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.

Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans

Milk is extremely healthy for people because it contains vitamin D

Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no

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)

Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health.

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

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

"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 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

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

As con had only argued one point my original arguments still stand. Milk is not really healthy for you.

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

Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no

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: ? ??

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

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

Should we drink milk

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

Should we drink milk

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...

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

Should we drink 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.

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!

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.

Chocolate milk is healthy.

yes it might but it replenishes the depleted calcium when it gets digested

Should we drink milk

Milk is not 100% factually intended for human consumption is it? because milk is intended for feeding calfs to survive in the years before able to create memories or move about. Human do produce enough milk for the same thing. If it was solely intended or human consumption then i would accept the made by God for the us to be the best we can. But it is not. The milk is perfect to keep a mother child into the taste and riches of nutrition but it is of no interest of making human design any better

Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical

Well there is 12 million cases of osteoporosis. How could that be????

Should we drink milk

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...

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...

Milk is good for your bones

Drinking milk can cause osteoporosis.

Should we drink milk

The gummy worms you eat are fed to cows...

Should we drink milk

Maybe they help digest stuff so they can make milk

Should we drink 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.

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...

Milk is bad to the bone.

Milk is good for you.

Milk is bad to the bone.

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.

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

Chocolate milk is healthy.

That's very kind of you.

Milk is good for your bones

It depletes the calcium from your bones to digest it.

Should we drink milk

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: The Harmful Stuff

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

Chocolate milk is bad for your health

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.

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

Chocolate milk is healthy.

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.

Milk is good for your bones

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?

Comment a Topic!

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

is chocolate milk good for you

Well that's that... Thanks for the 'debate'.

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

Milk is good for your bones

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.

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 is healthy.

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.

humans should endeavour to become a vegan species

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!

Chocolate milk should be served in school!!!

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.

Chocolate milk is bad for your health

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.

Not quite sure what you mean by your last statement instigator.. care to explain it?

Chocolate milk is bad for your health

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.

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.

Dairy is Bad For Your Health

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...

Milk is bad to the bone.

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...

Milk is good for your bones

Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal

Veal

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...

The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk

The World Health Organisation, a collection of internationally qualified doctors state that breast milk naturally contains all the nutrients that a child could need for the first 6 months of its life [[http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/exclusive_breastfeeding/en/index.html]]. From iron to zinc, calcium to protein; everything that is vital for a healthy young life can be found in these natural given milk ducts. The Government should make it compulsory for mothers to breast feed to ensure that every child is allowed to benefit from this. Not one child should ever be disadvantaged due to their mother’s selfish choice or lack of effort. To make breast feeding compulsory is the only way to ensure this fairness. If we want equality, this is what we must do.

All children are entitled to a healthy start in life

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

is chocolate milk good for you

I apologize for not being more concise on what we were arguing over. We will be arguing over the morality of eating animal products.Thank you, Pro, for accepting my challenge.My ArguementAnimal products, including milk, eggs, cheese, meat, and seafood, are not necessary to sustain a healthy body. Therefore, a living creature that has feelings and can feel pain and can suffer must endure a life of torture then be slaughtered for the sake of taste, not health.Humans have become arrogant because we are more advanced than any other species on planet Earth. This causes humans to believe other creatures, through evolutionary processes (if atheist) or Creation (if Christain), have been placed here so humans may use them as they please.So, I ask you, should an animal endure pain and die so that humans may take part in enjoying them only for pleasure, not survival?

Eating animal products.

mmmmmm chocolate..... I don't drink CHOCOLATE milk for the calcium, I drink it for the CHOCOLATE and as you know, CHOCOLATE tastes good..................................

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff

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.

Is Chocolate Milk Better than White 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...

"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."

Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal

Victory!

Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty

I like chocolate milk because it tastes nice. mmmmm chocolate

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff

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...

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

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff

I accept :D

Dairy is Bad For Your Health

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.

Milk is good for your bones

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

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff

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...).

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.

Dairy is Bad For Your Health

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: The Harmful Stuff

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...

Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life

//Having a baby is a beautifull,and bonding with your infant directly after it's birth is crucial. // Not arguing , it is beautiful and amazing. However there are other ways to bond with your child. Skin to skin bonding , singing to your child, talking to you child, holding you child, looking at your child. My daughter and I are very bonded and she was not breast fed. Breastfeeding is good , but not for everyone. //Breast feeding inables you to be very close to your new child and give him or her affection every time they eat. A new borns eye's allow them to see only to the mothers face while breast feeding!// A mother can bond while feeding a child with a bottle as well ... Also when breast feeding the baby often doesn't bond with the father as quickly . A father then doesn't get to hold his newborn as much and often feels inadequate and left out. My aunt just brestfed her 7th child after bottlefeeding the rest and her husband felt he didnt get to be as close when she was a newborn and often felt leftout. //It takes patience, and a little bit of pain sometimes, but being a mother your job doesn't stop when tht baby is born, it just begins! Parenthood means sacrifice and your body is not yours any more. Sacrificing things you would like to do, such as drink alcohol, smoke, or drugs aren't healthy for you anyway. It would be selfish to decide to bottle feed just based upon the mothers wish to break free from her new little "bondage". // Just because a mother chooses not to breastfeed her baby , does not make her selfish. There are other reasons mothers choose not to breastfeed their child besides they want to drink or smoke! Some women can't , some develop thrush which is beyond painful and often times makes it impossible to breastfeed, some mother need help from other family members as they have other young children. If you have 3 or 4 children under 5 , maybe breastfeeding isn't possible. Some mothers have no choice but to go back to work and just can't continue to pump. The list goes on and on. Some babies don't gain enough weight and have to be put on formula. //Breast milk (starting off as colostrum) has antibodies,fat,vitamins,and minerals that your baby needs. Unlike formula there's no air (which cuts down on gas), and your body actually formulates and changes the milk as the baby grows to give them everything there body needs. Formula does NOT do that. Formula can also lead to constipation, stomache aches, makes poop smell bad (YES, breast fed babies do not have smelly poop) it's expensive, and if not used properly unsanitary.// Maternity nurses often advocate breast feeding , however most pediatricians don't. They say its best to do what is right for you and your child.My daughter was fed by formula and had no problems with gas and no problems with stomach aches. My cousin is breastfed and is often constipated and if you believe a baby that breastfed has poop that doesnt smell , you are mistaken. The diaper I changed the other day smelt horrible ... so unfortunately I think you are always at risk for smelly diapers regardless as to what your baby drinks. Formula can be expensive , but some women can afford it and don't mind paying for it. That is their choice and their money. There also is WIC , a program that helps mother and infants from low to middle incomes . You do not need to be LOw income to recieve help from them. They give mothers checks good for formula at any local grocery store , or if you are breastfeeding they will give these checks/vouchers for whole milk, Peanut butter etc. Also its is a mothers responsibility to make sure the formula is sanitary, just as it is a mothers responsibility to make sure her breast milk is sanitary (ie from smoking , alcohol etc.) Also my daughter was formula fed and she was hardly ever sick when she was a baby. I know breastfed kids that have been sick ... Some kids are healthier as babies , some aren't. It always depends. //Babies need nurturing, eye contact, fondling and to be held and suction (breast feeding takes longer than bottle feeding, and this could eliminate pacifiers). Breastfeeding insures that a baby gets all of these things. Forget about geting together bottles every time you go out. Just take a blanket and you can feed so descretly sometimes my own husband doesn't know I'm doing it. Breast feeding is good for a mother and a babies developments, and should be tried and embraced.// Some Babies that are breastfed take pacifiers , just as some some babies that are formula fed take pacifiers. Thats just because certain babies are different. Some women do not feel comfortable breastfeeding in public. That should be their choice. Maybe you find it can be discreet , but not everyone feels that way. As much as it should be breastfeeding in public places is not always accepted and that puts some women off and thats their choice. You can not say that babies that are not breastfed don't receive nurturing. My daughter and I have been bonded since the day she was born. We also have always made eye contact ..whether she was drinking her bottle , Some women do not mind getting bottles together to go out. It shouls be a personal decision based on whats best for each mother and child.

Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.

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

Thank you for posting an informative response, now here's my argument: Firstly, Yes Humans can only be tested on if they give their consent and yes animals do not have that choice. But surely that would support the against side? If an animal clearly does not have the logic to make it's own decisions, speak, work out mathematical problems etc. So humans are rightfully, more powerful than animals, meaning we should be entitled to do what we wish. If you completely disagree with this, then you must disagree with society? In the current UK government - cuts are made left right and centre, no-one gets a say in this because the government are more powerful than the middle and lower class and as we can see the government have Control over us. Just like we have control over animals. Basically, there's a hierarchy in this world > world leaders at the top > government workers > councillors > upper class > middle class > lower class > animals > plants. (Plants wouldn't technically count) and the item that is to the left of the item on the right, has more power / dominion e.g. the councillors are more powerful than the upper class and everything (but plants) has more power over animals. It's the basic hierarchy in life which we all follow and are accustomed to in society, obviously something which has little or 0 intelligence, remains at the bottom = animals. Secondly, Cloning can actually benefit people quite a lot. Let's take a cow for an example. We all know cows produce milk which makes cheese, yogurt, butter, ice cream etc. and each cow has something slightly different about them e.g. 1 may produce 2 litres more milk per month, 1 may run away when getting ready to be 'milked'. However if a farmer identifies a cow which always has a higher concentration of milk in it's udders , such as 5 litres more every week than the average cow, then to try and get a 'herd' which produces more milk - cloning would easily come in handy here. It benefits the farmer, who faces less chance of losing money. It benefits the cow because..it has more milk? But it benefits the people and the economy - by providing more food and helping to pour cash flow into the economy. So you can see that cloning isn't always a negative thing. Thirdly, Many breakthroughs in medicine have occurred from animal testing. To name a few; Paracetamol, Allergy tablets, Ibuprofen, 'stem cell research' + many vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella). Also, I remember in 1 incident in .. 1960's? Of a drug called thalidomide (I think) - which was given to pregnant women to stop morning sickness, but a huge error had occurred - the drug was never tested on any female / pregnant animals. So when the babies were born they were deformed e.g. having 3 arms or 2 foreheads. Now stop and look at this situation, 10,000 - 20,000 victims from this drug..simply because it wasn't tested on a pregnant ANIMAL. What would you rather have? 20,000 babies with defects or 10 animals who will end up with 'problems' and possibly being killed but who will stop 20,000 lives from being ruined. Finally, I'm pretty sure you don't place laundry detergent in your eyes, and if you did it would probably hurt a lot, so I'm fairly sure that was a bad example to use. You simply don't realise, I guarantee you, that you are wearing a piece of make up now or have before...did it ever hurt you (if you're not allergic), did your eyes start burning, did your teeth start dissolving? No. All because animals were there to protect you from being hurt - I'm pretty sure an animal (if it had a brain as complex as a humans) would feel proud that they're dying to protect another species from pain. I look forward to your next argument (I may not answer until the next day though - Incredibly tired).

animal testing

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!!! :)

Chocolate milk is bad for your health

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.

is chocolate milk good for you

You say something along the lines that cows only exist so humans can eat them... that is their life's purpose. Do you mean to say that if humans never evolved, then cows would not exist? This seems ridiculous to me... can you provide me with evidence please ?

we should eat cows without feeling the guilt and sympathy

However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - "All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy." I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.

Vegetarianism is a good idea.

(First debate on this website ayuda me por favor) Eating animals may seem like a morbid activity from a vegetarian's point of view, But it is natural in human nature. To begin with, Meat contains a large amount of raw protein and nutrients that is beneficial to human health. Vitamins A, B and D are commonly found in meats, Which promotes eye vision, Bones, Teeth and helps the nervous system. Other advantages of this food source include healthier blood cells, Nerves, Lean muscle mass and sustaining levels of iron. What is so bad about improving one's well-being? They call it slaughter, Cruelty and savagery towards living creatures; it is actually called normal, Natural, Delicious and perfectly healthy.

Animals Can be Consumed by Humans

Animals Can be Consumed by Humans

Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. Because, for exracting milk, you need not do anything which imposes serious kinds of threat to those domestic animals. And if somebody like you or I do that, the feeling will grow among you that we should be sympathetic to animals. If milk is not bought from the markets, neither this opportunity nor some other benefits are available. Last of all, if you are benefitted enough from this business, then and only then you will be able to provide it with its necessities, otherwise not possible at all. Now if you cannot provide it with what it wants, it cannot be called mercy/humanity, can it? So come on and understand the fact well. Coming on in the next round.......

Mathnerd: Of your three reasons to be a vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is beneficial to both the vegetarian and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is more healthful. All 13 amino acids and other required nutrients may be obtained easily with very much attention. A vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholesterol and very little saturated fat). Actually, some veggies contain huge amounts of saturated fats - coconuts for example. So we are in close agreement on point one. 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contributes to the extinction of many species from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. To say nothing about the higher costs of vegetables because of the reduction of quality arable land. I'm not terribly concerned about green house gases, as I am not a subscriber of human caused Global Warming Theory, but I generally agree with point two. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. My divergence from you position is in the inconsistencies of accepting the consumption of milk and eggs and the fact that your profile shows that you are pro-abortion. Chickens that are used for egg production are kept in tight environments, Additionally their beaks are cut back to prevent damage to their crowded-in neighbors. After a very miserable life they are slaughtered for soup, when they are no longer productive. Presumably, they would still be slaughtered for pet food, even if all persons became vegetarians of the egg and milk variety. In the case of milk cows, heifers are welcomed but (male) calves are eschewed as a liability. Right now they are immediately slaughtered for (monkey) veal. Their venerated sisters will calve and produce milk and calve, again until they no longer produce. They then become food for pets. Not a great life either. Lastly, you favor abortion. Forgive me if I presume that your sympathies are reserved for animals. Even though I am not a vegetarian, I try to limit my intake of animal flesh. I disagree with PETA in their ‘Animal Rights' position. There is certainly, an ethical requirement that we the limit pain and discomfort that farm animals must endure, but animals have no rights. In the other hand . I admire your compassion for animals. Your arguments are well reasoned and strongly stated.

People should not eat animals.

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.

choc. milk in schools

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

We have all been raised in a society that has convinced us that wrong is right. From childhood, we have actually been taught that animals are something to use, to be made into a sandwich, or a bag or a jacket. That society also once said slavery is okay. All good people follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Animals qualify as others. They feel fear, pain and grief, just like people. In terms of suffering there is no difference between killing a cow and killing a person. They both feel the same degree of pain, they are both innocent therefore both cases are wrong. Quite frankly, eating meat is a very selfish thing to do. Meat eaters believe that as long as they get their bacon, animal abuse is okay. They believe that the taste of chicken or beef is more important than the lives of innocent and terrified beings. That mentality is pure evil. Meat is pleasurable to eat,but you can also eat a totally healthy vegan diet. Therefore meat is killing for fun. Meat eaters make the same excuses Nazis made, and slave owners. They decide that because someone is different, they are inferior. If humans were really superior to animals, we would know better than to slaughter 150 billion of them per year. Yeah, you read that right. This is the worst holocaust that has ever taken place, and yet it's happening right this second. The only time it is okay to eat meat is to save your own life. Not because it tastes good. You also don't need to eat meat or animal products like dairy and honey to be healthy. Humans are biologically herbivores. Our teeth are designed to chew plants. Our jaws can move side to side, like a cow. Dogs and other meat eaters can't do that. We also have the correct intestine length in relation to our torso to be herbivores, and we have no carnivorous instincts. People see slaughterhouse footage and it makes them upset. If a bear saw a slaughterhouse he would think it's a buffet. Slaughterhouse workers have been known to get PTSD. Think about that for a second. Meat, in my opinion is disgusting. When you eat meat you are literally eating a dead body. A corpse. Gross. You don't need cows milk to be healthy anymore than you need dog milk to be healthy. You can get plenty of calcium from fruit. Besides torturing and slaughtering billions of innocent animal per year, the meat industry cause 51% of the carbon emissions on this planet and destroy more forest than any other industry in order to raise cattle that will be murdered one day. In short, we've all been duped. Bad health, a shitty planet and torture are not, and never will be worth the taste of bacon.

Veganism

I have some actually have some FACTUAL... REAL WORLD... EVIDENCE! A study in Ethiopia was conducted in 2017 to see the effects on people who poured their milk in before their cereal, as oppose to their cereal before their millk. The Results were... Inconclusive...?! Oh wait the study cite's a quote on quote "lack of food" in Ethiopia for the reason they were unable to complete the study. Huh. But the math behind the argument still cheks out, as Jesus prophesised in Al Quran 21:33 "He who shaltif pour thy milk of thy ox before thy wheat thou shalt of sowed, SHALL BE STONED!!!

Milk should be poured before cereal.

So, lets take a look at the topic of this debate: Breat feeding is healthy for your baby, and ABLE mothers should at least TRY it. Never in my opening statement or topic, did I state that bottle feeding mothers were bad. Nor, did I say that everyone should (for one year) breast feed their babies. My debate is about TRYING to breast feed. In the begining colostrum is very important. The arguments I gave were incintives to why you should at least TRY to breast feed. Some mothers don't even see if they could or like to breast feed. Of course not everyone feels that breast feeding is exceptable because of societies biased it is not gross or perverted to breast feed. Our culture should make natural feeding mothers feel more comfortable. As you say there are other ways you can bond with your child. Personally, I think there all good interactions... but don't discredit the fact that breastfeeding is a good way to bond. Personally, I believe you should do more than one thing to bond with your offspring. Just as you say there's more than one way to bond with babies other than breastfeeding, aren't all the wonderfull examples you gave ways for a Father to bond with the baby as well? It takes patience, and a little bit of pain sometimes, but being a mother your job doesn't stop when tht baby is born, it just begins! Parenthood means sacrifice and your body is not yours any more. Sacrificing things you would like to do, such as drink alcohol, smoke, or drugs aren't healthy for you anyway. It would be selfish to decide to bottle feed just based upon the mothers wish to break free from her new little "bondage". // In the excerpt, I never said a mother was selfish for having to go back to work, or having something physical happen to deter breast feeding. Not sacrificing uneeded things is what I suggested was selfish. Was the smelly poop baby eating baby food? Some familes are not in the proper financial bracket to receive WIC, and you can only get certain types of formula with it. Please realize this is not an attack on bottle feeding familes... and if there's any more confusion please report back to the topic of the debate. So, do you belive women SHOULDN'T TRY to breast feed?

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...

Milk is good for your bones

Eggs have many health benefits. Eggs are a very good source of inexpensive, high quality protein. More than half the protein of an egg is found in the egg white along with vitamin B2 and lower amounts of fat and cholesterol than the yolk. The whites are rich sources of selenium, vitamin D, B6, B12 and minerals such as zinc, iron and copper.(www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/ingredient-focus-eggs) And while boosting your health, the eggs may also taste pleasant, given that you can fix them any way you like.

Humans should eat eggs.

Humans should eat eggs.

We cannot say that we are creating fairness among young babies by making breast feeding compulsory. The quality of each mother’s milk will differ. Some mothers may have dietary concerns themselves and therefore their breast milk will not contain all the nutrients their child would need. Therefore children would still be disadvantaged in comparison to those who had healthy mother milk, even if breast feeding were compulsory.

Hello, thank you for taking the time to read my position on veganism. Living a vegan lifestyle is the best way to ensure your own personal health, as well as the stability of the environment, and the health and happiness of sentient beings. ENVIRONMENT: Animal agriculture is an absolute disaster for our planet for many reasons. It is a major cause of deforestation and ocean dead zones. There is a constant demand for more land to keep livestock and grow crops to feed said livestock and most of the time, the only available land is covered by forest. Forests are an extremely important part of keeping the planet's climate in check and provide habitats for wildlife. The waste from the animals ends up in our fresh water and in the oceans, which creates incredible amounts of pollution, which create dead zones in the oceans. Factory farms majorly contribute to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, animal agriculture adds at least 32 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR. There is also the ridiculous amount of methane produced by cattle. In addition to all of this, animal agriculture is a massive waste of water. Think about it, there are millions of animals that drink many, many gallons of water every day. Agriculture uses around 70% of the world's fresh water. That water could be going towards humans who need it and towards sustainable crops to feed humans. The land used by animal agriculture could also go towards growing sustainable crops for human consumption, which would result in diminishing world hunger. HEALTH: Consuming animal products increases our chances of serious diseases and shortens our lifespans. Proteins in animal products can not be properly and fully digested in our systems. Consumption of animal products contributes to cancer, heart diseases, and strokes, among other issues. Animal products also change the pH in our bodies, creating a great environment for bacteria and cancer cells to thrive. This pH change in combination with the proteins and hormones (particularly from dairy) also decreases our bone density, which ultimately results in osteoporosis. Animal products are also dangerously high in saturated fats and cholesterol, which are common knowledge awful for our health, and are the main causes of the health issues from animal products. ETHICAL Humans exploit and enslave animals in a multitude of ways, but here, I will focus on the food aspect. I will start this with dairy. Humans are the only animals on the planet that not only continue to consume milk after they are weaned from their mothers, but we are also the only ones to take the milk from mothers of different species. Dairy cattle are forcefully bred each year, and within a couple days of a cow's calf being born, her calf is ripped away from her and forced into a veal crate. If you are against veal, you are also against dairy, because without dairy, there is no veal. These cows live in unforgivable conditions. More often than not, they don't even have room to even turn around and they spend their days up to their ankles in their own waste. They are hooked up to milking machines which hurt the cattle and create open sores on their udders. Keep in mind that the blood and pus from these open sores ends up in your milk, along with traces of feces and urine. Beef cattle are packed like sardines into holding pens and live (and die) in extremely stressful, traumatizing conditions. Killers attempt to knock the cattle unconscious before hanging them upside down and slitting their throats, but more often than not, the cattle are still alive throughout the entire process until they eventually bleed to death or choke to death on their own blood. Both egg and meat chickens live either in tiny cages or packed warehouses. These chickens are packed with hormones to grow faster and to produce more eggs. The chickens endure debeaking (having the tips of their beaks burned off) while fully conscious with no painkillers or aftercare. Once chicks hatch from eggs, if they are male, they are typically ground up alive, and if they are female, they are forced to live the miserable life of an egg laying hen. Pigs also live in very confined spaces and up to their bellies in their own waste. There are so many atrocities, I can not list them here. If you take the time to watch Earthlings (link is in my sources) you will see just how cruel humans are to animals. Animals are sentient, self-aware creatures who want to live and be healthy just like the rest of us. They feel fear and pain their entire lives up until the very moment they are brutally murdered. FINAL THOUGHTS Human beings were never supposed to consume animal products on the scale we do today. It is unsustainable for our planet and our own well being. If we were meant to eat it, we would be able to eat it raw without worries and we wouldn't have to season and marinate it in order for it to taste good to us. Animal agriculture is unnecessary and detrimental. You can get the same exact flavors from plant based items and far more health benefits. VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR AND YOUR LIFESTYLE. SOURCES Environment https://news.mongabay.com... https://www.mission-blue.org... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.ibtimes.com... https://academic.oup.com... http://www.cowspiracy.com... Health https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://www.pcrm.org... Ethical

Veganism is the Best Lifestyle for the Planet, Animals, and Human Health

Nancy Solomon. "Breastfeeding in Public Is a Basic Civil Right." WEnews. August 7, 2002: "breastfeeding offers significant health benefits to nursing mothers, including reduced risks of breast and other types of cancers, as well as osteoporosis."

Breastfeeding improves health of mothers

According to the World Health Organization, “Infants should be exclusively breastfed – i.e. receive only breast milk – for the first six months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health. 'Exclusive breastfeeding' is defined as giving no other food or drink – not even water – except breast milk.”[1]

Breastfeeding is best for the health and development of babies

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'!?!?!?!?!

MILK IS NASTY!!!!!!

Okay we're only on round two, so before I begin decimating your faulty logic I want to ensure you are familiar with how evolution works. Let's agree on the following fact before continuing:Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.Agreed?

Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide.

Before I begin I didn't define milk. By milk I meant cow's milk. Milk " a white liquid produced by a woman to feed her baby or by female animals to feed their young; especially : milk from cows or goats that is used as food by people : a white liquid produced by a plant" [1] Merriam-webster Outline I. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. II. Prove suffering from milk production. III. Establish purchasing of milk causes suffering. IV. Milk in not needed for human survival. V. Prove animal cruelty VI. Prove endorsement VII. Rebuttal of Con's argument VIII. Links I. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. Suffer " : to experience pain, illness, or injury : to experience something unpleasant (such as defeat, loss, or damage) : to become worse because of being badly affected by something " merriam-webster.com [2] "After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven (Op-Ed)" Marc Bekoff livescience.com [3] "With a focus on vertebrates, this section presents a brief discussion of what constitutes good evidence of the capacity to experience pain. The discussion emphasizes the strength of the evidence that all mammals (including rodents) are able to experience pain; raises the possibility that fish may feel pain" National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. [4] As a cow is a mammal, mammals can feel pain, therefore cow can feel pain and thus the ability to suffer. II. Prove suffering from milk production. "All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow"s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a "rape rack."" Humanemyth.org [5] "Most cows used for dairy production are kept indoors, with some having access to outdoor concrete or dirt paddocks. They are often forced to stand on hard surfaces"something their hooves are not designed for. This contributes to lameness, a condition where cows" feet become inflamed, making it painful to walk. Additionally, cows in the dairy industry are forced to suffer through: Widespread Infections: Unnaturally high milk production leads to mastitis, a painful bacterial infection causing a cow"s udder to swell. In 2007, 79% of farms that reported permanently removing cows from their herds did so because of mastitis." ASPCA.org [6] III. Establish purchasing of milk causes suffering. Some are of the train of thought "the milk is already produced, so no harm is being done by purchasing the milk." Yet, purchasing the milk at the supermarket will eventually lead to suffering. The simplest explanation is if nobody bought any milk, demand would rapidly fall. Supply would follow suit. Less cows would be needed to met the supply, therefore less cows being bred into existence and finally less cruelty. The opposite is also true. If more people bought milk more demand would be created, more supply, more cows, and more cruelty. IV. Milk in not needed for human survival. A.Vitamin D "People who live in areas receiving plenty of sunlight develop darker skin from excess melanin and need more sun exposure such as two hours or more to get their vitamin D. Those with lighter colored skin require less exposure, anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes." examiner.com/ [7] "Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in very few foods, added to others, and available as a dietary supplement. It is also produced endogenously when ultraviolet rays from sunlight strike the skin and trigger vitamin D synthesis." ods.od.nih.gov [8] B. Calcium "Collard greens, cooked1 cup357" Reed Mangels, PhD, RD [9] That's 357mg of calcium in a cup of collards. "Dairy milk has long established itself as a rich source of calcium, containing about 300 milligrams of calcium per 8-ounce serving. " fitday.com [10] From above one can see that a vegan can meet his/her nutritional needs. Besides they are plenty of health vegans. Including Al Gore and Bill Clinton. huffingtonpost [11] V. Prove animal cruelty Animal cruelty which is distinct from suffering is now established since one does not need to drink milk to survive. "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." wikipedia [12] VI. Prove endorsement At the supermarket you are in public. People can see you. If you pay by check or credit card you must sign. You are publicly signing for the purchase of the good. Since your purchase of milk will cause animal cruelty, when you sign for your purchase you are literally endorsing animal cruelty. Even if you pay cash you are still giving your approval and support publicly through non-verbal communication. VII. Rebuttal of Con's argument "Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. " Con Buying both milk and meat from the supermarket endorse animal cruelty. There is no way to know what product people would buy in lieu of milk. They could buy meat, but fruit is just as likely. Since meat production is very similar, its safe to say if purchasing milk endorses animal cruelty so does purchasing meat. Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to your argument. VIII. Links http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://www.aspca.org... http://www.examiner.com... https://ods.od.nih.gov... http://www.vrg.org... http://www.fitday.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...