Vegetarianism is wrong

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Human teeth structure contradicts vegetarianism: Con writes: "While it's true that we have teeth suited for consuming both meat and plants this doesn't necessarily mean we have to. " My response: I never said we have to (must) eat both plant and meat. As humans beings with freewill, clearly we have a choice in the matter, but that's completely irrelevant to my first argument. My first argument regarding human teeth structure was not to prove that humans are forced to eat both plant and meat, rather, it was to prove that it is naturally intended for humans to eat both plant and meat, not plant alone. Con's rebuttal, aside from pointing out the obvious, has failed to address this argument. Con also writes: "Humans are, by nature, considered to be omnivores. . http://dictionary.reference.com...... " My response: Here my opponent seems to be in agreement with my side of the debate and contradicting his own side. If we click on the link Con has used to define Omnivorous, the definition clearly reads: Omnivorous - adjective 1. eating both animal and plant foods. 2. eating all kinds of foods indiscriminately. Therefore, by admitting that "Humans are, by nature, considered to be omnivores," Con is also admitting to the fact that humans, by nature, eat "both animal and plant foods" or eat " all kinds of foods indiscriminately". This fact that Con has admitted to completely refutes the practice of Vegetarianism and thus, his own side of the debate. Con further writes: "Due to this nature (omnivorous) we are able to survive by consuming only plants. " Response: I never said human's can't survive on consuming only plants, but that doesn't mean not eating meat is right. In essence, what you are saying here is without a point. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Animal reproduction rates contradict vegetarianism: Con writes: "Secondly, my opponent mentions the higher rates of animal reproduction among certain species that are bred to be consumed by humans. However, one can also assume that this wasn't always the case. For example, humans probably didn't always eat the animals they eat now. One prominent example is the Cro-Magnon man which survived largely off seeds, berries, fruits, nuts, and some smaller prey such as insects and bird eggs. " My Response: Interesting example, but one distinct group of man with a unique life style hardly says anything significant. On the other hand, if we consider the billions of people around the world today, who, despite their different origins, all surprisingly share a similar meat diet, in part, consisting of beef and fish, we can make a significant case that cows and fishes are naturally eaten on an enormous scale and has been eaten for a very long time. . http://www.allcountries.org... This link shows that beef is eaten on a massive scale by people in all corners of the world. Con also writes: "Another point I'll like to mention is rabbit reproduction. Rabbits are not bred primarily for human consumption, yet have a notorious rate of reproduction. One female rabbit and her offspring would be able to produce about 64 billion rabbits in seven years. " My response: Again very fascinating, but this is only true IN THEORY. In reality, however, with a variety of factors such as environmental conditions and number of predators, things can turn out quite different. In fact, to my knowledge, no one has yet to complain about an overpopulation problem with rabbits. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Human nutritional needs contradict vegetarianism: Con writes: "Following a vegetarian diet can carry quite a few health benefits including lower medical costs and lower risks of disease. " My response: Con is absolutely correct in saying that there are many health benefits to leading a vegetarian life style, for example, a lower risk of attracting heart disease. However, this is only true if done properly and many vegetarians fail to do this simply because of the large variety of fruits and vegetables a vegetarian must eat in order to make up for the important nutrients they have lost to rejecting meat. But more importantly, this rebuttal fails to address all the health disasters that can surface due to the lack of important vitamins and minerals in a vegetarian-based diet in the first place. My argument about vitamin B12 being non-existent in a vegetarian diet has not been refuted. Moreover, "contrary to vegan-based reviews or commentaries, people following a strict vegetarian diet are not healthier than their omnivorous counterparts. In fact, on average, they suffer from as many, or more medical problems as compared to non-vegetarian individuals, who include meat or eggs in their diet. " "There is absolutely no question that the average person does best health-wise by consuming a mixed diet. " . http://www.acu-cell.com... To summarize, a vegetarian life style does not triumph a non-vegetarian life style health-wise, and just because there are health benefits to a vegetarian life style, that does not mean there aren't any drawbacks. In fact there are many, including vitamin and mineral deficiency, high levels of triglyceride, high levels of cholesterol, poor bone development etc. .. . http://www.acu-cell.com... Con also writes: "It has also been observed that vegetarians live about seven years longer than the average meat-eater while having lower risks of dying from diseases such as cancer. " My response: Most people today are unhealthy eaters; the obesity rate in USA is a testament to that fact. Most people today are also meat-eaters. Having said that, this observation reflects little accuracy as the "average meat-eater" is most likely an unhealthy eater. In contrast, it would reflect more accuracy if a group of healthy non-vegetarian eater is compared to a group of healthy vegetarian eater. Con further writes: "On a low budget? Vegetarian diets are much cheaper than an omnivore diet, being able to save about $4000 a year. You'll also be slimmer too. " My response: Before I begin, I just want to say this sounds like an excellent statement to put in an advertisement promoting vegetarianism! The last line: "You'll be slimmer too" almost had me convinced :) On a more serious note, a low budget does not in any way mean vegetarianism is right. All it means is that it is on average cheaper to live a vegetarian life style than a non-vegetarian life style. Nothing more. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although it is my opponent's full right to offer new arguments to reinforce his own position, my opponent also has the duty to refute my arguments. In the previous round, I had a little trouble distinguishing between Con's new arguments from his rebuttals as they were all grouped together. It would be very appreciated if in future rounds, Con can separate them. Thanks very much. I look forward to Con's response.