products to traditional Indian dishes). 6) There is more than enough cruelty in the world as it is; there is no need to add to it, unnecessarily. The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20,000,000 Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100,000,000 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20% Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80% Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95% Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90% How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000 Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16 he Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75% Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85% Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260,000,000 Amount of meat imported to U.S. annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75% Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times. The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50% Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15% Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4% Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9% Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45% Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90% Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50% The Natural Resources Argument Uses of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production Amount of water used in production of the average cow: sufficient to float a U.S. Navy Destroyer Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000 Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78 To get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2 Percentage of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by U.S. that is devoted to the production of livestock: 33% Percentage of all raw materials consumed by the U.S. needed to produce a complete vegetarian diet: 2% The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55% Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13% Percentage resistant in 1988: 91% Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Common misconception: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues Percentage of U.S. mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99% Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8% Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher Amount of Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant: 9 times the permissible level The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job-injury in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choice of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater that ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex (Where is he today?) Sources... http://www.ethicalvegetarian.com...

positive: Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral I apologize for the mishap in citation, upon inspection you'll notice 3 black periods after each source "..." this cut off the actual link, leading to the general website. This is undoubtedly a mistake caused by having to copy and paste my arguments after your FF. Actual citation is as follows; please feel free to verify: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.peta.org... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://modernfarmer.com... For the purpose of my rebuttal I will refer to my previous 6 sources as numerically cited and future sources will be cited as 7 & up. In citing your sources they will be referenced as [Con #] Given that my arguments have been legitimated, your comment "Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways." can be disregarded. I understand that this is a bit unfair to you given that you decided to arrogantly brush off my arguments and supply your own. You will now have the chance to refute my Round 2 argument. I recommend you actually read it this time, because there is clear evidence in your rebuttal you did not. Problematic Citation and Source Material: I apologize for the mishap in my Round 2 source material; however you'll find that everything is properly cited and credible. However in your entire argument you fail to properly cite anything you said. I have no idea which comment corresponds to which source; if this were an academic setting you would be charged with plagiarism. Your source material is also very questionable and contradictory, and some are irrelevant to the debate entirely. Because you did not openly disclose which arguments come from which sources I have to spend the majority of my rebuttal debunking your sources. I ask that you re-read my Round 1 post. Source [Con 1] enforces my position quote "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers." [Con 1] is describing SAD, in my position statement I clearly acknowledge that SAD is not relevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equal inherent unhealthiness. If over-consumption was a true indicator of inherent negative health affects the 8% of obese vegetarians you mention would show that over consuming vegetables causes the negative health effects associated with obesity. [Con 2] is problematic; the author is simply unqualified, her brief bio gives no indication of having a degree in anything, she is extremely biased and only provides one citation for her entire 15 point article. More importantly all of her points are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which as I've stated in Round 2 does not divert from meat being inherently unhealthy or immoral because there are healthy and moral ways of raising cattle [2][5][6][Con 8]. The findings of [Con 3] can also be refuted, Point 4 Source [1] quote "It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women. " This implies it is the process, not the meat that causes cancer. [Con 4] is 42 pages long, I only read the first page and found that it, like [Con 1], was critical of SAD for its health effects. This does not prove meat is inherently bad, fish for example is low in fat and has positive health effects [3]. Also [Con 4] says Chimps eat monkeys, if sentience is such an issue then why don't chimps respect the sentience of monkeys? (I'll address this in more detail later). [Con 5] is from PETA an organization well known for its bias against eating meat. Like [Con 2] the arguments are almost entirely based on factory farming, which again is irrelevant in the face of free range farming [5][6][Con 8]. [Con 6] is PETA India, it has the same bias and credibility as [Con 2]. Point 4 for example says that meat is bad because if you under cook it then you could get bird flu. Ok, by this logic vegetables are bad because if you don't clean them you could get E. Coli. As I said in the beginning of Round 2 "Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced." [Con 7] is my personal favorite. By citing this source you show how truly desperate you are to grasp at straws. This source made me understand why you did not disclose them in your debate, as it has no scientific value whatsoever, it simply bullet points propaganda without any evidence. Let's read some of the findings of SupremeMasterTV.com. Eating meat causes "Blue tongue disease", what is this? Oh right it's a disease that only affects livestock and not humans [7]. The other diseases are food borne illnesses from improper cooking. In your rebuttal you state "Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all." Meaning that those who drink milk and eat eggs along with vegetables have the best diet of all (this is not a vegan diet, in Round 1 you said you'd argue as a vegan). But Lo! [Con 7] says drinking milk is bad! It causes "Breast, prostate and testicular cancer from hormones present in milk; Listeria and Crohn's disease; Hormones and saturated fat lead to osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes and heart disease; Linked to higher incidences of multiple sclerosis." Still think drinking milk is cool? [Con 8] is written by the same author as [Con 4] and as such contains the exact same arguments. Also I don't think you actually read this article because the author lays out a plan for rational meat eating in the section "Toward Rational Meat Eating" so yea ... you're helping me with this one. [Con 9] I admit this article does seem legitimate and has sources. However this argument doesn't help you in the way you might think, it focuses on factory farming and it acknowledges meat can be environmentally friendly "Chicken is probably the best land animal to eat, certainly in terms of climate change impact. Fish have a low greenhouse gas impact but are being eaten in such large quantities that many are at risk of extinction." "Even limiting one's meat consumption to chicken yields major environmental benefits--not to mention health and financial benefits." So eating chicken yields health benefits ... Interesting. [Con 10] was about jacana birds being influenced by human scientists to commit infanticide. I don't see how this proves anything more than humans encouraged behavior that only humans would consider immoral. If anything this goes to show killing animals is not an issue of morality. For the sake of science (as suppose to survival) humans encouraged these birds kill each others babies. Are these scientists immoral for encouraging nature? Eating Meat Can be Healthy: For the bulk of this section please read Round 2. This section is for counter arguments. Given that none of your statistics are properly cited they can be seen as fiction. You clearly dramatize the negative health effects of meat, if meat was so bad then why would doctors recommend it as part of a balanced diet [2][3][8]? Quoting Con "Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues." Ah yes, Harvard disagrees quote "Environmental Protection Agency " calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer"but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. Second, levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are very low, similar to levels in meats, dairy products, and eggs. Third, more than 90 percent of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from such non-seafood sources, including meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables." [3] Morality of Meat: Appeal to Nature In Round 2 I specifically acknowledge the possible flaw in this argument "However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals." It"s important to note humans are animals, and as such comparison to other animals is legitimate (it's kind of how biology and anthropology work). You yourself make this a moral underpinning in Round 1 "" it is wrong to kill [animals], as it is wrong to kill humans." But why? What makes them like us? You argue mammals are sentient like us, they feel emotion like we do, so they should be spared. You think that just because chimps can love each as humans can love each other this somehow negates the fact that chimps are equally enthusiastic about killing lesser yet still sentient primates like monkeys [Con 4], humans eat monkeys too ya know. Because we can feel love somehow all mammals are entitled to our good graces. Even if I agreed with your pan-mammalism philosophy fish and chicken aren't mammals what claim to familiarity do they have? When it comes to rape and infanticide there are obvious pro-human arguments against it, if your only argument against eating mammals is 'well you wouldn't eat a human!' then I'm afraid the moral connection falls flat. New Citation: [7] https://www.princeton.edu... [8] http://www.mayoclinic.org...

positive: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk I'd like to apologize for my lateness. I didn't have a lot of time to write this up, but, I assure you, next round I'll be completely focused. Thank you for being patient. "The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk. These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever." A 2005 study by the New York City (NYC) Department of Education found that by removing whole milk and replacing it with low-fat to fat-free chocolate milk, students were served an estimated 5,960 fewer calories and 619 fewer grams of fat per year.(1) "Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. " ï¿½It is present in small enough amounts that the effect on calcium absorption is negligible(2)(3). ï¿½As chocolate contains relatively small amounts of oxalate, it is unclear to what extent chocolate consumption affects healthy people who eat calcium-rich diets. "Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so. Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods." Of course, not everyone likes plain milk(4), so by only offering plain milk you're depriving a certain amount of kids their calcium.ï¿½Flavoring milk ï¿½is the only way to get students to drink it. Milk provides a host of nutrients, including calcium, protein and vitamin D, which recent studies show is deficient in about three-quarters of teenagers and adults. To simply claim that, under verbal prompts, students will defy their taste buds is ridiculous. The experiment given here is invalid. "It's better for them to have some milk with some flavoring and a little added sugar than to go without milk," said Ms. Pratt-Heavner, whose organization last month helped release a study that showed that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. Conclusions: While chocolate milk isn't exactly on par with non-flavored milk in terms of calories, the benefits still outweigh the costs by drinking chocolate milk. There are some students who simply won't drink plain milk, and prefer flavored milk instead. What about those students? Won't someone think of the children? Sources: 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2.ï¿½http://www.ivillage.com... 3.http://www.mayoclinic.com... 4.http://www.facebook.com...

negative: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! My opponent has regrettably forfeited his side of round 3, thus has dropped my entire case. Thus, you're free to extend the content of round 1 and 2 to this round. Since my opponent has provided no objections to my argument, I strongly urge that you vote in favor of the contender. Thank you.

negative: Veal calves require antibiotics and medicine that are passed onto consumers "Veal: A Cruel Meal" - "Because of such extremely unhealthy living conditions and restricted diets, calves are susceptible to a long list of diseases, including chronic pneumonia and 'scours,' or constant diarrhea. Consequently, they must be given massive doses of antibiotics and other drugs just to keep them alive. (The antibiotics are passed on to consumers in the meat.).

negative: Taxes on smoothies and fruit juices should be reduced Removing VAT would increase sales of healthy drinks

negative: chocolate is better than cotton candy i think that chocolate is better than cotton candy is because chocolate can be healthy. dark chocolate can reduce the risk of a heart attack. also, eating certain amounts of chocolate, and certain kinsd of chocolate can reduce the chance of getting some specific cancers.

negative: is dust healthy to you If it's harder to breathe then you have to learn to breathe faster and exercise harder to cope with it!

negative: Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets/diets with animal products Thank you for you thoughts.Since you are PRO and have the BOP I will simply respond to your round 3 statements.1. The tone of this debate seems to have become hostile. I ask for a respectful tone.2. You state - “I’m lectured about credible sources” - (round 3 line 1) My request for sources was a response to your statement in round 1 “I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched.” - lets compare the sources used in round 1 and round 2 Round PRO CON 1. 0 9 2. 5 113. You suggest that Wikipedia is not a valid source - Wikipedia was used for definitions of PBD and AFS in my round 1 This is because you failed to define terms for the debate. Looking for a dictionary to define terms used in the title to your debate was unsatisfactory. - You dismissed my information on pineapple growing because it came from wikipedia. Do you have conflicting data? “Three-quarters of pineapples sold in Europe are grown in Costa Rica, where pineapple production is highly industrialized. Growers typically use 20 kg of pesticides per hectare in each growing cycle” Which part of this statement do you refute?http://www.guardian.co.uk...4. You reference “the journal of nutrition”I think you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the content. a) it states that animal or plant protein increase urinary calcium equally - “Therefore increasing intake of purified proteins from either animal or plant sources similarly increases urinary calcium. ” b) it suggests that the calcium in milk compensates for protein related calcium loss. - “the high amount of calcium in milk compensates for urinary calcium losses generated by milk protein.” c) it suggests that high potassium levels “will decrease urinary calcium.” d) it says that meat protein is high in phosphate which helps offset the calcium loss that is normal for too much protein - “The hypocalciuric effect of the high phosphate associated with the amino acids of meat at least partially offsets the hypercalciuric effect of the protein.”Their conclusion is ““Excess” dietary protein from either animal or plant proteins may be detrimental to bone health, but its effect will be modified by other nutrients in the food and total diet.”This is about excess dietary protein - from either plant or animal sources. Dietary Animal and Plant Protein and Human Bone Health: A Whole Foods Approach by Linda K. Massey - ©2003 The American Society for Nutritional Scienceshttp://jn.nutrition.org...As I researched further I found 87 scholarly articles that referenced your “source” on google scholar. Some spoke of the conflicting opinions. Worse, the paper you cite is a minority, or even fringe opinion.Not only did you misunderstand (or misrepresent) the content of Massey’s research, but it came under fire in the peer review process.“In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health” . . . “The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological “cascade” that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures.”http://www.tandfonline.com...The consensus of much research seems to be “It does appear that protein from animal sources is an important source of protein for humans from infancy until mature adulthood.”International Society of Sports Nutrition Symposium, June 18-19, 2005, Las Vegas NV, USA - Symposium - Macronutrient Utilization During Exercise: Implications For Performance And Supplementation PROTEIN – WHICH IS BEST? http://www.jssm.org...5. You frequently speak of excess or rich diets. Excess anything is unhealthy. We are talking about moderate / balanced diets of two kinds a) A plant-based diet (PBD) is based on vegetables, grains, legumes and fruit, b Animal Food Sources (AFS) include many food items that comes from an animal source such as meat, milk, fish, eggs, cheese and yogurt. We are not talking about starvation diets or super obese diets. We are debating healthy diets with and without AFS6. You speak of processed cheese as if it was a healthy part of anything. That is like promoting candy apples or sugar cubes as representative of vegetarian food.7. You seem concerned with Osteoporosis - Here are ways to reduce bone density loss Get regular exercise, especially weight-bearing and muscle strengthening exercise. Get vitamin D, whether through diet, exposure to sunshine, or supplements. Consuming enough calcium to reduce the amount the body has to borrow from bone. Consuming adequate vitamin K, found in green, leafy vegetables. Not getting too much preformed vitamin A. Note - there are dangers in excess protein, and cola is very bad. - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...This, however had nothing to do with AFS diets. You need to prove that a diet without AFS is as good or better than a diet with AFS.7. You mention “U.S. News wrote in their “Best Plant Based Diets” article: Top marks went to the Mediterranean Diet (Nutritionally sound, Diverse foods and flavors, Lots of grunt work, Moderately pricey) - It is more expensive than our families current shopping plan. I like that it includes “eating fish and seafood at least a couple of times a week”Second place went to The Flexitarian Diet (Flexible, Lots of (tasty) recipes , Emphasis on home-cooking) - The claim here is weight loss, and it allows for AFS.The vegetarian diet was tied for 4th place.This is good evidence FOR AFS diets.8. The American Institute for Cancer Research says: “Plant-based foods like vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and beans should cover two thirds or more of the plate. - this leaves 1/3 of the plate for AFS9. “Please stop repeating myths about vegetarian/veganism you’ve heard over and over ” No myths - my daughter was a vegan for 5-6 years. Her health suffered. Menstrual problems, headaches, depression. She simply could not get enough iron which may have been a problem with her microbiome. On a diet that includes AFS she is much healthier.10. Great Huff Post link“As I coach people on becoming vegan, one common refrain I hear is that it's too expensive. When funds are low, the cheap burger or basket of chicken can appear to be the best value -- the most calories for the lowest price. We've been aggressively peddled the idea that a healthy diet is an expensive diet, something only for rich folks. And our experience seems to bear that out.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Let me conclude with this.I am not saying a PBD is always bad.I am saying that a balanced diet works well with a wide range of AFS and PBD foods.You frequently cite American bad diet habits.I agree that many Americans are incredibly obese and unhealthy.That does not change the fact that a PBD is often more work, more expensive, less local and in some cases less ethical. In my setting (East Coast Canada) eating local is a healthy mix of fish, milk, eggs, fruit, grains, greens and meat. Much of what I eat is grown by people I know. I get a little too much starch (a good friend has a potato farm). Lobsters are too rich ($ and cholesterol) for me so I don’t make use of that harvest. Fresh fish in season is wonderful, and I hope to catch some this week. Clams & muscles can be harvested year round, but summer/fall is best. I have not often eaten moose, deer, goat or lamb except with my native or Muslim friends.A balanced diet is better than an artificially restricted dietVote CON

negative: Chocolate milk is healthy. Instigator has yet again forfeited. I will conclude that he could not think of a valid argument.

negative: Chocolate milk is healthy. Instigator has forfeited this round. I will hold my argument in case he wishes to continue.

negative: Drinking Water Extend all prior arguments, I feel the point I've set out to prove has been made.

negative: Bottled water is harmful Round 1 is accept Rounds 2&3 are arguments and and rebuttals Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusions

negative: chocolate is better than cotton candy It is bad for you to eat chocolate before you sing because there is lots of sugar in it and it creates something in nyour throat that make it harder to sing. Also it is just not very healthy because there is lots of sugar. Cottan candy is colourful and pretty and looks joyful!

negative: legalise the growing of coca leaf Coca chewing is harmful and should be proscribed

negative: a healthy earth A member or members that add his or her name formally in support of another members bill. In the House a member can become a co-sponsor of a bill at any point up to the time the last authorized committee considers it. In the Senate a member can become a co-sponsor of a bill anytime before the vote takes place on the bill.

negative: CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. To conclude my case I would like to point out the obvious flaws in the opposition's previous case. They stated: "Before I make my points, I would like to address the mistaken Negative. I do know that the topic is "CO2 is the largest factor in global warming", and that is what I am arguing. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but if you look back you will find that I certainly did argue that point. Your evidence was arguing against CO2 being the largest factor, and as your opponent that is what I must counter. Now that it's out of the way, let's begin." Once again I correct the affirmative on the correct wording of the topic. The topic of this debate is that CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Throughout their entire case the affirmative seems to be referring to their fictional topic of: CO2 is the largest factor in global warming. The affirmative also stated that my evidence was backing this fictional topic. Whilst this may be true, proving that CO2 emissions are not the largest factor of global warming only adds to the overall proof that they are not directly responsible for the effects. To clear confusion, the definition of directly responsible is: without anyone or anything intervening. Whilst the affirmative continued to provide arguments proving the existence of CO2 emissions as the largest factor, they did not provide any points stating the absence of an intervention. There are many examples of other processes in our natural world that are speeding up the global warming. Some of these include methane emissions from cattle, deforestation and chemical fertilisers on crop lands. Although the affirmative believes that CO2 emissions play the largest role in heating the planet, they are not the sole reason behind the issue. If the impossible event of a CO2 emission cease occurred, the Earth would still be heating up. Slowly but surely, the effects of the Earth's orbit and the causes mentioned above will continue to heat the planet that we live on today. The affirmative also stated: "the effects of the Suns rays on earth are increasing." In theory, this phrase mentions the effects on sun rays on Earth. Incredulously, even these sun rays play a role in global warming and further diminish the affirmatives picture of CO2 emissions being directly responsible. In a surprising twist to the debate, the affirmative suddenly seems to understand the topic of the debate towards the end of their case and produces the statement below. Unfortunately, it is also flawed. "CO2 was the initial cause of global warming, and this is shown in hundreds of studies and tests since that show the before and after the industrial revolution. The fact is, today CO2 is the largest factor and the cause, and I have all the sources to support it." Cold hard evidence against the point brought up by the affirmative can be found in my first argument. Global warming is simply defined as increasing temperatures on our planet. Carbon dating and a myriad of other scientific tests show the heating and cooling of the planet well before the involvement of the Industrial Revolution. If the planet was heating up during Medieval periods, how can the affirmative say that CO2 is the cause of global warming when the people of the past had not even heard of the word carbon? In finality, I am not denying the fact that global warming exists. I am not denying that CO2 emissions play a considerable role in the heating of our planet. However, I do deny the views of the affirmative in thinking the CO2 emissions play a sole role in global warming. There are many other factors that are also contributing to the heating of our planet. In further expansion, I deny the politicians and organisational leaders within our world. The planet is heating up and it is effecting ecosystems and environments alike. Whilst we sit here and debate whether CO2 emissions are directly responsible, politicians all over the globe are doing the same. It is time to stop the debate and face the fact that although CO2 emissions have played a big role in global warming, the gradual heating of our planet is totally inevitable. As an international force we need to combat global warming and thus climate change by investigating new methods of adapting to a changing climate. Cooling down the Earth by reducing CO2 emissions is a false statement because the Earth will continue to heat via its natural cycles which we as humans would be wrong to alter. As the negative side, I strongly believe that CO2 emissions are not directly responsible for climate change. Thank you.

negative: CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Before I make my points, I would like to address the mistaken Negative. I do know that the topic is "CO2 is the largest factor in global warming", and that is what I am arguing. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but if you look back you will find that I certainly did argue that point. Your evidence was arguing against CO2 being the largest factor, and as your opponent that is what I must counter. Now that it's out of the way, let's begin. Negative thinks I only believe CO2 is speeding up the process of climate change. It most definitely is, and they are not mistaken in that. But not only is it speeding up and forcing climate change to continue, it is the main factor in this. No matter what my opponent may think, my evidence clearly showed CO2 is the largest threat. Greenhouse gases are proven to be the largest contributor to global warming, and CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas. And according to the World Meteorological Organization, the US Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the European Commission and thousands of scientists, CO2 is the largest factor. Negative may say that fluctuations in the earths orbit are the largest cause. To say that fluctuations in earths orbit are the largest cause is a bold statement. I think that by orbit fluctuations, he means that it causes Suns rays to hit the earth more. But according to NASA, solar maxima is only .1 percent higher than solar minima on average. To further my counter argument, if there had been an increase in solar output, both the stratosphere and troposphere would have warmed up. But instead, patterns show that the stratosphere has actually cooled. Meanwhile, land and the troposphere have been warming, which is no doubt due to greenhouse gases (particularly CO2). This shows that fluctuations in earths orbit, although drastically climate changing when they occur, are not occurring right now. However, the effects of the Suns rays on earth are increasing. Not because of orbit fluctuation, but because of greenhouse gases that trap the Suns heat. CO2 is directly responsible for global warming today. In the earlier graph, I showed how carbon emissions have increased drastically since the industrial revolution. I then linked a graph that showed temperature increase over the same time period. The fact is, since the industrial revolution, temperatures have drastically increased at a rate that would never have occurred without coal burning and that whole era. So CO2 emission IS directly responsible for global warming. The negative, in their conclusion, called my points invalid. I say the exact opposite. I stand by my points, and the facts that went with it. I most surely do not agree that their case is correct. I have just shown why their case is completely wrong. CO2 was the initial cause of global warming, and this is shown in hundreds of studies and tests since that show the before and after the industrial revolution. The fact is, today CO2 is the largest factor and the cause, and I have all the sources to support it. Sources: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... And sources I cited earlier.

negative: Cookies are better than pie! I'm good.... Thats notgood for your body, chocolatechip cookies are semi good!

negative: Chocolate is healthy Do you have any evidence for these claims?I believe that you might have the burden of proof.

negative: Pepsi is better than Coke Coke has health benefits that Pepsi doesn't have and cost five cents

negative: Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it. Again , I don't believe that any mother should be obligated to try breastfeeding if she doesn't want to and I don't think not trying it makes her selfish in any way. I dont think someone should push their views on another. What is right for you may not be right for someone else. Some women would just rather bottlefeed their baby. Its a personal decision. MY daughter is 4 and is doing just fine and she was bottlefed. We are very close , bonded and she is a healthy little girl. I don't think a women who doesn't breastfeed because she wants to continue smoking is a selfish women. I think she knows she will not be able to succeed and for her and baby it is a better choice if she bottle feeds her baby. I don't think that is selfish. What is right for one woman is not right for all women. I am not saying breastfeeding is bad, just not for everyone. I do not think any woman should have to try breastfeeding , some people just aren't comfortable with it ...that should be their choice. It's their body , their child. Children that drink bottles are not in any harm , so why should it matter if someone doesn't want to do it. I am not saying it is bad to breastfeed , I am saying it is NOT bad if you don't want to do it. I do not think it is right to think my way is right over anothers. AS long as the child is not being harmed in anyway , then why does it matter how a mother chooses to feed her baby. MY grandmother bottle fed her 7 kids , my mom bottle fed her 5 kids , my husband's grandmother and mother did the same. I bottle fed my daughter so that my husband and her could bond as well and it was the right thing for us. I didn't have to try breastfeeding , because my decision wasn't based on whether I would like it or not , it was based on what was best for us and our family.

negative: Drinking in the Work Place Mad men is about people like me. We want to die but drinking hydrates us. Forcing people to drink is cruel.

negative: Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it. Having a baby is a beautifull,and bonding with your infant directly after it's birth is crucial. Breast feeding inables you to be very close to your new child and give him or her affection every time they eat. A new borns eye's allow them to see only to the mothers face while breast feeding! It takes patience, and a little bit of pain sometimes, but being a mother your job doesn't stop when tht baby is born, it just begins! Parenthood means sacrifice and your body is not yours any more. Sacrificing things you would like to do, such as drink alcohol, smoke, or drugs aren't healthy for you anyway. It would be selfish to decide to bottle feed just based upon the mothers wish to break free from her new little "bondage". Breast milk (starting off as colostrum) has antibodies,fat,vitamins,and minerals that your baby needs. Unlike formula there's no air (which cuts down on gas), and your body actually formulates and changes the milk as the baby grows to give them everything there body needs. Formula does NOT do that. Formula can also lead to constipation, stomache aches, makes poop smell bad (YES, breast fed babies do not have smelly poop) it's expensive, and if not used properly unsanitary. Babies need nurturing, eye contact, fondling and to be held and suction (breast feeding takes longer than bottle feeding, and this could eliminate pacifiers). Breastfeeding insures that a baby gets all of these things. Forget about geting together bottles every time you go out. Just take a blanket and you can feed so descretly sometimes my own husband doesn't know I'm doing it. Breast feeding is good for a mother and a babies developments, and should be tried and embraced.

negative: Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral There was a reason I wanted to debate an actual vegan instead of a devil's advocate. But since this is where we're at, and you've decided to play the part, I'll debate as if you are a vegan. This puts you in an interesting position, I don't know if you're vegetarian or omnivore but I wonder if you are capable of introducing an argument so convincing that you yourself convert to veganism, or at least seriously consider it. On to the debate! For your Round 1 comments I will wait for you to expound upon them in round 2 and rebuttal in Round 3. Please note my overall argument is not a rejection of vegetables, but merely to point out that meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's plate, nutritionally and morally. Humans are omnivores, as such we should eat meat too. My First Round argument will be divided into main 3 parts: 1. Eating meat is not inherently unhealthy. 2. Eating meat is not inherently immoral. 3. A Beneficial Symbiosis. Eating Meat is Not Inherently Unhealthy: I begin with this because I believe it is the easiest to prove and I hope to make this case solid in Round 2 in order to devote more time to the morality of meat eating for the rest of the debate. My evidence in this section will appeal to Ethos. Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced. For example asparagus is healthy, but when slathered in lard and fried it becomes more detrimental than beneficial (but infinitely more delicious). If you raise corn in a sewer the corn will be unhealthy. As such meat can be healthy provided it is not processed or cooked in an unhealthy manner [1 See: Point 3 "Bottom Line"]. With this in mind meat can be prepared in a way that compliments a balanced diet. According to the Mayo Clinic grass fed beef (high quality) has been shown to contain nutrients that are beneficial to heart health. Grass fed beef contains "More heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. More conjugated linoleic acid, a type of fat that's thought to reduce heart disease and cancer risks. More antioxidant vitamins, such as vitamin E. Lean beef that's 10 percent fat or less ... can be part of a heart-healthy diet." [2]. Fish meat is also highly recommended in ones diet. According to the Harvard School of Public Health; along with various vital nutrients "There is strong evidence that eating fish or taking fish oil is good for the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of 20 studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants indicates that eating approximately one to two 3-ounce servings of fatty fish a week -- salmon, herring, mackerel, anchovies, or sardines -- reduces the risk of dying from heart disease by 36 percent." [3] Given this evidence I am confident in saying that eating meat can be a healthy part of a well balanced diet, and is not inherently detrimental as vegans would have us believe. Eating Meat is Not Inherently Immoral: This section is tricky to prove given the reality of the current mode of meat production. I acknowledge that currently meat farms treat their animals in immoral and inhumane ways such as keeping them in small cages, not allowing the animals to move, giving them "drugs to fatten them faster and keep them alive in conditions that could otherwise kill them", and "Genetically [altering them] to grow faster or to produce much more milk or eggs than they naturally would (many animals become crippled under their own weight and die just inches away from water and food)" [4]. Under these conditions even I agree that supporting this tortuous system of food production is immoral. However I propose that if we allowed these animals, cows and pigs especially, to live free range the mode of production would be morally permissible. The main arguments against the current mode of production come from 3 places; first it causes immense pain, stress and suffering to the animal, and second it deprives the animal of its natural environment and agency, third killing sentient beings in general is immoral. Free range meat is a perfect solution to both of these critics. Allowing cattle to live on grassland has shown to improve the cattle"s health, "Advocates of pasture-raised beef say the reasons to switch go beyond nutrition. The animal is raised in a more humane fashion that is also better for the environment. And 100-percent grass-fed animals typically aren't given hormones or antibiotics." [5] With less hormones and antibiotics being introduced the cow is allowed to grow naturally. Plus living on grassland allows the cow to roam free, doing whatever cows do in their free time. When it comes time for a cow to die there has been much improvement ensuring the animal does not undergo stress or pain [6] (I suggest reading this source as it is the ideal in ethical meat production). For the 3rd counter point I appeal to nature. First I will provide a definition for sentient via Google definitions: "able to perceive or feel things." Animals kill other animals to ensure their own survival. When a sentient bear kills a sentient salmon and we do not pass judgment. When sentient ants farm aphids we do not pass judgment. However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals. For example rape is common throughout the animal kingdom. When it happens in human society we reject the idea that it's simply a common occurrence and attempt (if incompetently) to punish the rapist for obvious reasons. There are obvious reasons we eat meat (see argument one). Just because we reject some aspects of nature does not mean we must reject all aspects of nature. Part of your counter will be to convince us that eating meat/animal bi-products is one aspect of nature we should reject. Symbiosis can be Mutually Beneficial to Humans and Domesticated Animals: This will be a short summary and conclusion paragraph explaining how ethical meat production (for example read source [6]) benefits both man and animal. To the benefit of humans: We are what we eat, raising our food in healthy ethical environments benefits us. If we allow our cows to grow in their own filth pumped full of artificial hormones and constantly stressed out then the meat produced is lower in quality and the damages are passed onto us. This is shown by the evidence that grass fed beef is healthier for us in general compared to the current factory like mass production model [2][5][6]. Furthermore raising our food ethically can be a spiritual process. As an example I show an opposite circumstance, it is common knowledge that one sign of a serial killer is torturing animals. If we move away from torturing animals during the process of food production we can move away from the darker aspects associated with killing animals. To the benefit of our Domesticated Animals: I know your initial thought may be "how can killing an animal be in its benefit?" Well in short it it's not, but not all symbiotic relationships are 50/50. However in an ethical scenario of meat production we provide our animals a safe, stress, and pain free environment away from natural predators. Given the option I'm sure a cow would prefer a stun bolt over being torn apart by wolves. In exchange for this protection we take sacrifices as needed. We allow the animal to live a natural life, and instead of them being picked off by predators we substitute this natural selection with human selection. Their deaths benefit humans instead of wolves or bears, which in the end is their purpose. Up until the end the cow's life would be its own. Citation: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com...... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...... [4] http://www.peta.org...... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...... [6] http://modernfarmer.com......

negative: soda is bad If you've been reading health magazines and websites for any length of time, you've read a litany of reasons why soda is bad for you. It's nothing but sugar water. It's devoid of any nutritional value. It leads to obesity and diabetes. But we've dug up nine other disturbing facts about what soda does to your body, whether it's the side effects of sucralose and other artificial sweeteners or ingredients that can lead to memory loss. Keep reading to find out all nine reasons you should kick soda to the curb. In the latest bad news for the soda industry, Danish researchers discovered that drinking non-diet soda leads to dramatic increases in fat buildup around your liver and your skeletal muscles, both of which can contribute to insulin resistance and diabetes. The study revealed that people who drank a regular soda every day for six months saw a 132 to 142 percent increase in liver fat, a 117 to 221 percent jump in skeletal fat, and about a 30 percent increase in both triglyceride blood fats and other organ fat. Their consumption also led to an 11 percent increase in cholesterol, compared with the people who drank other beverages such as water or milk. It's not surprising that drinking all the sugar in sodas would cause weight gain, but what is surprising is that even diet soda will pack on the pounds: Researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Center monitored 475 adults for 10 years, and found that those who drank diet soda had a 70 percent increase in waist circumference over the 10-year study, compared with those who didn't drink any soda. Those who drank more than two diet sodas per day saw a 500 percent waist expansion! A separate study the same researchers conducted on mice suggested that it was the aspartame, which raised blood glucose levels, that caused the weight gain; when your liver encounters too much glucose, the excess is converted to body fat. In 2011, the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to ban the artificial caramel coloring used to make Coke, Pepsi, and other colas brown. The reason: Two contaminants in the coloring, 2-methylimidazole and 4-methylimidazole, have been found to cause cancer in animals, a threat the group says is unnecessary, considering that the coloring is purely cosmetic. According to California's strict Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, just 16 micrograms per person per day of 4-methylimidazole is enough to pose a cancer threat, and most popular brown colas, both diet and regular, contain 200 micrograms per 20-ounce bottle. Diet or regular, all colas contain phosphates, or phosphoric acid, a weak acid that gives colas their tangy flavor and improves their shelf life. Although it exists in many whole foods, such as meat, dairy, and nuts, too much phosphoric acid can lead to heart and kidney problems, muscle loss, and osteoporosis, and one study suggests it could trigger accelerated aging. The study, published in a 2010 issue of the FASEB Journal, found that the excessive phosphate levels found in sodas caused lab rats to die a full five weeks earlier than the rats whose diets had more normal phosphate levels"a disturbing trend considering that soda manufacturers have been increasing the levels of phosphoric acid in their products over the past few decades. The artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas don't break down in our bodies, nor do wastewater-treatment plants catch them before they enter waterways, researchers have found. In 2009, Swiss scientists tested water samples from wastewater-treatment plants, rivers and lakes in Switzerland and detected levels of acesulfame K, sucralose, and saccharin, all of which are, or have been, used in diet sodas. A recent test of 19 municipal water supplies in the U.S. revealed the presence of sucralose in every one. It's not clear yet what these low levels are doing to people, but past research has found that sucralose in rivers and lakes interferes with some organisms' feeding habits. Dentists have a name for the condition they see in kids who drink too much Mountain Dew. They wind up with a "Mountain Dew Mouth," full of cavities caused by the drink's excessive sugar levels. "Mountain Dew Mind" may be the next medical condition that gets named after the stuff. An ingredient called brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, added to prevent the flavoring from separating from the drink, is an industrial chemical used as a flame retardant in plastics. Also found in other citrus-based soft drinks and sports drinks, the chemical has been known to cause memory loss and nerve disorders when consumed in large quantities. Researchers also suspect that, like brominated flame retardants used in furniture foam, the chemical builds up in body fat, possibly causing behavioral problems, infertility, and lesions on heart muscles over time. It's not just the soda that's causing all the problems. Nearly all aluminum soda cans are lined with an epoxy resin called bisphenol A (BPA), used to keep the acids in soda from reacting with the metal. BPA is known to interfere with hormones, and has been linked to everything from infertility to obesity and diabetes and some forms of reproductive cancers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have pegged soda cans, along with restaurant, school, and fast-food meals, as a major source of exposure to the chemical. And while Pepsi and Coke are currently locked in a battle to see which company can be the first to develop a 100 percent plant-based-plastic bottle"which they're touting as "BPA free""neither company is willing to switch to BPA-free aluminum cans. Take a look at the ingredients list for any soda and chances are most of those ingredients are derived from corn. As much as 88 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified to resist toxic pesticides or engineered to create pesticides within the plant itself. Thanks to lax government safety regulations, and tight corporate control over who gets to test these proprietary seeds, there are no human studies that can prove or disprove whether these crops are safe. Independent scientists have found that, in animals, genetically modified crops, or GMOs, are linked to digestive tract damage, accelerated aging, and even infertility. Most recently, scientists in France found that rats fed GMO corn for their entire two-year lifespan developed mammary tumors and died earlier than rats that ate non-GMO corn their entire lives. Sugar sweetened beverage consumption has increased significantly over the past several decades. Recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data found that half of the U.S. population consumes at least one sugar sweetened beverage on any given day. Men consume on average 178 calories per day from sugar sweetened beverages and women consume 103 calories per day. Of particular concern in light of the current childhood obesity epidemic is the increased use in children, especially teens and young adults. Soda often displaces more healthful items in the diet and is a warning sign of a poor quality diet. The dangers of soda extend beyond the increase in calories, although this is likely an important contributor to weight gain and obesity. Calories consumed in liquid form do not satisfy hunger as effectively as calories consumed in solid food form, so people often consume more total calories, which can lead to weight gain. In addition, consuming large amounts of rapidly digested sugar and high fructose corn syrup causes a spike in blood sugar and insulin, which can lead to inflammation and insulin resistance, both of which may increase your risk of stroke, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer. The large doses of fructose from both sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup may be particularly detrimental to your health as they can cause the accumulation of metabolically toxic belly fat, cholesterol abnormalities -- including high triglycerides and reduced levels of HDL (good cholesterol) -- and nonalcoholic associated fatty liver disease. Soda is also associated with symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease, when the contents of the stomach leak back up and cause a burning sensation in the esophagus. While drinking soda is not known to cause ulcers, it can cause symptoms to flare up. The American Heart Association recommends consuming no more than 450 calories from sugar sweetened beverages per week (the amount in three cans of cola). If you are overweight or obese, or at risk for heart disease or diabetes, you should limit your intake of sugar sweetened beverages as much as possible, including soda, energy drinks, sports drinks, juice drinks and sweetened water and/or tea. Scientists at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and the Columbia University Medical Center examined the risk of vascular events in relationship to consumption of both regular and diet soft drinks. Many people drink diet soft drinks because of the lack of sugar and calories, but in this study researchers determined diet soft drinks bring a much higher risk for stroke, heart attack, and other types of vascular-related death. The study included over 2,500 men who were tracked for a ten-year period. Participants who drank diet soft drinks on a daily basis were 43% more likely to experience a vascular event. People who drank only small amounts of diet soft drinks or who drank regular soft drinks were not likely to experience these heart troubles. In a separate study, from the University of Adelaide, scientists found a link between asthma and COPD and high levels of soft drink intake. In this study over 16,000 people were interviewed over a two-year period.

negative: Social media Does More Harm Than Good Social media is unhealthy. It causes cancer,

negative: Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide. Outline I. Suffering A. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. B. Prove suffering from meat, dairy, and eggs production. C. Establish purchasing of meat, dairy, and eggs causes suffering. II. Health A. Protein B. Calcium C. B12 D. Omega-3s III. Environment IV. Economics V. Rebuttal of Con VI. Links I. Suffering Suffer " : to experience pain, illness, or injury : to experience something unpleasant (such as defeat, loss, or damage) : to become worse because of being badly affected by something " merriam-webster.com [1] A. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. "After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven (Op-Ed)" Marc Bekoff livescience.com [2] "With a focus on vertebrates, this section presents a brief discussion of what constitutes good evidence of the capacity to experience pain. The discussion emphasizes the strength of the evidence that all mammals (including rodents) are able to experience pain; raises the possibility that fish may feel pain" National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. [3] "Domestic chickens display signs of empathy, the ability to 'feel another's pain' that is at the heart of compassion, a study has found. " telegraph.co.uk [4] "But it turns out that mother hens are such attentive, caring parents that they "feel" their chicks" pain. In experiments, female chickens showed clear signs of anxiety and upset when their young were in distress." David Derbyshire for MailOnline [5] "Q: Can chickens and turkeys feel pain? A: Absolutely. It is indisputable that poultry are capable of feeling pain. All poultry species are sentient vertebrates and all the available evidence shows that they have a very similar range of feelings as mammalian species. Poultry can suffer by feeling pain, fear and stress. " upc-online.org [6] "There has even been some recent research suggesting certain species of fish may also experience the feeling of pain." [7]. At this point its pretty clear that mammals and poultry can feel pain and thus suffer. Fish may be able to feel pain. B. Prove suffering from meat, dairy, and eggs production. The documentaries Earthlings [7], Food Inc [8], and We Feed the World [9] help show animal suffering. Also humanemyth.org [10], PETA [11], and prairiesanctuary [12] establish the suffering animals endure. C. Establish purchasing of meat, dairy, and eggs causes suffering. This is simple economics. Supply and demand. If everyone stopped purchasing these products demand would fall rapidly and supply would follow suit. Less supply means less suffering. II. Health A. Protein The first question must people ask is where do you get your protein? The best answer is, how much protein do we need? "Adults in the U.S. are encouraged to get 10% to 35% of their day's calories from protein foods. That's about 46 grams of protein for women, and 56 grams of protein for men." Cari Nierenberg WedMD. [13] "Foods in the legume family are good sources of vegetarian protein, and peas are no exception: One cup contains 7.9 grams"about the same as a cup of milk. (For the record, women should get about 46 grams of protein per day, and men need about 56.) " AMANDA MacMILLAN [14]. Clearly a person can get enough protein on a vegan diet. B. Calcium "But whether you're vegan, vegetarian, dairy-free or just don't like the taste of milk, the truth is that it isn't the only way to work toward your 1,000-a-day. We gathered some of the most calcium-rich foods out there (including many vegan and vegetarian options) " Laura Schocker[15] C. B12 "Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives" [16] You can also take a b12 supplement. D. Omega-3s Can be broken down into three types. ALA which can be gained from flaxseeds. DHA which can be acquired from seaweed. EPA which comes from microalgae. "The cardiovascular effects of flaxseed and its omega-3 fatty acid, alpha-linolenic acid"[17]. "Vegetarian sources of DHA come from seaweed." [18]. "microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA."[19]. Note there is plenty of vegan celebrities. III. Environment Many people think of Al Gore's Inconvenient truth and the misnomer Global Warming, the better name is Global Climate Change. Yet, Global Climate Change is not the only major threat to the environment. As seen in the documentary SoS planet [20] deforestation and destruction of marine habitat are also major threats. "Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows." [21] "The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " [22] Changing to a vegan diet will help mitigate Global Climate Change. IV. Economics This is where everything comes together. Many are of the opinion that a vegan diet is healthier. "The Agency for Healthcare research and Quality (AHRQ) estimates that the direct medical costs (total of all health care costs) for cancer in the US in 2011 were $88.7 billion."[23] "The total economic impact of premature death and disability from cancer worldwide was $895 billion in 2008. This figure represents 1.5 percent of the world"s gross domestic product (GDP). This economic toll from cancer is nearly 19 percent higher than heart disease, the second leading cause of economic loss ($895 billion and $753 billion, respectively). " [24] As see in the films Forks over Knives [25], Healing Cancer from Inside Out [26], Simply Raw Reversing Diabetes in 30 days [27] a vegan diet could mitigate much of this economic burden. In summary, we do not have the luxury to choose to eat animal products any more. Also note the world's cattle alone could feed 8.7 billion people [25]. Convert to a vegan diet today. Encourage a worldwide ban of meat, eggs, and dairy. Thanks for reading. V. Rebuttal of Con ""YOu suck i like this food, so it shouldnt be banned we are trying to end world hunger and you ruin it, good job kid everybody hates you." Con " Ad Hominem [28]. Taste is subjective and the palate can change. ""Our tastes can and do change over time for a variety of reasons. Do you now dislike something you used to love, or vice-versa?" theguardian.com" [29] Btw Con, if your really a vegan acting as a straw man, I appreciate the gesture, but I am fine making arguments by myself. "Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments"thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated." [30] VI. Links http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.upc-online.org... http://www.academia.edu... http://www.imdb.com... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://investigations.peta.org... http://peacefulprairie.org... http://www.webmd.com... http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://umm.edu... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.imdb.com... http://wwf.panda.org... http://www.greenpeace.org... http://www.cancer.org... http://www.cancer.org... http://www.imdb.com... http://www.ravediet.com... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.theguardian.com...

negative: Chocolate milk should be served in school!!! When you think of chocolate milk, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? The soft, creamy taste? The happy kids having fun while drinking it? Well, you would be suprised to know that, chocolate milk is in fact, healthy for kids too. First of all, chocolate milk has all 9 essential ingriedients. It has calcium, which makes the kids grow taller, and also the sweet taste, unlike white milk which some kids can call "yucky" or "too plain". I know what you are thinking, that it causes obesity and stuff, but then, kids are kids. They run around the playground at lunchtime, so there is not a big chance that they will turn suddenly obtuse just because they drink chocolate milk. Now, you night think that there are too much sugar, but the truth is, The little bit of sugar is what keeps them going during the day and keeps them energetic and healthy. There are more reasons, but for now, this is it. I hope you vote for me!

negative: Should we drink milk I have drank milk most of my life and although as mace says it doesn't help your bones it tastes good lol

negative: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk The Los Angeles Unified School District is taking a stand against child obesity by banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk. In the past few years, schools in the District of Columbia, Boulder Valley, Colorado, and Berkeley, California have also banned flavored milk. The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk (1). These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever. Children under the age of 9 should not take in more than 120 empty calories a day (2). By drinking a carton of chocolate milk, young children are consuming nearly 50% of this daily limit. For this reason, the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity strongly discourages serving flavored milk (3). Opponents of banning flavored milk argue that all flavors of milk contain the same quantities of important nutrients. While this is true, children will absorb more of these nutrients if they choose to drink plain milk as opposed to chocolate milk. Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. One study found that a single 100 gram dose of dark chocolate increased calcium excretion by 147% (4). According to another study, “Higher frequency of chocolate consumption is linearly related to lower bone density and strength” (5). Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so (6). Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods (7). Based on these conclusions, students who drink plain milk on a regular basis should develop less of a preference for chocolate milk. This has several important implications for schools. Administrators may feel that it makes sense to serve chocolate milk to increase children’s initial acceptance of milk. However, this strategy will actually result in decreased long-term acceptance of unsweetened foods, including white milk. Conclusion: Our society has a responsibility to help students develop healthy eating habits. Banning flavored milk in our schools is an excellent way to accomplish this task. References: http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.choosemyplate.gov... http://yaleruddcenter.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ajcn.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.yaleruddcenter.org...

negative: Chocolate milk is healthy. Chocolate milk is healthy because it contains the same 9 nutrients as white milk. Chocolate milk drinkers are not heavier than non-milk drinkers. You can find an explanation video to support this at youtube.com and type in Midwest Diary Chocolate Milk nurse. This topic is well known and many people say that yes, chocolate milk is healthy... under 2 conditions. If the chocolate milk is LOW FAT and that you do not drink chocolate milk too much. Thank you and please comment on this topic! If you have any suggestions please reply to this comment. If you may know me, please also reply too.

negative: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Milk contains vitamin D which as everyone knows is essential to bone growth and strength, maybe there isn't much evidence to support the fact that milk makes your bones stronger because we already have more than enough to support it. The fact that your even arguing whether or not milk is healthy for you shows that you shouldn't even be debating this topic. When babies are born all they drink is milk, and that's because it is essential to life

negative: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Yes when you are a baby you drink milk all the time, but it is milk that is packed full of other things that are not already in it. They can't just drink straight milk when they are born because it would do more harm than good at that point. Babies need certain things until they get older so they can develop how they should. There is not a lot of evidence to support that vitamin D helps bones because it has not been completely scientifically proven.

negative: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Great debate, Pro. Let's begin: "Drinking milk is healthier. .. " Well, juice is actually healthy. You can find many dairy products, but there is not much citrus fruit in the world. Therefore, juice is more healthier than a milk. 87% is milk. My round two arguments have not been refuted. Therefore, my argument stands. You did not refute about allergies, sugar, and saturated fat. In response to the cholesterol argument, this was from rense. com. Technically speaking, bacon does not have more cholesterol. I believe that you are confusing it with sodium. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agree before: Pro Agree after: Pro Conduct: Pro Spelling and Grammar: Con Convincing Arguments: ? ??