Question: Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

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

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

Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no "One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there"s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures," Willett tells WebMD. (1) This is the biggest thing I hear about milk, is that if you drink milk you will help strengthen your bones. With their being little evidence that this is actually true I will toss this up to hype. This has always been on TV and in magazines. And think of all those adds with stars and the "milk mustache", this is just s ploy to sell something plain and simple. "But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow"s milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones." (2) How ironic is it that the very thing people tell you to drink to increase your calcium intake is actually causing you to lose calcium. This is a precious thing that is needed in our bodies and if drinking milk causes you to lose it, then I would say stop drinking milk. Milk acidifies in the body. Our bones/calcium in our bodies work to get rid of that. So instead of helping our bodies do that it is forced to neutralize the acidity of the milk that we just drank. After looking at some of these facts I would say that there are other ways to get calcium in our bodies than just drinking a glass of milk. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://saveourbones.com... (3)

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

Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. R2 ArgumentsI. IntroII. Point by pointA. FatB. Saturated fatC. IGF-1D. CholesterolE. CaseinF. LactoseG. Bacteria endotoxinsIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroMilk is detrimental to human health for many reasons. Excess fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, and bacteria endotoxins.II. Point by pointA. FatFat contains 9 calories per gram. Protein and carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram. [0] Fat due to its high caloric content can lead to over eating and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Excess dietary fat can also lead to intramyocellular lipid buildup, which in turn can lead to insulin resistance. B. Saturated fatSaturated fat can increase blood viscosity forcing your heart to work harder and leading to lethargy. Furthermore, saturated fat can break down into the bad cholesterol, LDL, low density lipoprotein. C. IGF-1IGF-1, insulin like growth factor 1 increases risk for cancer by promoting cancer cell growth.D. CholesterolCholesterol is associated with degenerate disease.E. CaseinCasein can cause an immune system response that destroys pancreas cells and leads to type I diabetes.F. LactoseMany people of the world are lactose intolerant. G. Bacteria endotoxinsBoth alive and dead bacteria release endotoxins which can cause an immune system response. III. ConclusionFor many reasons, milk is detrimental to human health. IV. Sources0. http://www.mayoclinic.org...

Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Dairy milk typically consists of carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. None of these are particularly harmful to humans. According to milkfacts.info, "milk is 87.7% water, 4.9% lactose (carbohydrate), 3.4% fat, 3.3% protein, and 0.7% minerals (referred to as ash)." Yes, milk is 88% water, and there is nothing else in milk that is specifically harmful. The USDA claims that milk is prime source of potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. Each of these is very important for bone health. (webMD.com)

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

Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Vitamin D is in the sun. That is a fact. Vitamin D is in Milk. Also a fact. You need Vitamin D. Most people don't get enough Vitamin D from the sun, so you must drink milk to obtain those Nutrients. Vitamin D is also in all bones and their marrow so you tell me why we don't need milk in our bodies which as stated previously, has vitamin D

Dairy is Bad For Your Health Since my opponent forfeited, I'll try to give two possible arguments for the health benefits of dairy and rebut them. Dairy is High in Calcium ". . .animal protein, including that from dairy products, may leach more calcium from the bones than is ingested, said Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project, the most comprehensive project on diet and disease ever conducted. 'This phenomenon could explain why Americans, who ingest much higher levels of calcium, have much higher rates of osteoporosis and hip fractures compared with many Chinese and other Asians who consume few dairy products and ingest low amounts of calcium,' Campbell said. Hip fractures in the United States, for example, are approximately five times more frequent than in China. . .increased levels of animal-based proteins, including protein from dairy products, 'almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss,' Campbell reported. This view is consistent with evidence comparing bone fracture rates among different countries, which shows that countries having the highest calcium intakes also have the highest fracture rates. It is also consistent with other studies on nutritionally rich 'Western' diets and 'Western' diseases showing that low-calcium, vegetarian diets are associated with increased bone density; that casein, milk's principal protein, is a well-established contributor to high blood cholesterol in the Western world; and that casein significantly enhances the development of tumor growth in experimental animals" (http://www.news.cornell.edu...). Not only is the calcium component of dairy undermined by its casein component, which causes a loss of calcium from the bones, especially over long term consumption, but the risk factors associated with dairy, such as high blood cholesterol, far outweigh the benefits (https://www.drmcdougall.com...). There are plenty of safe, healthy sources of calcium in the plant kingdom: broccoli, kale, spinach, bok choy, soybeans, okra, watercress, and the list goes on. Dairy is High in Vitamin D Since I have already pointed out a few risk factors with dairy consumption, it should be obvious that one vitamin component does not outweigh the health risks associated with dairy. Almond and soy milk tend to be fortified with both calcium and vitamin D; they're a great alternative to dairy. Certain mushrooms such as portabella and maitake have more than five times as much vitamin D than a cup of cow's milk. Juices and cereals also tend to be fortified with vitamin D. It should be pointed out that vitamin D is produced naturally in the skin when exposed to sunlight and is a much more efficient source as 15-30 minutes of exposure to the arms and legs can give you more than six times as much vitamin D than an 8oz glass of milk (http://www.sunshinevitamin.org...). You would have to drink six glasses of milk, or 48 ounces, to get the daily recommended amount of vitamin D as proper sun exposure would give you (approx. 600IU)! And consider that 4,000IU is considered a safe upper-limit for adults (http://ods.od.nih.gov...). Milk is definitely not a healthy source of calcium and vitamin D. Here is a letter by Dr. Robert M. Kradjian warning people about the health risks associated with dairy that the prospective reader may be interested in (http://www.notmilk.com...).

Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Counter Argument... 1)Cow milk may have active hormones, but so do other things that we eat such as burgers and chicken. It may be disgusting to you but that doesn't automatically correlate to any means of harm to the body. 2)Milk does have magnesium along with vitamins A and B, zinc, riboflavin, carbs, and protein. 3) Milk high content of water molecules actually makes it beneficial for it is a good source of re hydration. Drinking milk is healthier than drinking unnatural juice, soda, and iced tea. 4) Cow milk has feces and bacteria that is destroyed during the pasteurization process. Milk is not supposed to be placed at room temperature to begin with because to much time out of the fridge can cause the milk to be tainted. Milk should always be in the preserved in low temperatures which is why supermarkets always have milk in the cooler. 5) The claim that the cholesterol in mil is equivalent to 53 slices of bacon is far fetched. Eating two strips of pork bacon is unhealthier than consuming three glasses of milk. Milk contains about 20mg of cholesterol. 53 strips of bacon far exceeds that. In fact the Teagasc Dairy Products Research Centre has conducted recent research on the utility of milk in neutralizing the cholesterol content in the body. Sources 1)organicfacts.net

Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Good luck, Pro! Counter Arguments 1) Okay. .. what you basically said is true. No counter arguments can do that. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) However, cow milk, what we drink, has 59 active hormones, which is very disgusting to think about. 2) Cow milk is useless because they lack magnesium. 3) 87% of milk is water, which means there are less than 13% of real milk. 4) Cow milk has feces. The feces are a major source of bacteria. The bacteria doubles when you leave it at room temperature for 20 minutes. 5) The cholesterol in three glasses of milk is equal to 53 slices of bacon. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) . http://www.rense.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments Good luck, Pro! This might be your first win, but I'm still going all-out!

Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans This basically summarizes my arguments and counter arguments: "Dairy foods can be high in fat and, therefore, calories. Low-fat dairy foods, such as skim milk and low-fat cottage cheese, have had most of the fat skimmed off and they can still be good choices for calorie counters. But all the good stuff, like cheese, ice cream, and butter, can be diet-busters. " "In higher fat dairy products, most of the fat is saturated fat. Diets high in saturated fats can raise your cholesterol levels and increase your risk of heart disease. " "Dairy products contain lactose, a type of milk-sugar that many people have difficulty digesting because they lack the digestive enzyme lactase. If you can't digest lactose, eating dairy products can give you a rumbley tummy or worse. Lactose intolerance affects between ten and twenty percent of the population. You are much more likely to be lactose intolerant if you are of African, Asian, or Native American heritage. Lactose-reduced dairy products or lactase tablets can allow lactose intolerant people to eat dairy with fewer difficulties. " "Although cow's milk allergies are fairly rare in adults, many babies and small children are allergic to milk, and experience symptoms including ear infections, skin rashes, and digestive problems. Avoiding dairy products can alleviate symptoms. " _________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com... www. formerfatguy. com/articles/dont-drink-milk.

Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Milk has been directly related to destressing people. It is really insane to fight over it... if you love milk and it really suits you - i.e you are tolerant to it and you love the taste and there is no allergies related to it as some may have, then go ahead and enjoy this yummy and health giving drink.on the other hand if you hate it don't have it. it is simple as that. and if you think that milk isn't beneficial to you're health you must be on the wrong planet or thinking of some other kind of milk

Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no As con had only argued one point my original arguments still stand. Milk is not really healthy for you.

Milk is good for your bones Here is why milk is bad for your bones : Point 1 : Milk depletes the calcium from your bones The milk myth has spread around the world based on the flawed belief that this protein and calcium-rich drink is essential to support good overall health and bone health in particular at any age. It is easy to understand that the confusion about milk's imaginary benefits stems from the fact that it contains calcium, around 300 mg per cup. But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow's milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones. Here's how it happens. Like all animal protein, milk acidifies the body pH which in turn triggers a biological correction. You see, calcium is an excellent acid neutralizer and the biggest storage of calcium in the body is - you guessed it. .. in the bones. So the very same calcium that our bones need to stay strong is utilized to neutralize the acidifying effect of milk. Once calcium is pulled out of the bones, it leaves the body via the urine, so that the surprising net result after this is an actual calcium deficit. [1] 2 : Milk increases fracture risks Many scientific studies contradict the conventional wisdom that milk and dairy consumption help reduce osteoporotic fractures. Surprisingly, studies demonstrating that milk and dairy products actually fail to protect bones from fractures outnumber studies that prove otherwise. Even drinking milk from a young age does not protect against future fracture risk but actually increases it. And the 12 year long Harvard Nurses' Health Study found that those who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely drank milk. This is a broad study based on 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 years of age. [1] Conclusion Milk is bad for your bones because of those reasons. I have more sources that can strengthen my argument. [2][3][4][5] 1. . http://saveourbones.com... 2. . http://www.news-medical.net... 3. . http://www.care2.com... 4. . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... 5. . http://www.sott.net...

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

Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. A very good round by my opponent. I will begin by addressing some issues I left unresolved since I wanted to do more research. So first, a few counterarguments for my opponent's points so far: A. Milk does not cause Osteoporosis. My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones. It says absolutely nothing about high protein levels. Even if so, my opponent is severely misinformed and drawing the wrong conclusions. What my opponent is confusing himself about is that during kidney failure, high protein levels in the blood change the charge of the ion flow in the nephrons of the kidney and calcium is excreted into water that leaves as urine. the body contains a massive number of proteins in the blood in the form of albumin and red blood cells. The protein in milk is digested and broken down into amino acids and never gets into the blood in the first place. B. Milk is not "loaded" with pesticides or antibiotics. According to the following links, The FDA has done numerous studies, all of which show that the trace amounts (if any) of hormones, pesticides, or possible antibiotics in milk are safe for human consumption even taking into account the fact that people drink it daily. There are also many regulatory procedures that ensure the safety of milk. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu... http://www.organic-center.org... http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org... C. I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders. D. Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylatic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly). E. My opponent is also wrong in citing his own source. There is no mention about pesticides causing cancer, rather, the insulin-like growth factor present in cow milk. However, in the links above, it is shown that pasteurization destroys the already minuscule amount present and the rest is destroyed in the stomach as IGF-1 is a protein. Furthermore, the citations that my opponent cites are heavily biased. The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word "milk" appears a total of 0 times. F. My opponent connects many dots using bad logic. While it is true that Casein breaks down into casomorphines, that is just an intermediate step in the stomach. Casein forms a micelle in the stomach that clots and gets slowly dissolved. The casomorphines are just potential chains that Casein might get broken down into, and even then, the stomach eventually reduces that protein down to base amino acids where it has no effect in the bloodstream. Proteins get broken down in the stomach but the majority of protein digestion takes place in the intestine after the pancreas releases the proteases that ensure complete reduction to amino acids. http://www.wisegeek.com... Furthermore, this link above states that the presence of casomorphines and their action as opiate-like molecules only takes place in autistics, who may have an inability to break down the casomorphines. http://en.wikipedia.org... This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable. G. Cutting milk can reduce obesity, but my opponent is comparing 1 glass of beer to 1 glass of milk. You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage. In addition, there are plenty of non-fat varieties of milk but nonalcoholic beers may be a little harder to knock back. Acne is more likely due to excess oil and fat. Non fat milk is a viable option for those who are focused on cosmetics. However, the experiment that I found, the one that allegedly "sparked" the controversy, only showed results in polling people who consumed 3 or more servings a day, and we are arguing a 1:1 comparison, making this point moot. http://www.healthcastle.com... H. As for arthritis, my opponent's claim is due to reading too quickly. The source he provided claimed that most arthritis is due to allergen response and most food allergies are caused by milk. THis is misleading as most arthritis is caused by an allergic response to self, when the body's own white blood cells attack joints, causing joint pain. This is why Glucosamine and Chondroitin help with arthritis: they contain the same material in the joints that the white blood cells attack, leaving the actual body parts unharmed. I. My opponent's source regarding mucus is also biased and premature, connecting the wrong dots. Fact, milk is the most common food allergen. Fact, allergies can manifest into mucus production and cough. Lactose intolerance is categorized as a milk allergy and accounts for it being the most common food allergen. However, we know that the symptoms for lactose intolerance are not related to these, so by elimination, we can estimate that a far lower percentage of milk allergies is due to things other than lactose intolerance. J. In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate. Also, as a Pharmacy student, I can say that my opponent's assertion ("Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse") is also misleading and faulty. My opponent's sources lead to a term specifically for excessive medication use. However, we are speaking about legitimate prescriptions that are required for maintaining health. It is not uncommon for a person to be on a cholesterol medication, a blood pressure medication, and another medication (such as an asthma medication, an antihistamine, a sleeping aid, pain medication, antibiotic) at the same time. To simply categorize it as abuse and unhealthy is simply manipulation of data and language. Regardless, it it is a fact that prescription medication use is as high as it is. Whether or not it is healthy is outside the scope of the debate. What is important is the fact that my opponent's description of an "average" person is either unrealistic or harmful to his case, as moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages would interfere with drug metabolism and the imaginary health detriments that my opponent is conjuring can and will become a reality. K. Ranitidine actually raises blood alcohol levels because it inhibits the enzyme responsible for the 3 step metabolism of alcohol. The "asian flush" does disappear, but only because the alcohol isn't being digested at all in the beginning and because the antihistamine effects of the two drugs decrease the flushing. However, when the drug effects wear off, alcohol is metabolized at the same mid-way speed, allowing for an increase in the toxic acetaldehyde intermediate. This puts excessive strain on the liver because not only is the liver busy metabolizing the drugs, but it gets the added load of the unmetabolized alcohol to follow suit. Famotidine, though slightly safer, also harms the liver over long periods of use. L. My opponent brings up the topic of lactose intolerance. Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free. I don't see how lactose intolerance is an issue in this debate because although non-alcoholic beer is hard to find and probably not healthy, fat-free or lactose-free milk is readily available and usually fortified with vitamins. Soy milk is also very healthy. There are many varieties of milk free of the chemicals my opponent mentioned. I will allow my opponent to address these first and conclude at the end.

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

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

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

Dairy is Bad For Your Health I look forward to a good response! I will list the problems with dairy below in no particular order. Lactose Intolerance Dairy is comprised primarily of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and water. One of these primary carbohydrates is lactose. As infants, mammals can process the lactose using an enzyme secreted from their intestinal villi called lactase. This breaks the lactose down into two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Most people in the world (approx. 65%) have a drastically reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy, and increasingly so as the get older, resulting in the condition known as lactose intolerance. Mammals normally have a decrease in the gene expression which results in lactase production after infancy, as this enzyme is no longer required to digest mother's milk . http://www.google.com...). Some people groups, such as those of European decent, have inherited a change in a regulatory element which regulates this gene expression, allowing for sustained production of lactase in their small intestine (. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...). For much of the world, lactose will cause gastrointestinal problems (. http://www.medbio.info...). For this reason alone, dairy is bad for the health of at least 65% of the world. Cardiovascular DiseaseSaturated fat is well known to be correlated with cardiovascular diseases (. http://www.plosmedicine.org...). Dairy products are typically rife with saturated fat which raise the level of LDL (bad) cholesterol in your blood resulting in an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (. http://www.heart.org...).CancerDairy consumption is strongly correlated with prostate cancer. While several mechanisms are possible, the correlation remains clear (. http://www.pcrm.org...). "Consumption of dairy products has also been linked to higher risk for various cancers, especially to cancers of the reproductive system. Most significantly, dairy product consumption has been linked to increased risk for prostate and breast cancers. The danger of dairy product consumption as it relates to prostate and breast cancers is most likely related to increases in insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which is found in cow’s milk. Consumption of milk and dairy products on a regular basis has been shown to increase circulating levels of IGF-1. Perhaps the most convincing association between IGF-1 levels and cancer risk is seen in studies of prostate cancer. Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-1 concentrations and prostate cancer risk. One study showed that men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer, compared with those who had the lowest levels. In the Physicians Health Study, tracking 21,660 participants for 28 years, researchers found an increased risk of prostate cancer for those who consumed ≥2.5 servings of dairy products per day as compared with those who consumed ≤0.5 servings a day. This study, which is supported by other findings,also shows that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium, and not just the fat associated with dairy products, could be a potential threat to prostate health. In addition to increased levels of IGF-1, estrogen metabolites are considered risk factors for cancers of the reproductive system, including cancers of the breasts, ovaries, and prostate. These metabolites can affect cellular proliferation such that cells grow rapidly and aberrantly, which can lead to cancer growth. Consumption of milk and dairy products contributes to the majority (60-70 percent) of estrogen intake in the human diet. In a large study including 1,893 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology Study who had been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, higher amounts of high-fat dairy product consumption were associated with higher mortality rates. As little as 0.5 servings a day increased risk significantly. This is probably due to the fact that estrogenic hormones reside primarily in fat, making the concern most pronounced for consumption of high-fat dairy products. The consumption of dairy products may also contribute to development of ovarian cancer. The relation between dairy products and ovarian cancer may be caused by the breakdown of the milk sugar lactose into galactose, a sugar which may be toxic to ovarian cells. In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer. A similar study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of developing ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day" (. http://www.pcrm.org...).While this surely is not an exhaustive list of potential healthhazards faced by those who consume dairy, what I have included so far should be adequate for this debate's discussion.

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

Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. I thank whoever accepts this debate. *Note: I would like to say that I am not encouraging excessive use of alcohol. It is important to recognize that beer can also have a significant impact on your health if abused. I will clarify that "moderation" is one or two drinks a day, and half that for women (because of their ability to break down alcohol), not consumed one directly after the other (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...). Resolution: For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. I will start by attempting to reproduce a nutritional table showing beer and milk: United States Department of Agriculture Nutritional Data for Milk and Beer ------------------------| MILK (I cup, 2% milk)----- | BEER (1 cup) ----------- Fat (g) ----------------|------------ 5---------------- | --------- 0 ---------------- Fiber (g) --------------| ----------- 0 ---------------- | --------- .5 -------------- Sodium (mg) -------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 12 ------------ Cholesterol (mg) ---- | ---------- 20 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- Calories -------------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 97 ------------ Calories from fat (%)-| ---------- 37 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- I don't think this posted properly so here's the link as well. (. http://www.milksucks.com...) Beer has no fat or cholesterol but does contain less calories and ten times less sodium than milk. Milk is found to actually cause osteoporosis because dairy products have high levels protein. When protein levels in the body are doubled, but no other nutrient levels are changed, the levels of calcium in the urine increase by about fifty percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993). Milk is also loaded with pesticides and antibiotics, because cows are producing ten times the amount of milk they would normally produce, their udders get swollen and drag on the ground. Pus and blood have been foound in milk as a result. Antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation and trace amounts have been found in milk, pesticides are also found in the dairy product. These chemicals can build up and negatively effect the immune system, reproductive system and central nervous system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer as well (. http://www.pcrm.org...). In the book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, consuming alcohol in moderate levels "protects against heart disease and ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence [shows] that it protects against diabetes and gallstones" (Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, 2001). Alcohol reduces the risk of strokes and heart attacks and increases brain function as well. (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...) Also, if you have time, read this : . http://www.guardian.co.uk... OK, that's all for now.

Should we drink milk Drinking milk can cause osteoporosis.

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

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

Milk is good for your bones Seems that there is more research in this as I thought. Although the fact that you copied and pasted practically everything that was in your post from one of your sources... You might have well just post the sources and leave. I wouldn't really call it a debate when you'd do something like that. Although now that I've done research on it I can't think of much of a argument against you. I probably should have looked up the topic before I jumped right in. Since this is my first debate I hope that you can forgive my ignorance. Sorry for the waste of time, but I'm going to have to forfeit this debate xD

Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Resolution:Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Bop:Burden of proof will be upon the instigator. Structure:R1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 Defend your argument against opponent's round three rebuttalDefintionsCow "cow 1 (kou)n. 1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos." [0]Milk" 1. A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young." [1] Thanks in advance for accepting. Sources0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Milk is good for your bones Well that's that... Thanks for the 'debate'.

Chocolate milk is bad for your health Pro i hope this will be a learning session for you regarding the benefits of Chocolate Milk vs Milk (Normal Milk as you call it). First let me state that Milk can be 1%, 2%.3.7% fat or powedered. All of these affect the Nutrition Values. But for the sake of the argument we will use the Milk 1% and the Chocolate Milk (not reduced fat). Chocolate Milk Nutrition Values Calories 83 % Daily Value* Total Fat 3.4 g 5% Saturated fat 2.1 g 10% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 1 g Cholesterol 12 mg 4% Sodium 60 mg 2% Potassium 167 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 10 g 3% Dietary fiber 0.8 g 3% Sugar 10 g Protein 3.2 g 6% Caffeine 2 mg Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 1% Calcium 11% Iron 1% Vitamin D 12% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 5% Magnesium 3% Milk Nutrition Values Calories 42 % Daily Value* Total Fat 1 g 1% Saturated fat 0.6 g 3% Polyunsaturated fat 0 g Monounsaturated fat 0.3 g Cholesterol 5 mg 1% Sodium 44 mg 1% Potassium 150 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 5 g 1% Dietary fiber 0 g 0% Sugar 5 g Protein 3.4 g 6% Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0% Calcium 12% Iron 0% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 8% Magnesium 2% As you can see from the above tables taken from google (just google search Milk or Chocolate Milk) you can deduce that Chocolate Milk has more Vitamin C, More Iron, more Magnesium, more Vitamin D (12% more) and more Vitamin A. Milk has 5g less sugar than Chocolate Milk (has 10g) in a 100g sample. If fat is a problem for you then choose reduced-fat Chocolate Milk. Therefore Chocolate Milk is far more nutritious than Milk. Drink Chocolate Milk pro. Its good for you :)

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff mmmmmm chocolate..... I don't drink CHOCOLATE milk for the calcium, I drink it for the CHOCOLATE and as you know, CHOCOLATE tastes good..................................

Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Again, thanks to Kleptin for responding. "My opponent's restriction on people who drive" One of my restrictions was on people who are *driving*, not on people who drive. I was basically saying don't drink and drive, because that may seriously injure, if not kill a person. This would be incredibly detrimental to one's health. "Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics." This is one of my exceptions. Although you say that diabetes affects 8% of Americans (it is actually 7.8%), it only affects 2.8% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This number is a lot smaller than what you said and although it is large, it is not significant enough to be considered average. "And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once." About 3-4% of the World's population is abusing drugs 9http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org...). Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse, and there is a chance it can kill you (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, anywhere from 50 to 75% of prescription medications taken in America are prescribed and used irresponsibly (http://books.google.com...). Abusing prescription drugs is like using recreational drugs, which can harm someone more than help them. "...heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen?" US has 306 million people out of the 6.77 billion in the world. In the year 2000, the US had just under 5% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://nationalatlas.gov...). Although these statistics may be correct, they are US, not Worldwide, statistics. "Asian Curse" You say that about 50% of the the Asian population has the "Asian Curse", but you do not take into account how many people with this condition still drink beer despite the fact. You are implying that everybody who has this condition cannot have a drop of alcohol. In fact, some people who suffer from this condition take ranitidine or famotidine an hour before drinking to counteract the effects of alcohol flush, AKA the "Asian Curse" (http://www.steadyhealth.com...). Some people even drink moderate amounts of alcohol to build up concentration levels of Alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme they were lacking in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Your case of alcohol flush is extreme, not everybody with this condition is as sensitive to alcohol as you are. There are still numerous amount of people who suffer from this condition and still drink moderately, they just can't drink copious amounts. My resolution states that moderate amounts of beer can be beneficial for a person. "Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an "average" person is absurd." I was trying to avoid a semantic debate. You have even said that I said people who *drive* shouldn't drink beer when what I really was people who are *driving* shouldn't drink beer. "Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by "you". When people say "hey you!" in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word "you" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise?" Frankly, we can argue this point of "you" all we want, but it will be ultimately up to the voter to decide how they interpret the usage of the word "you" in this debate. Many chronic health conditions in humans are caused by cow's milk. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology says that this type of milk is also the most common food allergen. Cutting milk out of your diet can reduce obesity levels, arthritis up to 90% and even get rid of acne (http://www.collectivewizdom.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...). Consuming cow's milk is linked to high levels of mucus in the body. This can lead to ear infections, difficulty breathing and runny noses, stomach problems and possibly even kidney problems. It is also believe that these high levels of mucus can line the intestine and harden, making absorption of nutrients difficult (http://www.milksucks.com...). Roughly 70% of African Americans, 53% of Mexican Americans, and 74% percent of Native Americans and 65-75% of South Americans are lactose intolerant. 90% of Asian Americans, 98% of Thais and Southeast Asians, 95% of Chinese, 88% of Inner Mongolians and 80% of Central Asians are lactose intolerant as well (http://www.pcrm.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. It makes sense. We are the only species on Earth that drinks other animal's milk. As adults, we have decreased levels of lactose activity in our body because we no longer need milk, not even human's milk to maintain a healthy diet. How does it make sense that we need other species' milk, milk that was meant for that species' babies, to be healthy? Thank you for your time.

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

Should we drink milk It depletes the calcium from your bones to digest it.

Should we drink milk yes it might but it replenishes the depleted calcium when it gets digested

Should we drink milk off the subject of not helping you bones it has lots of vitamins and minerals that help you start a great day

Milk is bad to the bone. Milk is good for you.

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

Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. It seems my opponent has not read my arguement. In R1 I clearly laid out my full resolution: "For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. " I would have liked to fit this resolution into the field given when starting a debate, but space was limited, so I resorted to fully explaining my resolution in R1. In my resolution I stated that beer was beneficial to an "average, healthy person. " Average is defined as "typical; common; ordinary" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Since the ordinary person is not allergic to beer, Kleptin, then you are not the "average person" that I was referring to. Also the word "you" can be defined as "one; anyone; people in general" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Earlier I specified "you" to be the average person, the general public, which would exclude my opponent. I assume that my opponent accepts the definition of milk to be: "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc" because in R1 he says "I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. " Cow and goat's milk have lactose in them, which leads me to believe he agrees with this term. Dairy milk also contains casein, which breaks down into beta-Casomorphine-7, an opiate. Other examples of opiates are morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Opioid is defined as a "drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives" (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Some reactions that people have to opiates are: nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, itching, dry mouth, and constipation (Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd ed. ). There has also been studies showing that casein can aggravate, if not cause autism. It has also been linked to cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and diabetes. Since casein is a drug, it is addictive (especially cheese, because of the high concentration of it) and can even affect a person's personality, causing depression and overeating (. http://danmahony.com...). Beer however, has a positive effect on blood vessels, decreasing the risk of clotting or rupturing. People who drink beer in moderation also have less of a risk of dementia and can even increase cognitive functions (. http://www.forbes.com...). It can also increase metabolism, lower calories and reduce stress (. http://www.menshealth.com...). Kleptin, sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition, but in my resolution, you are classified as an exception. I said in R1 that, for the average person, beer is healthier than milk and you have yet to prove otherwise.

Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. I must correct my opponent first of all, in that I did read his response. It was not specified in the first round as to how an average person is defined. In fact, the parameters he sets up are so strange that it becomes impossible to adapt them in any manner of coherency. I will illustrate the importance of this later. I will start my response by saying that my opponent's failure is not in his presentation of data (which I believe to be faulty anyhow), but in his very resolution. My opponent was simply wrong when he said that I am excluded from the realm of "average healthy person". In fact, I believe there are huge, blatant errors in his classification of an "average" person to begin with. What my opponent lists as exceptions in proper detail are the following: 1. Pregnant women 2. Diabetics 3. People on prescription medication 4. People who drive or operate heavy machinery. The percentage of pregnant women in the population is not negligible, but still a small percentage. However, my opponent's key argument about the "Average" person seems to conflict heavily with his resolution statement. A. My opponent's restriction on people who drive. . http://wiki.answers.com... The number of people who drive in America is roughly 30 million, an extraordinarily conservative calculation based on the following facts derived from my source: 1. There are roughly 60 million registered cars 2. There are roughly 2 cars to each person This does not include cars which are functional and unregistered, or people who share cars/rent cars. As such, the most conservative would be 30 million out of 300 million or roughly 10% of the population. If my opponent is excluding drivers from his definition of an "Average" person, what will he restrict next? People who eat hamburgers? People who watch baseball? B. Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics. There are currently 24 million diabetics in this country and not a single one of them is "average" according to my opponent. Diabetes is one of the most prevalent medical conditions today, affecting over 8% of all Americans. While this number may seem insignificant, please consider how many people in a room of 100 will suffer dire consequences from what my opponent proposes. C. And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once. . http://www.medscape.com... A key factoid for any Pharmacy student or medical student in general is the knowledge that alcohol interacts negatively with most if not all prescription medication. The physiology is complicated to explain, but generally speaking, both alcohol and prescription medications are processed by the liver, and simultaneous processing can lead to disastrous results. Alcohol in moderate amounts may have a slightly positive effect on blood pressure if taken over time and regularly, but when combined with blood pressure medications they can have terrible side effects, amplifying the effects of blood pressure medications. Since most blood pressure medications work throughout the day, and since alcohol has a much shorter cycle, it can have unpredictable effects on people taking those medications. Cholesterol lowering drugs, statins, interact violently with alcohol, with many being completely contraindicated since it could lead to liver toxicity and death. . http://askville.amazon.com... Both Cholesterol and Blood pressure medications make up the vast majority of prescription drugs in America. It is absurd not to categorize them as "average". How then, can my opponent continue to speak about beer being healthy for the average person, when he clearly has no idea what the average person is, and when he is heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen? In addition to those issues, my opponent also has poor justification for classifying me outside the realm of "average". It would be acceptable for him to say that my allergy to alcohol is rare, but it should not discount me from his population. It would be more extraordinary for a person to not have any allergies at all than to react badly to alcohol. There should be no question that I am both an average person and healthy, because I am. It just so happens that I have a sensitivity to alcohol. Though not exactly an allergy, my hypersensitivity to alcohol stems from the "Asian Curse", a lack of the enzyme Alcohol dehydrogenase that breaks ethanol down into acetic acid. The lack of this enzyme causes the toxic intermediate acetaldehyde to build up in larger concentrations for people like myself, leading to terrible side effects and exaggerated effects of alcohol consumption in shorter lengths of time. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Half of the Asian population is categorized as having this sensitivity, thus, amongst my fellow Asians, I am average. Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an "average" person is absurd. Not only is he restricting a massive number of "average" Americans (Americans who would be greatly harmed by beer as opposed to milk) from his resolution, but he also inexplicably wishes the audience to believe that the presence of an ethic trait is enough to categorize a person as abnormal. Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by "you". When people say "hey you! " in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word "you" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise? I did not understand my opponent's overly complicated explanation as to what is "average" or not, but I consider myself a healthy and average person. What law states that the average person must react well to alcohol? As such, I must restate my argument: My opponent is addressing me in both resolutions. I would have much more health detriment from drinking beer than from drinking milk. Thus, the resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

Should we drink milk Well there is 12 million cases of osteoporosis. How could that be????

Milk is good for your bones Definitions : Milk : The milk of cows, goats, or other animals, used as food by humans.[1] Bones : The dense, semirigid, porous, calcified connective tissue forming the major portion of the skeleton of most vertebrates.[2] Rules : 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. No spamming 4. No profanities The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that milk is actually good for your bones, feel free to join. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Drinking is healthy in moderation. It is important to recognize that drinking in moderation is healthy. It is more healthy than abstaining from drinking, and, of course, it is more healthy than drinking in excess. It is important to teach minors healthy forms of drinking and unhealthy forms of drinking.

Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. The resolution for this debate is "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk". Thus, my opponent's burden is to prove that Beer, in moderation, is healthier for me than milk is. I personally, am highly allergic to alcohol and cannot break it down. It gives me gastro-intestinal upset and at one point, hideous diarrhea. However, I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. Beer is, by definition, "an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste. " . http://dictionary.reference.com... The presence of alcohol in anything I consume will have great negative impact on my health and thus, I must assert that Beer, in any amount, is less healthy for me than milk. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

Chocolate milk is bad for your health This chocolate milk has a lot of bad things for health. This is a very big problem to occur in your life, of you going to be not healty. Well drink Chocolate milk please.www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4wGDl56Zg

Dairy is Bad For Your Health I accept :D

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

Dairy is Bad For Your Health I will be arguing that consuming dairy products is bad for your health. Con will be arguing that either dairy is entirely good for your health or that its benefits outweigh its health risk.

Chocolate milk is healthy. Instigator has claims set the chocolate milk is healthy. However, Instigator has not taken a few things into consideration:Studies show that in 8 oz of chocolate milk, there is approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar is added to chocolate milk.[1] That's almost as much as soda, which the example I'll use, Cola, has 11 teaspoons in a 16 oz soda (44g of sugar), which is 4.5 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 oz soda.[2] Also, even if the chocolate milk was low-fat, fat is not the same thing as sugar.Why is sugar a big deal, you ask? Well, sugar is high in fructose, or fruit sugar. Too much of it can overload your liver, can also give you Type II cancer, raises your chorestrol level (giving you a higher risk of heart diesese), among many other things. And since it also releases dopamine, a "feel good" chemical, sugar is highly addictive.[3]Point: Chocolate milk is much less healthier than normal milk, since it contains much more sugar that normal lactose milk. Some thing as sugary and addicting as chocolate milk can cause one to contract many dieseses/cancers.I await Instigator's next argument.Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://authoritynutrition.com...

chocolate milk should be wiped out No. Cholate milk sucks, And it has more sugar than you are supposed to drink in a day! The vitamins you get ARE important-but milk is not the best place to get them!

Chocolate milk is bad for your health Well chocolate milk has more sugars than cola, which is very surprising for, me. It says that this much sugar can be very bad for your health and could cause very bad health problems, inside your body. So I am guessing that this chocolate milk should be banned in school and also this chocolate milk has a very bad thing that it also makes you go fat and does not have that much nutrition such as vitamin C has only 4%. Does this tell you that chocolate milk is bad for your body? This milk also does say that it would be better to be buying or drinking this good old normal milk. They say that milk that is normal has a vitamin D and other good things for your body, which is I am thinking that this drink of the chocolate milk is just bad. I am also thinking that this choco milk also you will think, what this does not make sense. But I have a good backup for that. you can read that this chocolate milk can be a unhealthy drink that will only cover your body up with sugar. It can also be covering your body up with many calories. So please be kind and say yes and vote for me.

MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Okay.....ummmmm......milk is nasty and wrong!!!!! There's more than just milk in that milk mustache of yours!!!!!!! But hey!?!?!?!?!?! who doesn't want puss in their milk in the mornin'!?!?!?!?!

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

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Okay, Chocolate may TASTE good to some people but the calcium cannot be absorbed! Meaning, you get NO calcium from it!

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

humans should endeavour to become a vegan species thank you for embarking on this discussion with me. human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. the sophisticated library of terms that modern science uses to explain our nutritional needs are just elements of raw data that is only relevant to the persons in which the effects were observed. nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. the reality of the situation as is the case with most matters is the influence of financial profit. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren indeed plant life is also living. and its possible that plants feel just as much pain by our disturbing their natural life cycle. however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. ----------------------- apologies for any incoherent parts...........or any missing formalities..............im new to this but keen to improviing ------------------

Veal Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal

Chocolate milk is bad for your health Not quite sure what you mean by your last statement instigator.. care to explain it?

choc. milk in schools Chocolate milk contains more sugar and calories than regular milk, and in today's day and age there is an overwhelming percentage of kids struggling with obesity. A lot of people prefer the taste of white milk to chocolate milk, so any argument about flavor can be left out of it. If a kid won't drink milk otherwise and a parent is concerned about a calcium deficit, they can easily supplement with vitamins. My opponent has not shown that kids who drink chocolate milk are better at pull ups. It seems absurd to say a kid drinking chocolate milk can do more pull-ups than one drinking white milk. There are also a lot of vegans who are great athletes, so milk seems to not have any effect on athletic ability or energy.

Milk is good for your bones Okay, well this shall be my first debate on this site, so I hope that I do halfway decent considering. I suppose that I'm not supposed to state much on the topic and my position yet since you said we'll start in round two... So I suppose I'll just say good luck, or something of the sort...

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff I couldn't really be bothered reading that, so all I'm going to say is this: I firmly believe in the right to drink chocolate milk. It is delicious, and I am shocked that anyone would want to rid us of one of God's greatest inventions. Thank you, and good night.

Chocolate milk is bad for your health The instigator has failed to prove his/her statements as well as failed in observing the facts that have been copy and pasted into this debate showing the benefits of Milk Chococlate. VOTE CON!!! :)

MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. .. . MY INITIAL CAUSE FOR STARING THIS DEBATE WAS BECAUSE OF ALL THE STUFF THAT'S IN IT AND SEING WHAT OTHERS HAD TO SAY AGAINST IT. .. .. fOR OTHERS CONCERN LET ME SAY THAT THERE IS MORE IN MILK THAN JUST MILK! !! ! Dairy cows are constantly inpregnated to keep the milk flowing and they are constantly hooked up to machines that cause blisters and scabs. .. . Those scabs are then on the udders which are connected to the machines that milk the cow. .. . Now the scabs don't just disappear. .. .. .they end up in the milk that people drink. .. .. . That is what makes milk nasty, rather that is what I was refering to in this particular debate. .. .. .. .. .

Should we drink milk Milk may taste good, but imagine this, a cow drinking a frogs milk...

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Is chocolate milk okay to drink? I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn"t let your body absorb it. One reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed in schools is because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk has 20% more. For example if you take 25 and add 20%. You would have about 30 grams of sugar in one 7.5 ounce glass of chocolate milk. Also, when you drink chocolate milk all of the sugar that you get from it is really bad for your body. In addition, chocolate milk is drank a lot. So, if you drink a lot of chocolate milk then you are getting a lot of sugars, therefore wrecking your health. Another reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed at school is because most children don"t get chocolate milk except in school. "Many children only get to have chocolate milk at school"but they get to drink a lot of it there. Some children consume as many as 10 or even 15 cartons of chocolate milk in a week at school." Says Jonathan Smith, writer of Chocolate Milk: More Harmful Than Healthful. This is not a good thing! Because of this, kids might get... FAT! The final reason that schools should not allow chocolate milk is because yes, chocolate milk has calcium and other nutrients but all of the added sugar doesn"t let your organs absorb it. There is just so much sugar that all the good things in it will not be absorbed because of the sugar. Even if you drink fat free, you still get all the sugar and not enough nutrients. I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn"t let your body absorb it. So please don"t let kids have chocolate milk at Mapleview.

Chocolate Milk Chocolate Milk is a sugar itself. It is full of fat, and cholesterol. I hope this argument will provoke a spark of awareness, for people who are not aware of this hot topic issue.

humans should endeavour to become a vegan species human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. Your examples are of omnivore diets; eskimos eat fish, and game, amazons insects, fish, livestock, and game. Being omnivores is what allows us to eat such a wide range of nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. You are right. You could eat 33 cups of baby spinach, or 5 to 6 cups of cooked spinach to get the same calcium as 8 oz of milk. My point was more that no one really eat this much. You would have to eat all day long. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' Most of them never make a peer viewed study. They are not scientist because they are not trying to change the minds of scientist only the general public. if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. Actually there has been scientist that have claimed this; as a reason behind lactose intolerance. There was not much of a rebuttal. The rebuttal is we are getting used to it, because we have drank goat’s milk and not cow’s milk though out most of human history. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren Can you site a source for even one Indian tribe that is vegan? however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. Did you know talking to a plant makes it grow more? That there is a field of science that are studying plant this kind of stuff, it is called plant neurobiology. Also plants have a perceivable pain response. Many plants will recoil when you hurt them. http://www.discovery.com... My opponent as locked them self into it has to be livestock or plants. There are more options than just these to. The best argument on my side currently is that insects solve all of my opponent’s arguments so far and still have humans not being vegetarians. My opponent as yet to give a rebuttal to this point.

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

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

Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life I believe that water is always be the best choice as a healthy drink. Although there are many healthy drinks such as herbal tea,goat milk,and even coffee. But, water still be the best choice because it is calorie-free and no additional sweetener. Besides,we cannot avoid the fact that H2O is one of the major element in human body. It is about 50-65 % in adult, and in infants is about 75-78%. So,we need more water in our daily life. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://chemistry.about.com...

Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Many children refuse to eat or drink healthy things because of the way they taste, adding sugar is just fine with me if it gets kids to drink milk. I believe that chocolate milk is not as unhealthy as my opponent makes it sound. If anyone has too much of it, it may become unhealthy, but that's with anything. If all they have is the little 1 cup then it will be perfectly fine for their health. In conclusion, schools should not remove chocolate milk. Thank you for debating with me.

MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Greetings. I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. With that out of the way, let us proceed: In today's case, I (as the CON) will strongly negate my opponent's resolution that concerns Milk as being nasty. To counter this position, I advocate that Milk MAY be nasty. I define this position as being a position that takes the subjectivity of "taste" into account. Thus, I advocate that milk can taste "good" and "bad", but is not objectively nasty (as is my opponent's implication). It is the job of my opponent to conclusively prove that milk is objectively nasty. He has yet to provide an argument for this and I doubt he would be able to provide a valid one during the round. I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.

Chocolate milk is bad for your health The instigator was unable to contradict my rebuttals.

Milk is good for your bones Yeah, I'll just post these so that you don't need to wait for me to 'time out'. Thanks again. Not exactly positive first experience but all experiences just benefit me in the long run.

Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. . http://www.youtube.com... I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge to debate, I think this will be an enlightening experience for us both. I will be taking the position that Milk superior to Soy Milk today. I will explain why Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk via a series of contentions in this logically sound argument: 1. Superior means to be better or of greater quality or importance. 2. Cow's Milk has greater nutritional value then Soy Milk. 3. Cow's Milk costs less. 4. Therefore(from 2-3), Cow's Milk is superior to Soy Milk 1. The first premise is self-explanatory and is taken for granted via the definition of Superior. We can obtain the definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary but I cross-referenced other dictionaries to check other definitions. They seemed to vary a bit on their definition so I took the two most common words, quality and importance. Furthermore, this is supported by our intuitive notion of what being superior means. Generally when we think of something being superior, we mean that the thing in question is better than something else in some way. 2. I am imagine that this will be the major point of contention so I want to make a few things clear: We should be using USDA standards for Soy Milk and Cow's Milk as specific brands are bound to vary(I should clarify I am using their official food reports from both). I mean if I select the carb and fat free Soy Milk from shelves then obviously it will have a different caloric composition than a Silk or the USDA official statistics. Also via the milk consumption statistics at the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, 11-28-13, the most common milk drunk by Americans is 2%. I couldn't find statistics from other countries, therefore I will use the nutrition facts from 2% even though I could argue from the perspective of whole milk and still win. When comes to fat, Soy Milk certainly does has the advantage for fat in both overall fat and saturated fat, this is not in question. What I am going to question is the value behind this, I don't think that the higher fat quantity is what really makes us fat. I will attempt to prove this intuitively as well as empirically. First, intuitively think about the classic unhealthy foods for example the cheesy puff, according to Calories Count About for one serving the cheesy puff has only 5 grams of fat which is about equivalent to a glass of Soy Milk. Why is it so bad then? The carbohydrates. The carbs in Cheesy puffs is what makes it so fattening, and the type of carbs that it is, namely glucose. This can be applied to Cake, Soda, etc. Next, let's move to Calcium now generally speaking Soy Milk's are not fortified with Calcium. Only certain brands are and they generally cost even more than regular soy milk. The USDA recognizes this in it's statistics. Soy Milk only gives you 6% of your daily value of Calcium while Cow's Milk provides 29%. That's nearly a 500% difference! Why is this important? Well, it's important because we have group of people called senior citizens who need cheap sources of calcium to help fight off many diseases such osteoporosis. Just staying in the realm of Calcium, Cow's Milk provides more in terms of Vitamin B-12, Vitamin A, and Potassium. Soy Milk not only has more carbs per serving than Cow's Milk(15g vs 12g) it has a worse quality of sugar than Cow's Milk does. See when nutritionist's take about Carbs being bad for you they referring to simple sugars like glucose, the kind of sugar found in Soy Milk, because they are hard to digest. However, they are not referring to carbs with a low glycemic index, like lactose(the kind of sugar in Cow's Milk). Now some argument might be made to the effect of some people are allergic to Lastose but some people are allergic to Soy and their is no fix for that. You can get Lactose free milk or take a supplement Lastase enzyme. Now the next point I want to make is on the subject of Protein. The word Protein comes from the greek and means of first importance, I would refer the judges to the definition I provided in premise one of superior. Not only does Cow's Milk have more protein(8 vs 3 grams) it's protein of a higher quality. Casein and Whey Protein are the most frequently proteins used by bodybuilders, they are animal proteins as well so they are a complete protein and contain all of the branch chain amino acids. Soy however, is a plant protein and generally incomplete protein's that need to be supplemented with something else. Furthermore, Whey and Casein have higher Biological Value than Soy does. Soy Protein has 74, Whey has 104, and Casein has 77. In fact according to a study done by Nutrition Metabolism, dieters who increased their protein intake by 30 percent had lost about 11 pounds over a 12 week period. Eat more protein, get leaner. Cow's Milk may have more fat but the protein will help us lose weight anyway. 3. Cow Milk tends to cost less than Soy Milk by a lot. For example, for a half-gallon of Soy Milk(according to Forbes) it costs from 3.99-4.29. This is for a half-gallon of Soy milk people! For entire gallon of Cow's Milk I can get the same price! Given people use Soy Milk for pretty much the same purposes and ends as Cow's Milk it's absolutely frivolous to pay twice as much for the same amount. Especially since 9.1% of the population drink a gallon of Milk a day from the mentioned Milk Consumption statistics. It would absolutely ridiculous to spend 8 dollars a day when you can spend half that budget. 4. This follows from deduction/induction. I have shown via definitions,intuition, scientific studies, and statistics that Cow's Milk is healthier and cheaper, and therefore is superior to Soy Milk. I didn't even need to go into the testosterone lowering effects of Soy or the detrimental effect of Soy on the digestive system.

Cheese is evil O_o I accept this challenge.Cheese is not milky or creamy, it's just cheesy. It is very nutritious and has ample amount of calcium. Who cannot like this God-Like food?

Should we drink milk Its highly unlikely because they drink our water that we pay for we deserve something in return (milk)

Chocolate Milk Should not be in school What about the people who are as skinny as skeletons who need the sugar and fat to survive?

MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! My opponent has stated that milk is nasty in his original round as well as in the resolution. Thus, it is still his job to counter my case which referred to milk "tasting nasty." As for milking being nasty due to its origins, this argument suffers from the same flaws. To some, make me seem nasty due to the fact that it can come out of cow's utters, but to others, it most certainly doesn't. Thus, the flaw in my opponent's case is still the matter of "subjectivity." Furthermore, his argument goes about assuming that milk can only come from cows, but this is false too. Many of you may realize that milk is produced by other living creatures, but it can also be artificially produced. Furthermore, even in cow milk, milk producers put it through the process of pasteurization (a process which eliminates all harmful bacteria) before selling it to the market. I now stand ready for my opponent's final rebuttal.

White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk White milk is heltyer then chocolete milk and some people are alirgic to chocolete and its unfair to them to fell the pain of waching there friends drink it right infront of them, White milk! White milk! White milk!

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

White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Yeah but you are not drinking chocolate milk 24/7! That doesn't mean that . im saying that it is better because it has that sweet taste for every person who has a sweet tooth and want that taste instead of eating candy like crazy!

Milk is bad to the bone. R2 Rebuttals"Milk is good for you." nathanw2002I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I think I've adequately defeated this bare assertion made by my opponent already in round one. This is a bare assertion by nathanw2002 because the statement "milk is good for you" is true only because my opponent says so.12. http://fallacies.findthedata.com...

The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Kids who drink plain milk will indeed absorb more calcium than those who drink chocolate milk:According to my opponent’s link, a child who consumes one carton of plain milk will absorb 6 more milligrams of calcium than a child who consumes a carton of chocolate milk. This difference may be insignificant in the short-term; however, it can make a big difference in the long run. If a student drinks a carton of plain milk every day, he or she will absorb an additional 2,190 milligrams of calcium every year. Banning flavored milk will not decrease overall milk consumption in the long-term: My opponent mentioned a study which found that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. As it turns out, this study was funded by the Milk Processor Education Program (MPEP), the dairy industry’s national marketing group (1). The MPEP has spent over a million dollars to promote chocolate milk in schools. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor (2-3). Therefore, the results of this research article should not be weighted heavily. When we consider only objective research, we realize that banning flavored milk will not lead to decreased consumption in the long-term. For example, let’s examine the implications of limiting the availability of flavored milk in New York City schools. Beginning in 2006, flavored milk could be purchased only three days a week (4). In this year, most NYC schools also stopped serving whole milk. Initially, there was an 8% decline in milk purchases following the implementation of these new policies. Several students were probably not accustomed to drinking low-fat, plain milk. As a result, some kids may have initially avoided drinking milk altogether. However, by 2009, milk purchases had actually increased by 1.3% (4). This proves that children will eventually learn to accept unsweetened, low-fat foods. As Dr. Marlene Schwartz concluded, “It is probable that, immediately following removal of flavored milk from schools, children will drink less milk. Who really is surprised that, given the option, children prefer the taste of flavored milk to unflavored milk? Research with both animals and humans show that we all like the taste of sugar. However, examining what happens in the short-term is inadequate; the relevant question is what happens in the long-term when children are only served unflavored milk” (5). Conclusion: By serving our children flavored milk, we’re only training them to prefer, and eventually over-consume, sugar-sweetened beverages. Scientific studies show that banning flavored milk does not decrease overall milk consumption. Thus, all of our schools should stop serving flavored milk. I urge everyone to vote pro!References:(1) http://yaleruddcenter.org...(2) http://www.bmj.com...(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(4) http://journals.lww.com...(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Milk is good for your bones You shouldn't be sorry, I'm thankful that you can take part in this debate. Since this means Pro FF this debate, I think the winner is clear.

Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. “1. Superior means to be better or of greater quality or importance.” Something we can both agree one. “2. Cow's Milk has greater nutritional value then Soy Milk.” According to your own source, the USDA, both Cow's Milk & Soy Milk have the same proportion of protein at 8g per cup.2,3 Soy Milk also has dietary fiber, which is required for healthy digestion. Your Cow's Milk has none. Everyone knows that iron is required for strong bones. Guess what? Soy Milk has over THIRTY times the amount of iron that Cow's Milk has!2,3 Soy Milk even has 3x more Folate than Cow's Milk. Why is Folate important, you ask? Well, good sir, it's an essential nutrient, which means that without it, YOU DIE. Folate is needed for healthy blood cells and prevents anemia.5 “3. Cow's Milk costs less.” That's because it is of lesser quality and importance. Cheaper things are less superior to more expensive ones. This is common sense. “4. Therefore(from 2-3), Cow's Milk is superior to Soy Milk.” False, as I've already explained and will elaborate on. “When comes to fat, Soy Milk certainly does has the advantage for fat in both overall fat and saturated fat, this is not in question. I don't think that the higher fat quantity is what really makes us fat. Why is it so bad then? The carbohydrates.” That argument fails before it even starts. Fat people are fat because they have a lot of... fat! Not carbohydrates. Nobody calls people with a lot of carbohydrates... “carbo” or anything like that. Besides, a popular bodybuilding practice is to load up on carbohydrates (read: consume a LOT of carbohydrates) both before and after a workout. Carbohydrate loading is even done before bodybuilding exhibitions! If carbohydrates were so evil, bodybuilders wouldn't be eating so much of them. Allow me to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger himself: “I was carb backloading before it was hip”4 And here is an unflattering photo of Arnold devouring pure carbohydrates: FAT is the problem, not carbohydrates, and your beloved Cow's Milk has more fat than the Soy Milk you attempt to vilify. I will now initiate my offensive. Most people are lactose intolerant.1 This means that Cow's Milk makes them sick, makes their farts stink, causes bloating, diarrhea, and a host of other nasty problems. Soy Milk can be drunk by everybody, even people with lactose intolerance, with 0 ill effects! Soy Milk can also be drunk by vegetarians, as it isn't derived from animal products. Cow's Milk cannot be argued superior if the majority of the world's population cannot even drink it without violating their beliefs or becoming physically ill! “I didn't even need to go into the testosterone lowering effects of Soy or the detrimental effect of Soy on the digestive system.” Cow's Milk is worse for the digestive system than Soy Milk is. Also, the testosterone lowering effects of Soy help to prevent Roid-Rage6, which is known for causing violent crime. You don't hear about Soy Milk turning people into killers, do you? Didn't think so. Cow's Milk is not superior to Soy Milk. 1http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2http://ndb.nal.usda.gov... 3http://ndb.nal.usda.gov... 4http://www.hollywood.com... 5http://ods.od.nih.gov... 6http://www.foxnews.com...

is chocolate milk good for you i think chocolate milk is good for you. debate with me and you will find out why

Nutrition & Well-Being It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases and are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.[[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028]] Furthermore those who require "extreme performance" can find a comparable grade of protein quality from soya based products including soya "milk" shakes. All essential vitamins and nutrients can be acquired from vegan sources. Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association have endorsed vegetarian diets. Studies have shown that vegetarians have stronger immune systems than meat-eaters and that meat-eaters are almost twice as likely to die of heart disease, 60 percent more likely to die of cancer, and 30 percent more likely to die of other diseases. Consumption of meat and dairy products has been conclusively linked with diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, clogged arteries, obesity, asthma, and impotence. According to Dr T. Colin Campbell, nutritional researcher at Cornell University and director of the largest epidemiological study in history, "The vast majority of all cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other forms of degenerative illness can be prevented simply by adopting a plant-based diet." (i.e. a pure vegetarian diet with no animal by-products). Plus just think about this for a moment: some of the world's largest and strongest animals are pure vegetarians e.g. The Elephant, Hippo, Giraffe, Rhino, Cattle, Horses, Gorilla etc. And they seem to be thriving very well living off vegetation and have done so for many hundreds of years. . . . So does this not at least show you that to grow up big and strong we as humans too can gain all of the nutrients and dietary requirements solely from plant sources alone? Of course it does - common sense confirms this statement plus there have been countless studies with much evidence to show that a pure vegetarian diet is one of the healthiest choices you can make for you, the animals and the planet. And about the augument that 'vegetarians don't get enough protein' Plant foods offer abundant protein. Vegetables are around 23% protein on average, beans 28%, grains 13%, and even fruit has 5.5%. For comparison, human breast milk is only 6% (designed for the time in our lives when our protein needs are as high as they'll ever be). Professional recommendations for adults range from 2.5% to 10%, and plant foods supply that easily.

Should we drink milk Maybe they help digest stuff so they can make milk

Chocolate is good. First off, my opponent looks at a possibly biased source to defend his argument, instead of looking and comparing the benefits and unhealthy consequences of chocolate. This shows that his rebuttal is invalid because he did not focus on the real evidence on hand, which is the pros and cons of chocolate. I don't understand your second rebuttal. You mention that you've stated, "milk does give benefits," but I cannot find where you have said this throughout our debate. In response to your third rebuttal, I am saying that there are other better alternatives to chocolate, so therefore chocolate is not good because it is not the best option of food to choose from. For example. vanilla is a healthier and more beneficial food so chocolate is not a good option in comparison. As you can see, I have clearly won this debate because I have rebutted many of my opponent's points, and I have come up with a counterexample to refute his points. Please vote the the Opposition (Con).

Milk is good for your bones That's very kind of you.

Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal "What is wrong with veal?". Animal Defenders International. Retrieved 4.07.08 - "Milk-based diets are balanced rations that involve commercial milk replacers, which utilize surplus skim milk powder and whey – both byproducts of the dairy industry – in their production. These commercial milk replacers are of equal or greater nutritional value than milk straight from the dairy cow. A great deal of time and care are taken to train the young calves to drink their milk from pails, and during this training period their diet will be supplemented with water and electrolytes to ensure they receive adequate fluids and nutrition."

There are no negatives to moderate drinking R1 - An increase in appetite can cause various health issues however it is the food that causes those issues not the drinking and an increase in appetite isn't necessarily a bad thing. Studies suggests that lower levels of alcohol consumption can reduce stress; promote conviviality and pleasant and carefree feelings; and decrease tension, anxiety, and self-consciousness. In the elderly, moderate drinking has been reported to stimulate appetite, promote regular bowel function, and improve mood. For those that are anorexic a very serious disease moderate drinking is actually good for them. R2 - I assume you are talkin' about a hemorrhagic stroke I ask what men were affected the most like race? 80-85% of strokes are Ischemic while 15 -20% are hemorrhagic strokes so in fact drinking helps the majority and only affects the minority of strokes However their are many things that causes a person to be susceptible to a stroke 1.)High blood pressure - High blood pressure is the most important risk factor for stroke . In fact, stroke risk varies directly with blood pressure. Effective treatment of high blood pressure may be the reason that death rates for stroke have greatly decreased in recent years. 2.)Increasing age - The chance of having a stroke more than doubles for each decade of life after age 55. 3.)Prior stroke - The risk of stroke for someone who has already had one is many times that of a person who has not. 4.)Cigarette smoking - Cigarette smoking is an important risk factor for stroke . The nicotine and carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke damage the heart and blood vessels in many ways. The use of birth control pills combined with cigarette smoking greatly increases stroke risk. 5.)Male sex - Overall, men have about a 20 percent greater chance of stroke than women. Among people under age 65, the risk for men is even greater when compared to that of women. Heredity (family history) and race - The chance of stroke is greater in people who have a family history of stroke. African Americans have a much higher risk of death and disability from a stroke than whites, in part because blacks have a greater incidence of high blood pressure. 6.)Diabetes mellitus - Diabetes is an independent risk factor for stroke and is strongly correlated with high blood pressure. While diabetes is treatable, having it still increases a person's risk of stroke. 7.)Carotid artery disease - The carotid arteries in your neck supply blood to your brain. A carotid artery damaged by atherosclerosis (a fatty buildup of plaque in the artery wall) may become blocked by a blood clot and cause a stroke. 8.)Heart disease - A diseased heart increases the risk of stroke. People with heart problems have greater than twice the risk of stroke as those without heart problems. Heart attack is also the major cause of death among survivors of stroke. 9.)Atrial fibrillation (the rapid, uncoordinated beating of the heart's upper chambers) raises the risk for embolic stroke. 10.)Transient ischemic attacks (TIA's) - TIA's are "mini strokes" that produce stroke-like symptoms but no lasting damage. They are strong predictors of stroke. A person who's had one or more TIA's is almost 10 times more likely to have a stroke than someone of the same age and sex who hasn't. 11.)High red blood cell count - An increase in the red blood cell count is a risk factor for stroke. Excess red blood cells thicken the blood and make clots more likely to form. 12.)Cerebral Aneurysms- Aneurysms are blood-filled pouches that balloon out from weak spots in the artery wall. They're often caused or aggravated by high blood pressure but can be congenital. Aneurysms aren't always dangerous, but if one bursts in the brain, a hemorrhagic stroke results. More common cause of stroke in those under 40 years. 13.)Drug abuse - Intravenous drug users are at risk of stroke from cerebral embolisms . Cocaine use has been closely related to strokes and heart attacks. Some have been fatal even in first-time cocaine users. -The Heart- Moderate drinking more studies have found reduces your risk for heart disease. "The study's authors found that drinking about 30 grams of alcohol per day, or about 2 to 3 standard-size drinks, decreased women's risk of developing heart disease by 42 percent and decreased men's risk by 31 percent. The researchers noted the same risk reduction when they split the participants into three groups: 50 years old and younger, 50 to 60 years old and 60 or older." Also Data from other observational studies shore up these findings: a 10-year study of French and Irish men found that regular drinkers had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than nondrinkers or binge drinkers. Again, the key is moderation. Depression rates go up for both binge and nondrinkers, who have shorter lifespans than their moderately drinking counterpart R3 - The idea that one mixes their medication with their drinks is probably not indicative of someone who drinks moderately. You have not showed that their is a link that those who drink moderately also mix their medication with their drinks. R4 - The idea that women who drink during pregnancy probably don't understand the effects of alcohol on a baby. Furthermore moderate drinking is not good during pregnancy sure it helps the mother but the mother is giving nutrients to her baby and even when drinking moderately the baby is a whole different specimen so the baby cannot be considered a moderate drinker the size to intake is way off. thank you.

Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Too much sugar in Chocolate milk There is too much sugar in it and some may think it is healthy milk but it is not it has disease teaspoons of added sugar and 27 total grams of carbohydrates.According to Michigan State University Extension"In fact, when sugars are added to otherwise nutrient-rich foods, such as sugar-sweetened dairy products like flavored milk and yogurt and sugar-sweetened cereals, the quality of children"s and adolescents" diets improves, and in the case of flavored milks, no adverse effects on weight status were found." So those are my reasons and quote on There is too much sugar in chocolate milk.

Comment a Topic! In reference to my experiences, I have always found the majority of people prefer vanilla ice-cream and white milk not only for of its succulent taste but also because it is a healthier option. Moreover, if there was a magical cow that solely produced chocolate milk, what's to suggest that people won't grow tired of chocolate milk with their coffee and cereal? In addition, wouldn't this cause a proliferation in health problems for the vast population?

Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. . http://www.youtube.com... Explanatory Power and Burden of Proof Because no explicit of burden of proof was stated in the rules and neither me or my opponent claimed the other had burden of proof, we must assume a shared burden. This is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent does attempt to show the superiority of Soy milk via his offensive. Therefore, considering his argument versus mine, we must consider the merits of it as an argument itself. My argument naturally follows to it's conclusion albeit with an implicit premise and therefore my argument has great explanatory power, that is, if my argument hold strong no matter if my opponent likes it or any one does we have to concede the argument. My opponents argument however, has no explanatory power at all. Even if we grant all the premises he brings forward(which we will not be doing if you were wondering), it doesn't naturally follow that Cow's Milk isn't superior. At best it shows that Soy Milk has some advantages which I in fact never argued wasn't the case. My opponent offensive therefore really doesn't hurt my case at all, but nor does it strengthen his own. Hence even if you say my argument is completely invalid at best you should award us a tie in the arguments portion of the debate. The Protein Issue While I was mistaken on the protein portion of the contest, it was because of an oversight of serving size, in which I deeply apologize. However, my opponent drops my portion of the argument about biological values and different types of protein and therefore concedes that even if they have the same amount of protein, Cow's Milk is still far superior in types of protein. He also never addresses the fact that Soy is a plant protein and therefore not a complete protein. I will consider this dropped. The Vitamin Issue So I mention 4 vitamins are essential for the growth and development of human beings as well as the maintaining of a healthy lifestyle and my opponent mentions two. Furthermore, Vitamin B-12 and Vitamin A are both essential nutrients and without them you will die. So his folate argument really falls short here. Furthermore, there are many many sources of folate. You don't need Soy Milk at all to get folate. Anyway you look at it, four is still more than two. The Price Tag My opponent breezes past this point but he fails to say what he is saying. I would ask my opponent, are cigarettes of higher quality and importance(emphasis) than say his Soy Milk. Because it would seem that it costs more. We could also ask if a Big Mac is better Quality than Soy Milk. Quality isn't determined by market value. Quality is determined by comparing characteristics and benefits of one thing over another, while the market is determined by what people are willing to pay for. While some things that are more expensive are of high quality, it does not follow that everything of a higher price is of higher quality. To illustrate this point I will further elaborate, a experiment was preformed by a youtube channel called Brad Hensen did a taste test of In-N-Out versus Five Guys. There was obviously slight bias here, since it was out of California nonetheless the In-N-Out fries taste test was near even with In-N-Out only winning by one point. When it came to burgers however, In-N-Out blew Five Guys out of the water with a score of 18 to 1. However, the price of one In-N-Out burger was much much less than Five Guys(about 5.39 versus 3.80). So my opponents argument is invalid and my premise stands to support the argument. Most people are not lactose intolerant Anyone who clicks on his source will see even if you read the entire case study it never ever says that most people are lactose intolerant, what the case study shows is that if you eat excess lactose foods( 33 grams a day! !) you will suffer negative effects. There are only 5 grams of Lactose in a serving size of Cow's Milk. So unless you drinking 6 glasses of Milk a day, then this study is irrelevant. Another problem with the study was that it was only 21 days long and the short term effects were only shown. We don't know if there bodies would have adapted in the long term to this diet. If you change your diet dramatically in anyway you bound to have some negative effects. This includes with Soy. My opponent is being dishonest when he says that Soy Milk can be drunk by everybody. There two distinct groups that cannot drink Soy that can drink Cow's Milk. People who are allergic to Soy. Plus people who are bodybuilder because it lowers testosterone and raises estrogen. This is because it reduces muscles gains. And even if that were true that most people couldn't drink it, it would be irrelavent because we could only compare these two things in the realm of people who could drink both. Also steroid rage, only applies to the small number of people who take steroids and even then it's never been scientifically proven that steroid rage actually exists. The only cases of evidence are anecdotal not scientifically studied claims. Carbs versus Fats I would like point out he never argues aganist my points explicitly for carbs being worse he just says because it sounds like fat is what makes us fat therefore it must be what makes us fat. Obviously this is a vast oversimplification and he consequenitally drops my carbs portion of the case, so he must concede Soy Milk does contain more carbs even if he doubts the importance which I will explain is a mistake below. My opponent says bodybuilders eat tons of carbs. While many bodybuilders do eat many carbs and no one would argue they don't , however they are referring to complex carbohydrates with a high glycemic index. My opponent just completely drops the point about carbs and only tries to punish me on fats. Nonetheless, just because nobody says "your a carbo" doesn't prove anything as my opponent fails to understand. It is laughable that they show the California governor instead of the bodybuilder Schwarzenegger to support their point. A analysis of 21 studies published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that "a diet filled with saturated fat was not associated with increased risk. .. . [ of coronary heart disease, stroke or coronary vascular disease]". The problem with carbohydrates is that it's very easy to binge on them because they satisfy us often more than the fatty counterparts, for example cheesy puffs versus pork chops(pork has more fat, cheesy puffs more carbs). Fat is actually the preferred fuel of the human body. Evolutionarily speaking, we have been eatting fat heavy fat foods for thousands of years and we only(relatively) recently started eating all these carbs. I mean meat naturally contains a decent amount of fat. Another problem with carbs is that they are hard to digest in comparison to Fat. If you are still doubting my position, think about this. We absolutely need fat to survive, lipids are absolutely required for making ATP while the body can produce it's own glucose. In fact, carbohydrates are the only macronutrients we can completely cut from our diet and be completely fine, eliminate fats or protein and eventually you will die from a nutrient deficiency.

choc. milk in schools Regular milk provides the same benefits, without the excess sugar.

is chocolate milk good for you Hello - I have accepted this debate, topiced "Is milk Chocolate good for you". My opponent has begun by saying that chocolate milk is good for me. My position is that Chocolate milk is not good for me at all, and I look forward to seeing why my opponent thinks I am wrong about myself.

White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk White milk has more Vitamin D than Chocolate milk and kids love it because there's sager! Kids love Chocolate and they wanted for kids to drink more milk so they made it together!

Chocolate is healthy Just to clarify, I'm new to this, so... ANYWAY Chocolate has many health benefits, including better blood circulation and flow, antioxidants, and decreases blood pressure. Obviously, I'm not talking about the milky, sugary chocolates that first appear in your mind upon hearing the word. I'm talking about the bitter-sweet, dark chocolate. The higher the cocoa content, the more health benefits there are and the less sugar content, which is better for overall health. NOW FIGHT MEEE