query: Should people become vegetarian?

positive: Humans should be vegetarians. Humans should become vegetarians because meat eating and the killing of farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is morally incorrect, evolutionary incorrect, and unhealthy. Meat Production also causes issues regarding pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use; all of which are unbeneficial to the increasing human population.

positive: Vegan Diets are Healthier 1. Well-Planned Diets are to be Compared The resolution is "Resolved: Well planned vegan diets are healthier than their meat-based counterparts." The counterpart to a well-planned vegan diet is a well planned meat-based diet. I take a "meat-based diet" to be any diet that includes meat on a regular basis. For example, if a vegan diet is used with some of the protein from beans replaced with protein from fish, then Pro must prove that the departure from strict vegetarianism results in poorer health. I contend that any diet, vegan or non-vegan. that provides all of the nutrients needed, and at the same time avoids excessive amount of unhealthy nutrients will produce the same nutrition-based health. Pro's initial argument, I claim, amounts to saying that a well-planned vegan diet is less healthy than a poorly planned diet with meat. Vegans are extraordinarily health-conscious compared to the average. Why else would a person eschew a great variety of tasty foods in favor of a restricted diet? Okay, sometimes people are vegetarians for religious reasons, but they are nonetheless diet-conscious -- they are not casually consuming whatever tastes good. It should not be surprising that any person who is fanatical about diet or health will end up with better health than one who is not., all other things equal. Comparing the average vegan with the average non-vegan does not support the resolution, since the average non-vegan is not adhering to the "well-planned diet" requirement. For example, the longest-lived population in the world are the residents of Okinawa. They do not eat a vegan diet, They eat a balanced diet that includes animal proteins in reasonable quantities along with vegetables. "Meat, poultry, and eggs account for just 3% of the diet, fish about 11%." http://www.wellnessletter.com... Okinawans are not typical non-vegans, but they are a good approximation having the "well-planned" non-vegan diet. Their health is better than most vegetarian societies. 2. Cholesterol is Fine in Moderation Pro points to cholesterol as a critical dangerous component of meat. Cholesterol is one of those things necessary for health, but harmful in excess. In is something like vitamin D in that the body can manufacture it or it can be obtained from food. Too little Vitamin D causes a deficiency disease, but too much is extremely toxic. A vegetarian can get too much cholesterol from diet. "... coconut oil may be cholesterol free, but is highly saturated and more dangerous than seafood, as it causes the liver to produce more harmful cholesterol. Saturated fat also raises triglyceride levels and thickens the blood. ... Seafood, on the other hand, contains cholesterol, but also the protective polyunsaturated fats that cause the liver to produce less harmful cholesterol and more protective HDL cholesterol. ... That's why, rather than worry about high cholesterol foods, you should pay attention to foods high in saturated fats." http://www.all-about-lowering-cholesterol.com... A well-planned vegan diet will avoid that problem, but so will a well-planned non-vegan diet, both by avoiding saturated fats. 3. Obesity is From Calories, not Meat Obesity causes health risks. However, it is certainly the case that some vegans are obese and many non-vegans are not obese. For example, a study showed "Roman gladiators were overweight vegetarians and not the muscle-bound men portrayed by actors" http://www.abc.net.au... All that matters is how many calories the person consumes, not whether the calories are plant or animal. "Obesity is most commonly caused by a combination of excessive dietary calories, lack of physical activity, and genetic susceptibility, '" http://en.wikipedia.org... Again, it is reasonable that vegans are obese than average people, because vegans are diet conscious, vegetables have lower energy density than meat, and to many people meat tastes better. However, a well-planned non-vegan diet also has the proper amount of calories. 4. Statistics Show No Vegetarian Advantage If there were, as Pro claims, some inherent health problem with non-vegan diets, than vegans should have a consistent health advantage. Even though vegans tend to be health conscious, the statistics show no advantage. A metastudy compiles the data from many studies into one. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts." http://en.wikipedia.org... Other studies of certain selected vegetarian populations show some marginal advantage in life expectancy, but it seems that non-diet factors are responsible, Other factors are not-smoking, higher income and lower stress levels. A National Geographic Study http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com... gives a sense of the factors. Those long-lived Okinawans have low stress and void smoking along with a fish-centric diet. 5. Science Favors a Balanced Diet The National Institutes of Health recommends a balanced diet that includes meat, fish, and dairy. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee states: "...consume a diet rich in vegetables and fruits; choose whole-grain, high-fiber foods; consume fish, especially oily fish, at least twice a week; limit intake of saturated fat to 7% of energy, trans fat to1% of energy, and cholesterol to 300 mg/day by choosing lean meats and vegetable alternatives, fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1% fat) dairy products and minimize intake of partially hydrogenated fats; minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars; choose and prepare foods with little or no salt;" http://circ.ahajournals.org... It might be argued that vegan diets are healthier because it's easier for the average person to make a well-planned diet. It's easier in some ways, because it's likely that vegans will get more fiber and less saturated fat without much extra effort. However, the disadvantages are more than an offset. Vitamin B12 is in virtually all meat, but " vegans will lack B12 unless they consume B12-containing dietary supplements or B12-fortified foods." http://en.wikipedia.org... Deficiency of B12 produces pernicious anemia, which s fatal if untreated. "Vegetarians often have normal hemoglobin, but low iron stores (ferritin) in liver, muscles and bone marrow. Iron absorption is improved by including Vitamin C (75 mg per meal or about 6 oz orange juice) along with an iron supplement (as much as 50 mg per day) and high iron foods." http://www.dietitian.com... Those who eat little red meat can also have iron deficiency, but the body naturally cravings for red meat when iron is low, so the problem is more easily recognized. "For the most part, vegetarians get adequate protein if they eat a balanced vegetarian diet. In fact a healthy vegetarian diet usually exceeds protein requirements. ... The best way to make sure you're getting enough nutrients , including protein, is to keep track of the foods you eat on a daily basis." http://vegetarian.lovetoknow.com... In sum, vegan diets are no healthier than meat-based diets. Both must be "well-planned."

positive: THW become Vegetarians Thanks for your last round. I will say my argumentsone last time then I wil say why I won and finish the debate. 1. You’ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop the progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it entirely. Cardiovascular disease kills 1 million Americans annually and is the leading cause of death in the United States. But the mortality rate for cardiovascular disease is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, says Joel Fuhrman, MD, author of Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. A vegetarian diet is inherently healthful because vegetarians consume less animal fat and cholesterol (vegans consume no animal fat or cholesterol) and instead consume more fiber and more antioxidant-rich produce——another great reason to listen to Mom and eat your veggies! 2. You’ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet—high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates——is making us fat and killing us slowly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry. 3. You’ll live longer. If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. ”People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.” 4.You’ll build strong bones. When there isn’’t enough calcium in the bloodstream, our bodies will leach it from existing bone. The metabolic result is that our skeletons will become porous and lose strength over time. Most health care practitioners recommend that we increase our intake of calcium the way nature intended——through foods. Foods also supply other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium and vitamin D that are necessary for the body to absorb and use calcium. People who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk. But if you avoid dairy altogether, you can still get a healthful dose of calcium from dry beans, tofu, soymilk and dark green vegetables such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens. 5. You’ll ease the symptoms of menopause. Many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women. Certain foods are rich in phytoestrogens, the plant-based chemical compounds that mimic the behavior of estrogen. Since phytoestrogens can increase and decrease estrogen and progesterone levels, maintaining a balance of them in your diet helps ensure a more comfortable passage through menopause. Soy is by far the most abundant natural source of phytoestrogens, but these compounds also can be found in hundreds of other foods such as apples, beets, cherries, dates, garlic, olives, plums, raspberries, squash and yams. Because menopause is also associated with weight gain and a slowed metabolism, a low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can help ward off extra pounds. 6. You’ll have more energy. Good nutrition generates more usable energy——energy to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex more often, Michael F. Roizen, MD, says in The RealAge Diet. Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won’’t open properly and that your muscles won’’t get enough oxygen. The result? You feel zapped. Balanced vegetarian diets are naturally free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slow us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning. And because whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are so high in complex carbohydrates, they supply the body with plenty of energizing fuel. 7. You’ll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting. 8. You’ll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. “If all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year. 9. You’ll spare animals. Many vegetarians give up meat because of their concern for animals. Ten billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in crates or stalls so small that they can’’t even turn around. Farmed animals are not protected from cruelty under the law——in fact, the majority of state anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection. 10. You’ll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans’’ food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.11. Save the planet: Meat is not green. Consuming meat is actually one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth. It is wasteful and causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is also one of the biggest causes of climate change. Adopting a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a “greener” car in the fight against climate change. I should win this debate because I made strong arguments saying that it is good for you and also it is healty. I rebutted all of Con's Points saying that you can still have protein without eating meat.Therefore, I hope everyone votes for Pro!!!

positive: THW become Vegetarians Unless my opponents has even read my comment at the bottom, I have given a reason to post my rebuttals in this round. For there are no round structures, this will go as followed and I have not dropped any arguments. C5)You"ll ease the symptoms of menopause. I see in this scenario a benefit from eating food off of the vegetarian diet. However this shows that you don't need to be vegetarian in order to ease menopause. People can still eat food from the vegetarian diet to help them ease it. If we look at this argument in the beginning, it also talks about how "many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women." Note that this does not include men. In this resolution, we talk about America as a whole. However, this argument only applies to woman in general, and we see no benefit to men and kids from this argument. This does not apply to everyone in America. This argument should not be considered in this debate, as my definition specifically states "America". C6)You"ll have more energy This is completely false. They state that "Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won""t open properly and that your muscles won"t get enough oxygen." Let me ask: Would there be any muscle without protein? No. Sure you can still get them from beans because they are healthier, but we as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. Beans may be healthier short term. However we see the longterm issue as a harm to our future generation. Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy, etc. Note that you can only get B12 from meat, asides from dirt. My opponents talk about fat in your blood stream. What is the impact? Does it kill? They have not shown us any significant impacts, as we showed you that without meat, we have much bigger problems in the long term stances. [1] C7 and C11) You"ll help reduce pollution and save the planet Giving up meat will not help the solution: in fact it will make it worse. Production methods for meat substitutes can be energy intensive and the final products tend to be highly processed. Note that it is important to remember that livestock produce large amounts of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.[2] From this, climate changes can worsen as well as the greenhouse gases that will increase pollution. Therefore, being vegetarian will not help reduce pollution or saving the planet, rather making it worse C8) You"ll help reduce famine Reading this over, I see no connection towards the fact that vegetarians actually help these causes. Extreme poverty and world hunger are multi-faceted global problems that are caused by government corruption, a lack of proper food distribution, and other reasons that don"t include eating a meaty diet. C9)You"ll spare animals Let us look at what Pro is suggesting: he/she is saying how we are killing animals and we are killing too much. What if we stopped killing animals? Pro thinks that it is terrific to stop it. However, consider this: if we stopped killing animals, how many animals would we have on earth? Thats right: I'm talking about overpopulation of animals. Note that animal consumption are not from extinct animals: they are animals who are plenty on earth. But that is not the point: In this argument we weight out human harms and animal harms. Are we equal with animals? Not even close. The ability of a human to breathe underwater is not equal to that of a fish. In both situations, I see that on one side we are killing animals. On the other, we see the longterm harms to humans. Thing is, animals rights are not the same as peoples rights and if we do stop killing animals and start to become vegetarian, the results to humans might but much more significant. Once we stop killing animals, we may start facing long term problems of people who suffer from many contortions due to lack of protein, vitamin B12, etc. C10) You'll save money I believe that becoming vegetarian has no money benefits. Even if we are still omnivores, we can still save money by not buying meat, and buying meat on and off. There are many ways to save money from food standards but I do not see that this is the reason why everyone becoming vegetarians are a necessity. Reconstructions: 1. "It is a right of choice, but we aren't saying that you HAVE to be a vegetarian, we are just saying that we prefer being a vegetarian. Alsowhy shoiuld you bother someone who is just eating vegetables? It is not against the law either, so you can just leave hem alone and let the citizens have the right to choose what they cane eat." I am very confused here. They suddenly say that you don't have to be vegetarian, but they prefer being vegetarian. What is the point of this debate then? You are arguing why we need to have This House (America) to be vegetarian as it says on the resolution? They have basically agreed to us that the citizens have the right to choose what they can eat. That is exactly what we are saying in this argument! Their side basically notions that making America become vegetarian means they are forcing their citizens. 2.As I said, if they eat they meat, it is their choice because they wouldn't get in jail. it is their choice and they can follow it or reject. As I said in my first rebuttal, we just prefer, it and it is their right to want to eat meat or just be a vegetarian. Yes, exactly. It is their right. That is why I am on con. In my argument, I am just saying that it is very hard to ensue such a law, and therefore should not be put into change of our status quo. 3. Yes, this is true, but then when we eat beans, it is healthier for us. Meat contains a lot of fat and bad chemicals for you. Beans may be healthier, but in what stance? As I explained in my argument, beans (which is referred as plants because they grow from plants) do not have the same vegetables and PLANTS do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Thus, beans are ineffective to protein and that we must need meat in order to survive. Without the enough amino acid profile, we are looking towards struggles to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffering. Our skin goes unhealthy. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. On a scale, without becoming vegetarian we have much more benefits, as becoming one has more harms. Either way, they have not refuted our Vitamin B12 argument, assuming they have no sayings on this. Lets use some impact calculus: Severity. Side Pro is looking at the fact that it is damaging our environment, health and people. However, these are not as severe as we think that are. Side con wins for this because our impacts are severe, as it hurts the peoples health's especially. Probability: It is not likely to enforce rules to make America vegetarian. It is simply not likely to ensue that everyone does not eat meat Timeframe: They only talk about short term impacts but our impacts last longterm. They have not reconstructed their case, nor refuted properly, whereas I have reconstructed, refuted and kept on defending my side properly. In a way, it seems like they have conceded. Good debate with side pro Vote Con! 1) http://www.mnn.com... 2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

positive: Vegetarianism It is healthiest to eat a balanced diet with both meat and vegetable products.

positive: You don’t have to be vegetarian to be an avid environmentalist. Good examples of environmentalist meat-eaters include Theodore Roosevelt and Native American Indians. These meat-eating-environmentalists appreciate the source of their meat, the life-form that was behind it, and acted to uphold a sustainable environmental balance. As long as you live up to these principles, there is no contradiction between eating meat and being an environmentalist.

positive: Eating meat is healthy. Immorality of eating meat is incoherent to this debate, as we are arguing the health of eating meat. I will need to see sources for your census to believe its legitimacy. My opponent's fallacy that eating less meat will cure world hunger. This does not apply to the health of eating meat, nor can it be considered remotely true. I decided to use the mayoclinic as a source to (below) Here is what they said about meat: "Meat and poultry can be valuable sources of protein and other important nutrients" [1] Con has not refuted the arguments of the health benefits that meat possess, which I have shown in Round 1. The nutrients and vitamins (Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more) in meat show the benefits to ones health. I have refuted any possible correlation with heart disease, and will refute any arguments regarding mortality, if proper sources are given to prove those statistics. http://www.mayoclinic.org...

positive: Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. While your points are completely valid you are forgetting one major fact, The overpopulation of animals: Specific species of animals, such as cows need to be killed off to keep the population at a healthy level. If everyone was a vegetarian, the amount of cows and deer roaming the earth would be FAR to much for planet earth to maintain, and we would (eventually) end up dying because we didn't eat meat. You state 25% of the earth is used for grazing, and argue that is too much? Imagine if people were vegetarians,stopped eating grazing animals, and the animals were set free. This would cause a huge amount of the grass and healthy lands such as the rain forest to be torn down due to uncontrolled species. It is much less space consuming to have a tightly packed group of animals then a spaced out one. As for the water usage there are many ways in which we could cut down on this water shortage in other ways without disturbing the 90% of people who aren't vegetarians. Finally Humans are part of the environment too, many vegetarians eat LESS healthy then non-vegetarians. "And, of course, not all vegetarians eat healthily. If a vegetarian replaces meat with high-fat cheeses, junk food and so on, they"re unlikely to reap many health benefits " after all, there"s no meat in ice cream, potato chips, or fudge brownies! It"s certainly possible to be a vegetarian and still consume large quantities of high-fat, high-sugar empty calories. Replacing meat with poor substitutes can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12. Athletes, children and pregnant females are particularly at risk as their nutrient needs are especially high. Vegans (who eat no animal products of any type) especially need to supplement their vitamin B12 intake. Poor meal-planning, illness, stress and the excessive use of supplements can also cause problems. It's therefore wise to seek professional advice on your dietary needs before making the switch to vegetarianism." ~Calorie King Sources: http://www.vegetariantimes.com... http://www.calorieking.com...

positive: THW believes that eating meat is better than eating vegetables Humans are omnivores, and this is not up to debate. Our body needs an equal amount of products from the animal kingdom as well as from the plant kingdom. Separation isn't a viable option for the body as it has evolved over several million years to consume, digest and build itself around a diverse and varied menu that consisted not only of hunted meat but berries, herbs and plants. Saying that eating vegetables is better than eating meat is just as unorthodox as saying that eating meat is better than vegetables. But since no things can truly be equal one must have the slight advantage over the other. To truly find which kingdom is better we must observe what would happen if someone would ONLY eat a product of the other kingdom. If I'd refuse to eat anything but meat would I be better put than someone that eats only vegetables? If we start with vegetarians we can quickly find numerous sources on both pro's and cons of being a vegetarian. A quick look around the internet shows us numerous sites, pages, articles and magazine covers marvelling the benefits of knocking our furry little friends from the dinner table. Some of the benefits include: Having higher quantities of the following nutrients:-Fiber-Antioxidants-Vitamin C-Vitamin E-Potassium-Magnesium Vegetarians are also less likely to develop heart diseases, have a much lower blood pressure, don't have the same amount of cholesterol in their blood and some studies have pointed towards a reduce chance of cancer. They also are more likely to exercise, drink moderately and refrain from smoking as compared to the general public. However, a meat free diet isn't as perfect as it seems; as vegetarians have some problems of their own. Some of the side effects of vegetarianism include:Lower amounts of -Calories,-Saturated Fats,-Cholestrorol,-Omega-3,-EOA,-DHA,-Iron,-Zinc-Vitamin B-12. Which are abundant in meat products and fish. If they also refrain from milk and egg products they also experience a shortage in Vitamins B-2, D and Calcium. The lack of Calcium puts vegans at a substantial risk when it comes to bone diseases and bone fractures. The low cholesterol level is also a questionable trait, because even if it decreases the chance of heart failures it does seem to increase the risk of an early mortality. But remember that most researches on vegetarians seem to disagree. Some say that it solves all our problems and others state quite to opposite. This is in part because our diet isn't the only thing that makes use healthy, and so result may change person to person. These shortages of certain vitamins and minerals must be fought either with meat eating, eating an excess amount of plants that include some of the minerals you need (which in some cases require you to eat an unhealthy amount) or replace them with synthetic nutrients, pills or find other natural sources that may or may not be readily available to you where ever you happen to live.1-2 Now, let's look at the typical meatatarian. It isn't a commonly used term and since it is rather rare to only eat meat and excluding other food sources finding reliable sources proves to be a bit difficult. Eventually the following results where found: It is perfectly possible to live solely on meat, but you can't cherry pick, you eat everything on the animal and if you are dealing with red meat, eat it raw. I present the case of the Inuit diet. Inuit, or informally an Eskimo, are native dwellers of the Arctic regions of Canada, Greenland and Alaska. In the frozen wastelands that the icecap is getting a good share of vegetables and fruits can be a bit of a challenge. In practice, it is almost impossible in lands where you may expect sub-zero temperatures all year long. So how do they cope? Meat. And a lot of it. They primarily eat the following:seal, walrus, whale, caribou, polar bear, muskoxen, birds and their eggs and fish. The few plants that do grow in the snow are gathered and eaten as well, but in comparison to the amount of meat Inuit eat it doesn't seem all too abundant.And how does this meat menu affect their health? Any illnesses swimming amongst the seals? au contraire, the tribes that walk around the ice are in superb health. Inuit high-fat dinner plate helps in keeping the body warm. It counters against protein poisoning and because almost all of the fat is so called 'good' fat it does not post the same risk as the typical western high-fat diet. They feel full of energy, the live long and leading lives and in the harsh winters the body is well insulated and fit for all occasions.3 But maybe cherry picking the high fat Inuit diet doesn't really support my case well enough in the western world: we need a more fitting diet for our situation. What about missing nutrients? Won't an all meat diet cause Scurvy? Cooked meat isn't rich in vitamin C after all. What other minerals are we missing? Well, Truth to be told we aren't missing any of them if we know what we are eating. Meat is filled to the brim with B-12, Omega-3, Protein, Niacin, B-6, Iron, Zinc, Phosphorus, Selenium, some amounts of vitamin D along with a handful of other nutrients4. For fibers you can eat the tissues that surround the bones, connect limbs together and various parts of muscles. Calsium if you don't want the milk is also abundant in certain parts of the corpse, albeit most of it is collected in the bones. You can grind them down and add to your meal but I'd recommend just drinking a glass of milk and a slice of cheese instead. That just leaves vitamin C. I already touched the subject that cooked meat contains no vitmin C, so how would the meat menu counter that? Simple, he skips the cooking part. The organs of animals are often rich in vitamin C and if eaten raw are a perfect source for that scurvy countering vitamin. It is a bit disgusting eating raw meat at first, but as with all foods you'll adapt eventually. For Derek Nance it took around a week or two. Derek, due to health issues, cannot eat anything but raw meat5. And he is perfectly fine, fit and healthy. He eats raw meat, meat organs, lamb, beef, not pigs due to hormone and bacterial risks and even a few rotten chunks of meat. 5 years in and he is healthier than he has ever been, much healthier than he was when he ate a mixure of meat and veggies, fish and fruits and cooked cuisine. Readers of the debate, you don't need to go to extremes. You should in all situations try to keep a diverse and varied cuisine in your home using both meat and plant products. But if you find yourself at a crossroad and have to choose either way you'll find that meat in itself provides you with a much healthier stand than eating fruits and veggies. With one you can live of the corpse of the lamb alone if you need to, but you'll always need something else on the side when going green. Save an innocent carrot, eat meat. 1)http://www.bu.edu...2)http://www.mnn.com...3) http://en.wikipedia.org...4) http://ro.uow.edu.au...5) http://www.vice.com...

positive: Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. As you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming "picky-eaters". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the "meat" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic "epidemics", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.

positive: Everyone should be vegetarian. I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?

positive: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Ben should become a vegetarian for three primary reasons: A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact than one which includes meat. A vegetarian diet will help him achieve his health goals. A vegetarian diet will decrease strain on our relationship. A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact.It's quite simple: eating 2000 calories from plants uses far fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, who had to in turn eat way more than 2000 calories of plants to create 2000 calories of meat. The reason is that not all of the food animals eat is converted to body mass, as much goes into heating the body and fueling its processes.The waste of water by animals is even greater: "The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef."Even if that calculation is on the high end, there is no way possible that the water ratio from plant to human is equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Physics denies such a conversion.Not only are land and water resources wasted, greenhouse gases are emitted into the air. "Shifting less than 1 day per week’s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers."I mean, check out this awesome chart: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier."The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes."Unlike the first point which is a moral obligation to promote public health, this one rests upon a personal commitment to oneself.http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...A vegetarian diet will make our relationship smoother.In a practical sense, this will benefit you more than me, because when I go shopping, I already purchase only vegetarian foods. Changing your diet to become more similar to mine will make it easier for you to shop for foods we can both consume, instead of focusing on "hirs and his". This benefit will be strongest when we eat out. As it stands, restaurants which cater to your tastes rarely do to mine, but vegetarian-friendly restaurants typically have meat options as well (which comes in handy when dining with friends).Also, there will be reduced moral strain. I'd know that we're trying to help make the world a better place together, as opposed to me bearing the load of not only my own choices but also trying to undo yours (which I can't avoid, as we live in the same house and our choices are tied to each other in many other ways as well).Ultimately, once we're on the same team diet-wise, then we can be That Couple who are so Totally Vegetarian, and further our goal of making our friends gag at how cute we are together. Aww!

positive: The human body is physically designed as an herbivore. We are not omnivores. Humans are most often described as "omnivores." This classification is based on the "observation" that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, "observation" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most "natural" diet for humans. While most humans are clearly "behavioral" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods

positive: A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters. A vegetarian diet is better than one of a meat eater's for various reasons, but in this argument I will stress on two.Animal Suffrage: Having a vegetarian lifestyle helps not only you as an individual, but also helps save millions of animals that get harmed and slaughtered yearly.It"s cruel and unethical to kill animals when vegetarian options are available.- Animals have emotions and social connections.- Scientific study shows cattle pigs and chickens and all warm-blooded experience stress, fear and pain- 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds killed for food each year.-; These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.-; Raising animals in confinement is cruel. -; 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. -; In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers. - Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are. - Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). Animals raised for food in US not slaughtered humanely.-HMSA (Humane methods of slaughter act) necessitates that cows be unconscious before slaughter to readuce suffering - Birds and pigs have no rules of such- And slaughter houses still mostly ignore HMSAHealth and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet gives one a complete nutrition with additional health benefits that meat cannot provide.- According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat eating diet because- Vegetarian diets meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids), and improve health. - It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one"s health. - According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. - Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. - Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. -Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.- There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.- According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters. -A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.- A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women - 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.- A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. Vegetarians live longer. - A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease. - A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years. - A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women. - On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortalityA vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. - According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians.- Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.-Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. [124] Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. - According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer. - The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further. - A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. World Hunger: Eating Meat uses up many of the plant resources and causes most third world countries to not be able to grow enough food. A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. - Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.- If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide. Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people.

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. Outline I. Intro II. Why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide. III. Rebuttal of Con IV. Links I. Intro First, to reiterate the resolution. Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Con makes the statement below which confuses who is Pro and who is Con. Pro is the person that wants meat, eggs, and dairy to be banned worldwide. Con is the person who rejects the resolution and contends for no change to take place. "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." Con has an identity crisis. I am Pro and Con is Con. II. Why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide. Meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide because they are unhealthy to consume, production causes excessive environmental damage, production causes animal cruelty, and production agitates world hunger. Claim 1: Meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy to consume. Warrant 1: These products contain excess amounts of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein. While lacking antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. Eating animal products displaces healthy food. Impact: Meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy and displace healthy food and should be banned. Claim 2: Production of animal products causes excessive environmental damage. Warrant 2: "Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows."[5]. "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. "[6]. Impact 2: Production of meat, eggs, and dairy causes excessive environmental damage and should be banned. Claim 3: production causes animal cruelty Warrant 3: "At 18 months of age, a fraction of a chicken's life span, these hens were considered spent, unable to produce eggs at a fast enough rate, and they were scheduled for slaughter. All 100 of them bore the physical and psychological scars of an entire young life spent in the crowded confines of a sunless, windowless, ammonia-filled cement shed. Even after weeks of sanctuary life, many are still in a state of constant terror, still panicking at the drop of a leaf, still cowering at the smallest noise, as if hit by a physical blow to the body. " [7]. Impact 3: If free range chickens are treated this way, cage-free and battery cage chickens must suffer even more. Deliberately and intentionally causing animal suffering is immoral. Claim 4: production agitates world hunger Warrant 4: "Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [8]. "The environmental comparison of cheese varieties made from cow milk and directly from lupine and the evaluation of energy inputs in fish protein and vegetable protein also suggest an environmental advantage for vegetarian food. " [9] "It"s increasingly evident, however, that a part-time vegan diet " one that emphasizes minimally processed plant food at the expense of everything else " is the direction that will do the most to benefit human health, increase animal welfare and reduce environmental impact." [10] Impact 4: It takes at least twice as much pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat as opposed to eating the grain directly. This grain fed to livestock could be fed to hungry humans thus mitigating world hunger. The same is true of dairy as seen in link [9]. Meat, dairy, and egg production agitate world hunger and should be banned worldwide. Its unjust for 1st world countries to continue to consume large quantities of animal products. Pro has now established why meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned. Now why not just ban these animal products in Rhode Island? Why the entire world? The environment and world hunger are global problems. It would be unjust to ban these products in one nation or state and instead should be banned worldwide. III. Rebuttal of Con "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. " Con This would be an effective argument is Con provided evidence to back up this claim. In fact Con's first link supports Pro's side. "Fruit are whole foods, with plenty of fiber, nutrients and antioxidants. It is very difficult to overeat fructose if you"re only getting it from whole fruit." [11]. "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)." Con It seems Con ran out of characters and did not post links to all sources used by Con. Pro contends its unfair for Con not to link the original source. Pro needs to see the quotes in their original context. "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)." Con B12 comes from bacteria. Raw organic fruits and vegetables are covered in bacteria. Since B12 comes from bacteria and not animals nor plants, the claim that B12 cannot be gotten in any amounts from animals nor plants is accurate but misleading. Since, bacteria are found just about everywhere on the planet Earth. Bacteria producing b-12 can be found in the human gut. "Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives" [12]. "Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria" [13]. "B12 From Fruits And Vegetables All fruits and vegetables contain some B12, but it's often in small quantities. Organic fruits and vegetables contain significantly more, however. Why? Bacteria eat decaying organic matter and excrete complex nutrients into the soil, including B12. This is then absorbed by plants, with some staying in the roots and some making its way into the leaves for us to take in." [14]. B-12 can be gained from bacteria in the soil and human gut as well as supplements. As for 92% being deficient in b-12, all that means is that a little extra care is needed when on a vegan diet. Note, the 92% didn't supplement. "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" Con Looking at the amount of omega-3's from grass-fed cows there are insignificant amounts. Pro seriously doubts that unprocessed meats are loaded with healthy fats. No outside link backing this claim up is supplied by Con. "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. " Con Milk is a dairy product, this statement is redundant. Dairy products are high in fat, fat contains 9 calories per gram. Dairy products are some of the highest fat and calorie per pound products available. "Vegetarians are deficient in creatine, leading to reduced physical and mental performance " Con Con does not supply proof for these claims. Pro contends that creatine is not to be concerned with. "Carnosine is only found in animal foods" Con Con has picked a term that hardly anyone has heard of and without proof, now claims that this nutrient is important. Both creatine and carsosine are proteins, and a vegan can receive enough protein. ""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" Con Fish receive their DHA and EPA omega-3s from eating seaweed and microalgae. A vegan can eat seaweed and microalgae for nourishment. "Omega-3 fatty acids for nutrition and medicine: considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA."[15]. Pro is running out of characters and cannot address every point Con makes. Con goes on to state all the minerals and vitamins in animal products. Yes, there is vitamins and minerals in these foods, but so is there in plant foods. Kale and collards are two great examples. Con then goes onto economics and feasibility. Meat is a humongous industry. Yet, sooner or later morals take precedence over the wallet. Global climate change is a dire threat. If nothing else, self-survival demands that meat, eggs, and dairy to be banned worldwide. Vote Pro. Thank you. Pro looks forward to the next round of debate. IV. Links 5. http://wwf.panda.org... 6. http://www.greenpeace.org... 7. http://www.humanemyth.org... 8. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 9. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 10. http://www.nytimes.com... 11. http://authoritynutrition.com... 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 13 .http://www.nature.com... 14. http://www.raw-food-health.net... 15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

positive: Vegetarianism When it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters' minds is, "What do you eat?" The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and "Fib Ribs" to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more. Going vegetarian has never been easier, and we're here to help! From our fantastic recipes and list of favorite products and favorite vegetarian cookbooks to our free vegetarian starter kit and online shopping guide, PETA has all the information you need to adopt a healthy and humane vegetarian diet! Every year in the U.S., more than 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food. Raising animals on factory farms is cruel and ecologically devastating. Eating animals is bad for our health, leading directly to many diseases and illnesses, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. In response to animal welfare, health, and ecological concerns, compassionate people everywhere are adopting a vegetarian diet. For Animals Animals on factory farms are treated like meat, milk, and egg machines. Chickens have their sensitive beaks seared off with a hot blade, and male cattle and pigs are castrated without any painkillers. All farmed chickens, turkeys, and pigs spend their brief lives in dark and crowded warehouses, many of them so cramped that they can't even turn around or spread a single wing. They are mired in their own waste, and the stench of ammonia fills the air. Animals raised for food are bred and drugged to grow as large as possible as quickly as possible—many are so heavy that they become crippled under their own weight and die within inches of their water supply. Animals on factory farms do not see the sun or get a breath of fresh air until they are prodded and crammed onto trucks for a nightmarish ride to the slaughterhouse, often through weather extremes and always without food or water. Many die during transport, and others are too sick or weak to walk off the truck after they reach the slaughterhouse. The animals who survive this hellish ordeal are hung upside-down and their throats are slit, often while they're completely conscious. Many are still alive while they are skinned, hacked into pieces, or scalded in the defeathering tanks. Learn more about the factory-farming industry. By switching to a vegetarian diet, you can save more than 100 animals a year from this misery. One suggestion: If you plan to make the transition to a vegetarian diet gradually, the most important foods to cut out of your diet first are bird flesh and eggs. While many people think that "red meat" and dairy products should be the first to go, this isn't the case. By cutting bird flesh from your diet, you'll save many more animals. Because chickens are so small, the average meat-eater is responsible for the deaths of many more chickens than cows. Plus, chickens and turkeys exploited by the meat and egg industries are the most abused animals commonly used for food. For Your Health Some of the leading killers in America today, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and strokes, are directly linked to meat-based diets. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America today, and it is caused by the build-up of cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products in our arteries. The only two doctors in human history who have successfully reversed heart disease have included an exclusively vegetarian diet as a part of their programs. The average vegan cholesterol level is 133 (compared to 210 for meat-eaters); there are no documented cases of heart attacks in individuals with cholesterol under 150. Other health problems tied to clogged arteries, like poor circulation and atherosclerotic strokes, can be virtually eliminated with a vegan diet. Vegans are approximately one-ninth as likely to be obese as meat-eaters and have a cancer rate that is only 40 percent that of meat-eaters. People who consume animal products are also at increased risk for many other illnesses, including strokes, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's, multiple allergies, diabetes, and food poisoning. Learn more about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. For the Environment America's meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country's meat addiction is wrecking the earth. Read more about factory farming and the environment. http://goveg.com...

positive: Everyone oughta be vegan. While animal cruelty is a serious issue, for the most part it's not really the fault of farms. There have been multiple laws passed in order to prevent animal cruelty, and by simply following these laws and adding newer ones, this will help to protect those fluffy animals. For the most part, it's not even things such as bears and rabbits that are killed. They're usually cows and other animals that are used for the sake of human consumption. Animals do deserve better respect, but meat is good too

positive: Eating meat is good for your health My opponent did not find a way to escape fallacies and faulty science. 1. Meat provides innumerable health benefitsCon is wrong in saying that consumption of meat brings more negative than positive outcomes. In terms of what? He used weak studies to prove his point. That does not work. Beef liver is among the type of meat that contains more nutritions than many varieties of fruit. [1] Calf's liver contains incredible amounts of health benefits, among them cancer reduction. "Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, especially if they are low in fat, are also associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. And, calf's liver is also an excellent source of zinc and a very good source of selenium. Selenium helps reduce the risk of colon cancer since it is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an important internally produced antioxidant that not only protects the cells of the colon from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins, but has also been shown to reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis." [2]"Studies consistently show red meat prevents iron and zinc deficiencies when requirements are high such as in babies, toddlers, teenage girls and young women." [3] It's obvious that meat in many forms comes with a plethora of health benefits. Fish alone can cover your Vitamin D needs.2. Right doses and preparation is necessary for all foodCon only attacks processed red meat and high consumption of it. Nowhere does the resolution refer to red meat only, nor does it specify the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. He said, "Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less than general western average consumption; the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats." In the last round, he claimed that meat consumption should be compared to the alternative food sources.So how about vegetables, sir? "Lima beans have to be very well cooked before they are eaten because the raw beans contain a product called limarin. Just a handful can make someone violently ill so always ensure they have been cooked." [4] Obviously, everything can be harmful if not prepared well, and if produced in a wrong manner. Merely pointing out that processed meat and over 300g of it per weak means it is unhealthy per se is just rubbish. In contrast, lower doses of certain types of meat are very beneficial and often necessary. Lack of meat consumption has often been linked to a variety of diseases and nutrition deficiencies."Researchers have long known that a strict vegetarian diet -- one that excludes all animal products -- can lead to vitamin B-12 deficiency, and possibly heart disease. Now, new research suggests that even those who follow a more lenient vegetarian diet are also at risk." [5] "In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb." [6]Clearly, both meat and its alternatives (vegetables, fruits, etc.) can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses, and if prepared poorly. This is not a good argument against their health effects whatsoever. CounterargumentsC1: There is no sufficient evidence that links meat consumption with cancer and increased heart diseaseCon's case relies heavily on the myth that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Pay attention to these studies; - All of them literally rely on correlation-data, something that should never be taken seriously. It's a logical fallacy, too. To claim that because A and B happen to be correlated, therefore one must have caused the other, is illogical. It could be, in the case of meat consumption, that those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside very unhealthy food, live a negative lifestyle, etc. In fact, according to plenty of research, this happens to be the case."The aim of this research was to analyse certain lifestyle parameters and health condition indices among people with traditional and vegetarian models of eating. The research conducted shows that vegetarians present a higher level of caring about their health, which is expressed on a scale of pro-health behaviours, than people with traditional model of eating. A higher percentage of them take up physical activity in their free time (80% vs. 70%), additionally, they more seldom drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Alcohol abstinence is declared by 75% of vegans, 25% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and only 8% of people with traditional model of eating. Tobacco non-smoking is declared by 94% of vegans, 74% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and 67% of traditional eating people. It has also been shown that some psychosomatic health indices, especially concerning digestive duct/system, remain varied in regard to the model of eating followed. The research has proven that vegetarian model of eating influences other--non-eating--pro-health behaviours and in this way it shapes healthy lifestyle of research subjects." [7]For studies to be sound and complete, they must compare people who live approximately same lifestyles, with the exclusion or inclusion of meat consumption. It is nonsensical to point out that meat consumers have increased risk of cancer, because all evidence points to the fact that there are far more factors involved than mere meat consumption. As per the study above, it is obvious that vegetarians are not more healthy only because they refrain from eating meat. It is because when people decide to become vegetarians, they break a norm; They shift from meat to alternative sources, from smoking to non-smoking, from alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, et cetera.A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] In addition: "When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined foods, the health outcomes aren’t much different than those of standard omnivores (except for the added burden of higher homocysteine)." [9]C2: Mutagens in meat can be reducedCon claims that "more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products." This is no problem. "Microwave heating eliminates the majority of the precursors for the formation of HCAs, and reduces their mutagenic activity by 95 percent. Other studies have shown microwave cooking is associated with a decreased risk for some cancers. For the best of both worlds, gently cook your meat in the microwave, in a low conventional oven, or sous vide, and finish it on the grill for flavor." [10]Feel free to consume meat. It's enjoyable and healthy. Don't be frightened by the pseudo-science we observe in this debate. [1] http://chriskresser.com...[2] http://www.whfoods.com...[3] http://www.themainmeal.com.au...[4] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...[5] http://www.webmd.com...[6] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[8] http://rawfoodsos.com...[9] Ibid.[10] http://blog.zocdoc.com...

positive: The World Should Become Vegetarian People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.

positive: Everyone should become a vegetarian I don't think everyone should HAVE to become one; everyone should have say in what they eat or not. 5 Reasons Why They Shouldn't: 1. Humans have been eating meat for millions of years and it is an essential part of our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. 3. Meat is the most convenient source of protein. 4. Research has shown that many plants feel fear. 5. A meat-centred diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options.

positive: Vegetarianism is good for your health Sorry I thought "vegan" was short form of "vegetarian". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. "Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with." Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. "Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans." Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too.

positive: Should People Become Vegetarian Many people disagree over the topic of Should People Become Vegetarian as it is controversial issue. My opinion on the issue of Should People Become Vegetarian is that people do not have to become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that raising beef is one of the most efficient way to produce food and access to get protein for humans. This is a good thing, because with the rapidly increasing population, we need as much food as we can provide that also provides us with the nutrition we need. Inevitably, we must agree that not everyone should be vegetarian, because we need to provide everyone food and this is one of the most efficient way.

positive: Should People Become Vegetarian Many people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that.

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: Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead (1) Since my rebuttals will be (partly) predicated on Pro's arguments being irrelevant to the resolution, I suppose it would be pertinent to explain exactly what the resolution means. Let's begin with "Vegans practicing on moral principle". This essentially means that the debate will be made from the moral perspective of veganism. Our focus will necessarily take into account the moral foundations of vegan practice. Next we have "should". We are arguing what vegans should do based on the "moral principle" expressed in the first part of the resolution. Lastly is, "become Freegan instead". This means that, given the 'moral principle' (yet to be defined) which vegans operate under, they should drop veganism to practice freeganism. Pro instead argues that freeganism is prima facie morally superior (without defining or defending the moral perspective which informs this argument). This is irrelevant to the resolution as Pro is actually tasked with showing why the moral principles behind veganism support freeganism as morally superior. Given that vegan principles are expressly stated as supporting the abandonment of animal suffering, it seems at least implausible that freeganism could be shown to be born out of veganist principle. Pro has failed to follow the resolution, choosing instead to argue (without a coherent moral foundation) why Freeganism is a better choice regardless of the unique moral sensibilities of veganism.Note: This is not a semantical argument, but a necessary elucidation of what the resolution means in light of an argument which appears to ignore its necessary implications.(2) Even if we ignore the first point of criticism, it cannot be ignored that Pro has decided to offer points based off of a complete lack of moral justification. That is, even if one could coherently maintain that this debate is over which practice is prima facie morally superior, Pro would have failed in that he fails to offer a compelling moral justification for eating only that which is wasted. It's not as if it's obvious why curtailing animal suffering is morally inferior to consuming waste after all. In fact, given that pain is inextricably linked to our own moral sensibilities [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] it seems rather obvious why veganism would be morally superior to freeganism (as opposed to the other way around). Pro's arguments are maintained only by presuming at the outset that stopping waste is not only morally right, but morally superior to allaying the suffering of animals. I do not intend to concede either of these principles. Therefore the onus is on Pro to argue in favor of them.(3) But since the BoP is to be shared, I will also elect to provide an argument for the moral superiority of veganism over freeganism. As stated previously, it seems prima facie reasonable that allaying the suffering of conscious creatures is morally superior to reducing waste. But seeing as this is essentially a philosophical debate, mere prima facie reasonableness will not do. Instead I will draw on Peter Singer's preference utilitarian argument against the inflicting of unnecessary suffering against conscious creatures capable of feeling pain. Other standards of moral worth such as inclusion in the human species or cognitive ability are either arbitrary (the former) or non-universal in humans (the latter) which would put the severely, mentally handicapped at the same moral worth as animals. Suffering appears to be the best measure of moral worth both because of our own evolutionary history (see above) and given the inconsistencies which arise given other standards of moral worth. A vegan diet attempts to allay animal suffering by refusing to lend support practices which inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. Further credence is lent to the position by virtue of the fact that veganism does not present serious health risks that can't be allayed by nutritional supplements [http://ajcn.nutrition.org...].

positive: The World Should Become Vegetarian I sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.

positive: should cormorant birds be slaughtered Yeah, They should their just a bunch of Woutarded $hIt eating birds. Also, My Jewish god told me animal lives don't mean anything, Therefore animals lives don't matter Woutard.

negative: Number 2 is a lie, there ARE alternatives to animal testing! Other companies use them, and animal testing doesnt prove anything, because although close, they arent people. Most likely your teacher had an allergic reaction of some sort, because a computer cannot always predict an allergic reaction from person to person. Almost all products I use arent tested on animals, and they are actually better than the few things I have that are. I am going to get everyone I know to stop buying products tested on animals.

negative: Veganism is a morally superior choice than being a non vegetarian. Due to my opponent's accidentally missing the conclusion, we're going to restart the debate and c/p the arguments to where we were. My opponent will then enter her conclusion and I will enter mine. As a result, we would kindly ask that no one vote on this debate. Thank you.

negative: Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. I accept your challenge, Although I believe in the pro, I will try and argue for the con

negative: Animal testing is right when required for medical purposes. Animal testing is right when used for medical purposes such as testing new drugs used only for medical purposes. Animal testing is a debate topic that is always challenged however, should it be allowed if human lives depend on it. Animal testing has been at the heart of every medical break through for the past decade. But, is it right?

negative: Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. This rule was stated in the terms of the debate: “- A forfeit is an automatic loss”. Therefore, my opponent’s potential to receive favorable votes should be nullified completely regardless of any arguments that are posted by them.

negative: People have become overly dependent on technology Tsk, tsk. Using a whole round to personally attack me, and I'm using a computer, so therefore, you are the dumbass. But anyways, Technology = not okay

negative: Games do not cause people to become violent. There have been an increasing number of school shootings. People have been linking video games to violence, which apparently causes these school shootings. But I am here to prove that video games do not make people violent. I am awaiting a con.

negative: Abortion should be legal in most cases. Do you think that anyone, Regardless of circumstance, Should be able to end another human's life?

negative: Cause more people to become interested in politics In todays times a vast majority of people don't relly care about what's happening in politics, or simply don't care enough to vote thinking that their one vote won't change anything. If there was compulsory voting I believe that more people would take an interest in politics and make their vote count for something.

negative: Genetically modified food should be labeled. Every one has the right to know what is in their food or how it was made. There are those who practice a certain religion or are vegans and vegetarians and need to know where their food came from and how it was made. Especially if GMOs use animal dna at times. Even if you are not any of those people named all of us have a riggt to know. For the well being of everybody involved, genetically modified foods should be labeled. http://agbioforum.org...(source)...

negative: We should be vegetarian I accept and I am glad for this opportunity to debate with my opponent. I am not sure if the first round was for acceptance or not, but I will assume that it is, and will thus leave it to my opponent to present his case as various contentions. I await a "formal" (so to speak) round of arguments, eagerly!

negative: The World Should Become Vegetarian My opponent cannot seem to find fault in my argument. Well, thanks anyway for debating me.

negative: people have free will The concept of "free will" comes from the natural desire to be in control of "ones destiny" However this is but an illusion manifested out of necessity to adhere to an agenda through "choices, intentions and efforts"- summary of Sam Harris I hope to prove that free will is in fact an illusion. I will also illuminate the unnecessary bond we have with said illusion! I believe the concept of free will comes from preference. I will tell you why the idea of not having free will is not worth shying away from! So if we determined philosophically or scientifically that we do not have free will, nothing would be lost. We would just be looking past another illusion that our minds create out of self inflation while being subjected to the harsh reality of chaos! You cannot describe the universe in such a manner that would be coherent to the notion of free will!- Sam Harris The reality of having conscious control over your actions are only true to the point of motor function and your choice to react to an uncontrollable event is limited within the boundaries that are defined by the environment and genetic structure! Everything you think you are consciously aware of is actually a result of causes in which you have no conscious control over! So if I were to ask you to remember someone in your life you would not have control over who came to mind you would only be witness to the event of causes that your brain had manifested into your conscious mind! It has been tested through neuroscience that even the choice to raise either your left or right arm cannot determine "why" you made your choice. In fact through displayed imagery scientists could determine which hand you were going to raise before you did. It still came through a chain of causes that inevitably made you raise either of your hands! When you think you have made a choice that you helped change the outcome of an event.. that is an illusion. You were just part of a single event that was continued by your bodies natural process to react. Everything boils down to prior causes that led up to the event to choose. This does not mean that you have free will only limited choices based on the events that proceeded!

negative: Tyrannosaurus Rex Was a Vegetarian Behold my irrefutable proof: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. ------------ Resolution affirmed. Pro wins.

negative: All people should become vegetarian And so forth..

negative: Animals should no longer be killed Animals are being abused all over the world. A few days ago, a gorilla got shot for "attacking" a child. But when we eat a cow, you don't see anyone killing us. We have an unfair advantage. If one person becomes vegetarian, that wont help. Many people should become vegetarian. There is an animal called the amur leopard. It is the most endangered animal ever with less than 60 individuals left. This problem conspicuous yet noone does something about it.

negative: Humans should be vegetarians. Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that humans should become vegetarian.

negative: Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation. I believe that global Vegetarianism would benefit our nation and bring back a sense of humanity again. I remember when I was told how meat was made and felt very disgusted at how we slaughter innocent animals although we have plenty of other food options and sources. Other food sources may include: grains, nuts, vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates and in certain Vegetarian diets dairy products and eggs are also consumed. Going Vegetarian benefits the animals as 2.5 million innocent animals are being slaughtered everyday in the UK alone and most are killed in extreme conditions and are treated with lack of respect beforehand. Between the years of 2010 to 2012 the numbers of Vegetarian adults and children, between 1.5 and 18, has increased significantly. In 2010, 583 children and 548 adults reported as being Vegetarian across the UK. In 2011 this figure increased to 1095 children and 1031 adults. Rising to 1582 children and 1491 adults in 2012, shows that Vegetarianism is becoming a more and more common necessity in people's diets. In this debate I will be arguing that Vegetarian is the way to go and the position of Con should argue that it is not. I hope this will be an interesting debate. Good luck. Sources: https://www.vegsoc.org...

negative: People should not eat animals. This is my first debate, so I would like to start with something simple and pretty straight forward. There are three reasons why becoming vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is both beneficial to the person and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is healthier. All required nutrients may be obtained easily with a little attention, and a vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholestrol and very little saturated fat). 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contribute to the species extinction from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. For the environmental impacts of animal agriculture: http://www.vegetarisme.be... For the American Dietetic Association's position on the vegetarian diet: http://www.eatright.org...

negative: Should People Become Vegetarian While my opponent makes some very strong points, that killing animals for food does affect the environment. But according to debate.org, being vegetarian does not necessarily help the environment either. It says that in 2003, there was a study done by scientists in Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, that lives in an agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. Although, it isn"t as much as killing animals for food, if you add this up, that would be a lot of animals killed during harvest for food. So, even if you do not eat meat, because of the pesticides and other chemicals used while growing food, it kills a lot of animals. We definitely should eat less meat to help the environment, but animals also die when we harvest food.

negative: Humans should be vegetarians. Remaining Round 4 Sources[4] http://michaelbluejay.com...[5] http://www.onegreenplanet.org...My opponent forfeit their previous round, therefore my evidence stands unrebut. In conclusion, humans should become vegetarian and expel the killing of farm animals because it would promote kindness and compassion. Humans have arrived at the point in which meat isn't required in order to survive, and poorly preapred meat can result in obesity and high blood cholestoral. Furthermore, raw meat can cause sickness for humans, whereas it doesn't cause as much sickness for omnivores and carnivores. Lastly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that livestock causes pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use.I enjoyed this debate despite my opponent's forfeit. Thank you to all viewers and voters of this intriguing discussion!

negative: Vegetarianism Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health.

negative: Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding. "Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding." ??????????????? So becoming a vegetarian is immoral and wrong? I challenge that that theory..... ;)

negative: Everyone should be vegetarian. In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty.

negative: Everyone should become a vegetarian But because of everyone that eats meat there is a huge effect on the animals. Not only are they killed but also for e.g. Chickens are fed steroids and other harmful chemicals in order for them to grow fast enough to sustain our wants. There are some chickens who are built so much out of chemicals that they don't even have heads yet can produce eggs. This isn't natural. Animals are being harms because of our selfishness. Therefore by making everyone vegetarian we will stop this cruelty to animals.

negative: Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals third of all human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals fourth of all many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons

negative: Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live. There are many reasons that people have for becoming a vegetarian. I believe I have heard all of them, but none of them have seemed to hold up against logical scrutiny. From health issues to ethical issues, all of the arguments that have been attempted have some major flaw. In this forum, I will attempt to point out the fallacies in all of these arguments. My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.

negative: Vegetarianism is good for your health "Also being a vegan will cause you to naturally eat more carbohydrates which will cause you to become overweight as well" This is about vegetarianism not veganism. Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans. "Beans and nuts DO have protein but a person can't live with dairy foods, beans and nuts." That is their form of protein but with that and fruits and vegetables they can get a complete diet with everything they need in it. Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with. So why not prevent the problem to not need a solution (omega 3 fatty acids as the solution) to begin with? You seem to argue that vegetarians can not be healthy due to a lack of meat protein and other nutrients found only in meat. However the existence of healthy vegetarians suggests that to be incorrect. Here is a list of famous vegetarians. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a rather long list that includes people from all walks of life. Some are even professional athletes like Herschel Walker, obviously a healthy man. As with an omnivore diet, vegetarians must watch what they eat and have a well balanced diet. They can be healthy and are many times less likely to suffer from the many ailments associated with meat consumption.

negative: Everyone should be vegetarian. Yes, I know what global warming is. The mass killing of animals contributes to global warming because they need factories to produce the products made from them, and those factories contribute to global warming. Also, the workers at the slaughter houses are usually lower class people who are paid poorly for a job that they really don't want. It is scientifically impossible to eat meat while on a vegetarian diet, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the vegetarian diet and thus would not be called a vegetarian diet. A lion usually does not shove the zebra into a cage and torture it. I have been a vegetarian since birth, and I am perfectly healthy. I get protein and other vitamins and minerals from a variety of plant based sources.

negative: THW become Vegetarians In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments.