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

Should People Become Vegetarian

And so forth..

All people should become vegetarian

Ho Hum..

All people should become vegetarian

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

Everyone should become a vegetarian

I'll be arguing that the opponent's claim that "humans should become vegetarian" is not adequately supported and cannot be upheld. I'll be stating now the assumption that "vegetarian" refers to a person who doesn't eat animal meat. I'll furthermore clarify that the word "should" implies a moral, ethical and/or pragmatic desirability factor. As such, he is making an objective claim and possesses the Burden of Proof. I look forward to opening arguments.

Humans should be vegetarians.

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

Everyone should be vegetarian.

Just need help with the possible arguments

Everyone should become a vegetarian

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

Should People Become Vegetarian

I accept.

THW become Vegetarians

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

Humans should be vegetarians.

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

Everyone should be vegetarian.

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

Everyone should become a vegetarian

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

Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live.

You're right, they don't provide most of the meat for the public. It is a very minimal amount. They have quite a small farm with not a lot of workers, so it does make sense, the part about it not being eaten by many people. I do agree with it being sick and inhumane for them to pump chemicals into the animals; in fact, I wish there was some kind of law passed that makes it illegal to do that. The thing is, there isn't one. I don't see why they even do that, and I completely agree with you that they shouldn't. I'm completely at loss as to what to say for the rest, as you've been a brilliant debater with brilliant arguments and you've made me agree with lots of things I didn't before. I have a feeling you might win this.

Everyone should become a vegetarian

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

Humans should be vegetarians.

I'll let the challenger make the first statement.

The World Should Become Vegetarian

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

The World Should Become Vegetarian

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

Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan

If the chickens have been built like that, the chances are that they are not self-aware. If they are, as you said, built so much out of chemicals they don't have a head, that means they have no head to have a brain. Without a brain they cannot think, nor be aware of what it happening to them. Many farms don't actually kill the animals; they wait until they die of natural causes. That way the animals get to live a full life, instead of being killed earlier for food.

Everyone should become a vegetarian

However, people still crave meat, why is that? Because it's natural. If humans weren't made to eat meat they wouldn't crave it. Also, a lot of countries entire industry is built in the export or import of animal for slaughter, and raising the animals ourselves is a lot better than going out into the wild and depleting natural species. And, human consumption of meat plays a vital role in the ecosystem, we diminish overpopulating species.

The World Should Become Vegetarian

sure thing

The World Should Become Vegetarian

While it may be true that raising beef is more efficient way to produce food, it is not an environmentally friendly choice. Overgrazing livestock is extremely destructive to the surrounding environment. Overgrazing causes soil erosion and harm to native plant and animals. Also, grazing has been listed as a factor of endangerment in the Endangered species act. By refusing to participate in an industry that abuses the earth, one could effectively help in the restoration of U.S. land now being used for beef productions. In my opinion, it is more important to have responsibly produced food than it is to have cheap and fast food.

Should People Become Vegetarian

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

Should People Become Vegetarian

I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the last round. I did not get my argument posted in time. My conclusion is that if everyone went vegetarian, it would save a lot of animal's lives and it would give less money to huge industries. :)

Everyone should be vegetarian.

Yep.

The World Should Become Vegetarian

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

THW become Vegetarians

That isn't actually true. The amount of farms that actually allow the animal to live out its full life is very minimal. Why do you think organic meat is so much more expensive than "normal" meat. When I say normal I mean the meat that is full of steroids, and chemicals. And if we are debating on which one have the most feeling. It's safe to say that animals much more than plants. If people wanted to have their portion of meat they could eat soya food, and other sources of protein such as nuts etc. it's a matter of privilege. We once had the privilege to eat meat, but because we abused that privilege by using animal cruelty to get our food as quick as we want it. We should have that privilege taken away from us. Yes meat tastes nice, but it is a privilege that we do not deserve due to past actions.

Everyone should become a vegetarian

In this debate, if you accept it, you must prove that being vegetarian is better than eating meat. I will prove otherwise. Accepting this debate, you are accepting a few rules.1. In the first round, you write your opening statements, and in the last you write "thanks for the debate". (only applies to opponent)2. No plagiarism.3. No using quotes as most of your argument, unless you are quoting in order to refute.4. No profanity5. No forfeiting6. No concessions before round 3. ACCEPTING THIS DEBATE YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE RULES ESTABLISHED. If any rule is broken, the culprit will recieve a 7 point deduction unless forgiven, can prove they didn't break the rule or for other special reasons that will be discussed if such occcurs.

Everyone should be vegetarian.

It would be a progressive step for the human race for as many people as possible to begin following vegetarian plant based diets. I think this is something that will inevitably happen over the next few hundred years.

The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.

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

Humans should be vegetarians.

Well, even though it IS minimal, at least it's something. One of my friends' parents own a farm, and they always wait until the animals die. Yes, they have to wait a long time, but they feel that they should. You do have a point with some of the other sources of protein there, so I won't argue with that. There is, however, another point I'd like to bring up. You don't think we should eat animals such as chicken. But what about fish? They are animals who's life is cut short for our food, yet vegetarians are still willing to eat them. I don't really agree with it being called animal cruelty. They are killed quickly and painlessly, so it can't really be cruelty. Cruelty is when the animals are tortured and in pain, or not being fed. The animals are fed, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough meat on them.

Everyone should become a vegetarian

Hello and thanks to whoever accepts my debate. Some of the many issues we currently face regarding the environment includes global warming, water and air pollution all of which are directly connected to eating meat. There are many wasted resources, as massive amounts of land, food, energy and water are required to raise animals for food. An area of a rainforest the size of seven football fields is destroyed every minute for those purposes. Vast amount of energy are used for the farming of animals. The operation of factory farms, operation of slaughter houses, transportation of meat to grocery stores and the refrigeration required to keep the meat frozen in shops all require energy in very large amounts. A United Nations report from 2006 found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases then all cars, trucks, planes and ships in the world combined. Greenhouse Gases, we know, can lead to major disasters such as floods, tsunamis and hurricanes. A lot of water is used for farming animals. Watering crops, water used for drinking by the animals, cleaning filth in slaughterhouses and factory farms are all ways that water is used. You save more water by not eating 0.5 kg of beef then you do by not showering for an entire year. The usage of water to raise animals for food puts a strain on our already limited supply of water.

All people should become vegetarian

My opponent cannot seem to find fault in my argument. Well, thanks anyway for debating me.

The World Should Become Vegetarian

ok

The World Should Become Vegetarian

Vegetarianism is much more "natural" than raising living, breathing creatures for slaughter. I have been vegetarian for a little over a year, and I feel better than I have my whole life, so my body obviously does not need meat. If humans converted the land that they use for meat to gardens, the world would have more food and world hunger could be greatly diminished. Breeders feed their animals tons and tons of corn and grain each year, and for only a few pounds of meat, which is a complete waste of food and life.

The World Should Become Vegetarian

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

The World Should Become Vegetarian

When robots take over they may kill us as a result of not being vegan. Come on people, do the right thing.

People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence.

No attempt made by opponent

I will accept. Lets make our topic becoming vegetarians. I will be Pro and you will be Con.

A healthy debate for two.

Eating animals is part of our life. We eat animals because it helps out bodies and our health. But there's alternative ways to eat other food then just meat. We should just eat vegetables,fruits,pasta. We could eat anything but we choose to eat meat. We kill animals but we know it's wrong. Animals are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those animals are in need of help. We need to stop eating meat so we can save more animals in the near future. If we do so the earth would be a better place. So we should be vegetarians.

Why People Should Be Vegetarian

One reason to go vegetarian or Vegan is that it's good for the environment. I strongly believe that and know for a fact that factory farms are taking away water and using it for there large unnecessary quantity of animals. I find it horrible to eat and innocent creature that once had a soul and a beating heart.

People should stop eating meat.

I am a vegetarian, and in looking at people's profiles I noticed that a lot of people seem to be against vegetarianism. Would someone who is against it please debate me on this and explain why? I don't understand how you can be against people choosing not to eat animals.

Vegetarianism

Rules: 1. Polite conduct at all times 2. A picture or cartoon with every argument (just to be entertaining :D ) I will be arguing that people should eat a lot less meat or become vegetarian, Con will be arguing that meat is beneficial to the human diet. .. .

People should eat much less meat

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.

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

Everyone should be vegetarian.

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

Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding.

Thanks for the debate!

Why People Should Be Vegetarian

1. The other options I speak of are technological breakthroughs in resource management across the board. Too few people are going to change their eating habits in time, the issue will necessarily blow up on us as it has to in order to enact real change, and the concept here I'm pointing out is a form of "strategic failing." The cultural conversation might more easily shift from "eat differently" to "how should we expect our legislatures to invest". 2. A "non-meat majority" on the food pyramid doesn't make the minority go away any more than this would justify making laws that help only white people because another ethnicity is in the minority. 3a. Simply alternating between veggie and meat friendly places would be a good compromise since as I pointed out the strain is symmetrical. I'm not aware of all the other veggie centric options when going out to eat. I do sympathize with the plight of having limited options on many menus. 3b. I'm not necessarily talking about me, but it would be easier to be more pro-active on the political front than change my desires for meat consumption. Those who are able, driven, and willing should definitely pursue this particular issue in the realm of political change. Important decisions on how to spend our tax dollars to make the world a better place need to be made. There are many big political issues (perhaps too many) that require this kind of attention and those who have the capacity to specialize in each one need to make certain kinds of change amicable to the average person who may share the same values to whatever degree, but can't reasonably be expected to always do something about it. 3c. ...

Ben Should Become a Vegetarian

Thanks for the response. In this debate, some of my refutations shall be later explained in my later arguments. If such occurs, it will be shown. (ex. [argument 69])REFUTATIONS"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong." Here is precisely where you are completly false. Killing is wrong, however if it is neccesary for humans [argument 1]. So in a way, it is not cruel to kill animals if it is neccesary and aids you body. Furthermore, workers at slaughter houses kill animals, not the consumer. So the consumer is not killing the animal. It is not harming the environnement, because it is done with animals breeded specifically for meat. How does such effect the enviornnement? Simple, it doesn't. And it has no relation whatsoever to global warming. I doubt you even know what global warming is. Global warming, to say it quickly is when the atmosphere becomes thicker due to green house gases, preventing the heat from UV rays from leaving the earth, thus heating up the earth. [1] How do killing animals have anything to do with global warming?". It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets."Being omnivorous, you can still have a vegetarian diet, and eat meat in moderation. Because of such, we can have these benefits in a omnivorous diet, while still being alowed to eat meat."Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?" It is natural because it is important for humans. This is just like saying if a lion eats a zebra it's unatural because the lion killed the zebra.ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Humans have omnivorous digestive systems. [2] Meat has plenty of protein, which is important for stregthening the bones and muscles in the body. There is also many of B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more. Eating the correct amount of meat, we are staying healthy, and gaining many healthy nutrients. So meat helps stregthen out bodies and provides various imporant nutrients that are difficult to find in only vegetables. So being vegetarian, we wouldn't have all these benefits, being omnivorous, we gain all these benefits and more.Argument 2: Being omnivorous, you are now open to eating any possible meal. Because of such, you would have a greater variety of possible things to eat, whereas being vegetarian, you have a difficult time finding specific foods. So if everyone was vegetarian, the amount of possible foods would be less.Argument 3: Many people would lose their jobs if everyone went vegetarian. Butchers, slaughterhouse employees and livestock farmers would lose their jobs and land. This would bring millions into poverty. If every went vegetarian, the amount of people living in poverty would increase.======================================================================================================= In conclusion, forcing everyone to go vegetarian would not be beneficial. Many would lose their jobs, have toruble getting the important nutrients they need, and have a smaller variety of possible meals, making them pickier. My opponent presented no proof whatsoever on her arguments, and I already proved them all wrong.Sources:1.http://www.nrdc.org...2.http://authoritynutrition.com...;

Everyone should be vegetarian.

Vegans/vegetarians should be crucified. These people won't eat animals, and think that they're "saving them" or some crap. they think their choices actually make a DIFFERENCE. They keep bragging, on and on, but guess what? NO ONE CARES. these people are weaklings who are too scared to eat animals, and we can't let them reproduce so we won't have newer generations of p*ssies.

Vegans should be crucified

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

People should not eat animals.

First, you can't base your theories on our "cavemen ancestors" We live in a new era where development is key. Just because cavemen ate rocks doesn't mean we should start serving rocks to each other. And if you really believe that meat tastes good go ahead just remember that meat from mcdonalds promotes cancer.Yea, that McChicken can kill you Vegetarians in your mind might be anorexic, but you can't base you reasoning of stereotypes. Vegetarian people become vegan for all kinds of reasons. If you go back and see my claim it says the lifestyle is better not necessarily the people who Choose it. Animal cruelty only begins because there are so many people who demand to eat meat that no one cares for the animals. It works this way demand goes up then care for animals goes down. I apologize for plagiarism i truly thought that using the statistics and Harvard study results was permitted even after I credited Harvard. Please truly pick who you think had the more organized argument and good refutation. May the best man/woman win. Thank you for your time.

A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters.

Animals have feelings, and they should be treated like equals. They have souls, and thoughts, and emotions. They do not deserve to be killed for the sake of being turned into a cheap, greasy hamburger. There could be more jobs created, because the demand for tofu and other protein sources would go up. There would be less poverty because of theses jobs, and they would pay more. Soybeans and other legumes have just as much protein as a variety of meat sources.

Everyone should be vegetarian.

Again, I cannot argue further as you forfeited the round.

I may be a right winger but i think it is great if someone wants to be a vegetarian. Also its great and honorable to treat animals with the love and respect they deserve.

Vegetarianism

First of all forcing an animal to eat items that messes up the way their body works is sick. Forcefully producing offspring that are so deformed to the extent that they lack basic needed body parts is animal crulty. It's wonderful to hear that your friends, dad is not following out this system and that he take care of the animals he has been blessed with. But I want to ask you a question. Does this man produce chicken for a big company. Is his farm one of the places that give majority of the animals that we find in our local stores. The answer is more than likely.. No. The reason why I asked this is small farms like that don't affect what the public eat to a large extent. The people that follow out this form of animal crulty is those that work on large farms with hundreds and thousands of workers that work long hours each day. It's the company's that then give there produce to other company's and eventually end up on our dinner plates. It's these people that don't have time to wait for the chicken to live a long and happy life. It's these people that need the chicken to be bing NOW. It's these people that pump chemicals etc. into the animal. And this does not only happen to chickens it could also be done to any of place that we get our meat from for example, a cow or an ostrich. The point that I want to get to is that these people produce the food we end up with, unless we are rich and can spend money on organic food. The two problems here is A) we end up eating food that is poisonous to a certain extent B) the way we get our food is through animal crulty As I have said before. This is a privilege. We abused it. So it's time to live without it. To respond to what you said about the fish. Well if we follow this system out (making everyone a vegeterian)we will not offer fish as food just like how we don't offer dog as food. Just a note on the side line: thanks for debating with me. You have helped me to a great extent.

Everyone should become a vegetarian

I think that vegetarianism is the only moral choice in the 21st century because eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. what do you think?

Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.

Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you!

Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg

I accept your challenge and will debate with you on whether or not being a vegetarian is a good life-style. Seeing that opponent has already chosen pro, I would logically take con and be against the life style of that of a vegetarian. I am against vegetarianism because it discourages people from eating the other food groups; it prevents them from getting the right amount of nutrients only available in other food groups; and vegetarians still eat meat - they claim to be herbivores, but are, just like the rest of us, omnivores as many of the foods they eat are still eaten by carnivores. I believe that it is a negative lifestyle that negatively affects one's health and should not be used unless one is extremely healthy or ill.

Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle.

Humans don't need meat; eating it is an immoral choice

Vegetarianism

I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.

Ok I give up. I got nothing. Good debate.

Why People Should Be Vegetarian

"First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat" - This point is irrelevant to the argument; I merely state that everyone SHOULD become lacto-vegetarians/vegans and that we would have a better world and a better society if this is to be achieved. At no point did I mention anything about forcing people. "second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals" - The first comment is not explained clearly; for what reason does someone need to be keeping animals in check? Also, without the murder of animals, what is preventing us from keeping these animals in check? I can't argue back until you make that clear. The second statement is a common assumption that is often mistaken by meat eaters. There would be no overpopulation of animals; with the number of farm animals currently living in the world I can understand why it may seem so but that is only due to the mass breeding of livestock animals that takes place in order to provide more animals to be killed for their meat or to be kept for their produce (dairy/eggs/wool). Without the excessive breeding managed by the farming industry, the overpopulation of animals will most certainly not be any more of a problem than it is today. Whilst on the subject of doing what is best for the environment; bringing a halt to meat eating would greatly reduce the impact of climate change. "There are three times as many domestic animals on this planet as there are human beings. The combined weight of the world's 1.28 billion cattle alone exceeds that of the human population. While we look darkly at the number of babies being born in poorer parts of the world, we ignore the over-population of farm animals, to which we ourselves contribute...[t]hat, however, is only part of the damage done by the animals we deliberately breed. The energy intensive factory farming methods of the industrialised nations are responsible for the consumption of huge amounts of fossil fuels. Chemical fertilizers, used to grow the feed crops for cattle in feedlots and pigs and chickens kept indoors in sheds, produce nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Then there is the loss of forests. Everywhere, forest-dwellers, both human and non-human, can be pushed out. Since 1960, 25 percent of the forests of Central America have been cleared for cattle. Once cleared, the poor soils will support grazing for a few years; then the graziers must move on. Shrub takes over the abandoned pasture, but the forest does not return. When the forests are cleared so the cattle can graze, billions of tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. Finally, the world's cattle are thought to produce about 20 percent of the methane released into the atmosphere, and methane traps twenty-five times as much heat from the sun as carbon dioxide." Those are the words of Peter Singer and, with my knowledge from in depth research, I could not put it any better. In 2009 researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published their projections of the greenhouse gas consequences if humanity came to eat less meat, no meat, or no animal products at all. The researchers predicted that universal veganism would reduce agriculture-related carbon emissions by 17 percent, methane emissions by 24 percent, and nitrous oxide emissions by 21 percent by 2050. Universal vegetarianism would result in similarly impressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These figures have not and cannot be proven for certain without being tested, but for those of you disagreeing that it should be tested - have a look at our world now; look at the increase of global warming that has taken place over the last few decades - we are risking the future of our planet for our own greed and desire for meat. On the subject of solving the issue of starvation: Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, and it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh; on average it takes 21 pounds of protein fed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans. We get back less than 5 percent of what we put in. According to the USDA and the United Nations, using an acre of land to raise cattle for slaughter yields 20 pounds of usable protein. That same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein if soybeans were grown instead"". It should be no surprise, then, that food for a vegan can be produced on only 1/6 of an acre of land, while it takes 3 1/4 acres of land to produce food for a meat-eater. By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition. The meat industry is thus highly inefficient and, on top of the vast amount of land, resources, water and fossil fuels wasted, and the harmful gas emissions, farming (factory farming in particular) is also wasting extremely high amounts of energy that - if we transfer to vegetarian/veganism - could be stored and used to support more important causes. So, in conclusion - being a more efficient and environmentally friendly option - bringing a halt to eating meat would be the better option even if we discard the idea that we should not have the right to violate the animals. Yes, with such a large meat industry a forestalling of this could not happen over night but gradually as more people stop eating meat, the farms and factories will stop breeding so heavily and will require a lower energy consumption; this energy and space will then be transferred to produce more plants in order to meet the demands of the markets and, eventually, we could achieve it. Back to your arguments: "human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals" - Here you have provided a statement but have given no evidence to back it up. What makes humans the most important race? We have priority over all animals merely because we are far more intelligent and thus the more dominant of species, but by no means does this mean that we should kill them. Anyhow, all the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter the fact that: in suffering the animals are our equals. They feel pain and suffer just as we do and, therefore, it just as evil to inflict pain upon an animal as it is on a human. "many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons" - Again you have not explained your statement and in doing so you haven't given a proper argument that I can defend. Humans don't depend on meat products for their diet; they just see it as the easiest and most desirable option. I cannot name specific examples as you have not given me any examples to defend against but there are so many vegetarian/vegan alternative foods that offer the same nutritional values as meat. And hunting for financial reasons? That is no excuse to hunt animals, if anything that proves my argument further as those particular people are murdering animals as a means to one's end. It's absurd to think that people are acting immorally like that just for the money - and this can't be used as an excuse. That would be like justifying prostitution because people only do it for financial reasons, or contract-killing etc. Besides there are plenty of other jobs paying equal wages that do not require such unnecessary violence.

Thank you for the acceptance, I look forward to a nice and clean debate. Moving on, I would first off like to remind my opponents that they would have to prove the benefits of why becoming vegetarian is moreover a benefit than a harm for I am doing the exact opposite. C1) Violation of one's rights It's pretty straight forward. Forcing others to eat something takes away a person's freedom to eat what they want to eat. Let us look at our status quo. In our modern day society we have people who are vegetarian, people who eat all sorts of food, lactose intolerant, and many more "styles" of what and how people eat. If we supposedly do make everyone eat meat in America, what is taken away from the people? Freedom. When we are practically forcing our citizens to eat something that they are 1) Not use to or 2) Doesn't want to eat we are violating and taking away the citizens right for something that is vital to our life. Our world gives us limited freedom and rights I agree, but we are now taking away a freedom and choice for food. This of course violates ones limited freedom. This is not right for our society to decide what we eat now. C2)Feasibility Pretty straight forward. Making people vegetarians are not feasible enough in our country. Because my opponents are proving that we should enforce America into becoming vegetarians, how would they do it? What if they do eat meat? Would they go to jail or get arrested? What would happen? C3)Health Issues Vegetarian: 1. A person who does not eat or does not believe in eating MEAT, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.[1] The definition of Vegetarians includes that they do not eat meat. Becoming vegetarian certainly means that there will be much less protein intake. Having protein is a must in your regular food chain. Protein is makes up the building blocks of our body and essentially all we do when we eat meat is to recycle the flesh and to use it to reconstruct our own. Vegetarians may tell me that you still can get protein from beans and eggs. But here is the real problem here. We as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. [2] Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. You can only get this source of vitamin from meat, unless you count earth's ground and dirt as "food". B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy and problems utilizing calcium which can lead to osteoporosis and arteriosclerosis in the future for people. [3] [4] Conclusion: Today if we put on a scale, my side sees much more weight on the harms. Even if my opponents explain on how becoming vegetarian is very healthy, we have still proved that meat is crucial. As well as it can be a problem to obesity, we see a much bigger health issues from a society without meat. As well as it harms the people, it harms our freedom of one thing that we should have full access too. With our status quo we see no major health problems being just the way we are, vegetarian or not. There would be no need to change what we already is succeeding in for our future. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.healthguidance.org... [3] http://www.mnn.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

THW become Vegetarians

Why can't religion influence your decision? Is religion itself immoral?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Extend my arguments....Pro forfeited therefore I win by default. VOTE ME

"Some of the many issues we currently face regarding the environment includes global warming, water and air pollution all of which are directly connected to eating meat. There are many wasted resources, as massive amounts of land, food, energy and water are required to raise animals for food. An area of a rainforest the size of seven football fields is destroyed every minute for those purposes." For the purpose of this round I will treat these statistics as true (because they are largely irrelevant) - you may want to link references to your claims however (for any future debates too). "Vast amount of energy are used for the farming of animals. The operation of factory farms, operation of slaughter houses, transportation of meat to grocery stores and the refrigeration required to keep the meat frozen in shops all require energy in very large amounts." Yes we use energy because those processes require it, and the eating of meat being of value to a large majority of individuals. Your standard of action however is unclear. Should we save energy for something else? In which case your argument is moot as energy used is used, regardless of the reason and there are far worse options for energy consumption than fulfilling requirements for survival. See we can't all be farmers, and we don't all own necessary or viable land to cultivate our own produce. Demanding we cut a source of nutrition from somewhere merely requires an additional source to be found, meaning we still use the land for something, we still need additional land as per populace growth, the same as with animal farming. Indeed hypothetically if I had enough land and the ability to reclaim water, decide to be green conscious and plant trees to cover the gas, why shouldn't I farm animals, even if it's at a level to support only myself. Why would *I* then have to be vegetarian? "A United Nations report from 2006 found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases then all cars, trucks, planes and ships in the world combined. "Greenhouse Gases, we know, can lead to major disasters such as floods, tsunamis and hurricanes." Eh debatable - natural cycles of salinity levels are also thought to contribute - as is debatable the nature of greenhouse gases on our environment itself, as well as its outright negatives (we increase rainfall and water is an issue?). The solution however is not to remove those things of value which do not in any meaningful way lead to a negative predictable consequence (knowing if it will impact or when and where hurricanes will occur) - but to be rational when choosing where to live where certain natural disasters are less frequent. :) http://www.thaindian.com... http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... Hurricanes will occur whether we are here or not, and we may as well try and stop volcanoes for the gases they produce, if they are such a concern. "A lot of water is used for farming animals. Watering crops, water used for drinking by the animals, cleaning filth in slaughterhouses and factory farms are all ways that water is used. You save more water by not eating 0.5 kg of beef then you do by not showering for an entire year. The usage of water to raise animals for food puts a strain on our already limited supply of water." The same argument can be levied against any non pure survivalist action that requires water, even pets. The issue is you have no satisfactory standard for why one should do this, and not any other action that would reduce water consumption, and under your premises any and all non basic water usage should be deemed negative. Nor does it follow even if the premise is accepted, that the solution is to choose an arbitrary element to ban. As humans, we have the distinct unique condition of using our minds as the basic tool of survival. The solution is not, in the case of water, to reduce our standard of living in the vague hope of a future benefit for future some people some where. The ideal situation is to engage those minds willing in finding ways to increase water sources for consumption. Nature is there for us to use. Your argument however reduces to a very basic contradiction. You propose two standards for evaluating action: the environment and the self.However once you recognise the self as the ends of action (for to be good it must be good to someone, not some abstract environment) you must recognise the self as primary over the environment. Either you hold the environment as your primary standard of action (with us as a 'negative' in which case your death, mine, everyones, is the proper conclusion) or you recognise either implicitly or explicitly that an individual is their own ends for ones action, in which case, while one may consider the environment in ones dealings - it is not primary, and actions cannot be demanded of others in sacrifice for it.

All people should become vegetarian

I believe ANIMALS ARE NOT TO BE KILLED FOR HUMANS. My first point is that we shouldn't eat animals because obviously they are slaughtered unfairly. Millions of INNOCENT animals get tortured and slaughtered every year just for humans. Some are even skinned alive. Would you eat a dog or cat?? Well whats the difference? And if you think they are killed humanely.. Think again. http://www.youtube.com...

We should be vegetarian

first off I've been a meat eater all my life only cause that's how I have been raised. anyways I do love the concept and further agree that being vegetarian is the way to go. why put an innocent animal to death. others have the concept that humans are top of the food chain, is anyone truly sure that this is accurate. and picture if that isn't the case, would the meat eater then have the logic to see that he is creating a cycle in life that could be damaging to himself and others around him? imagine the Garden of Eden.

time to be vegetarian, why eat animals!

Why can't religion influence your decision? Is religion itself immoral?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Extend my arguments....Pro forfeited therefore I win by default. VOTE ME ;)

Without animals to eat, we cannot get the nutrients we need. if we did not eat animals, we would be weak and feeble! What a waste of a life.

Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals.

I am arguing the case that eating meat products, eggs and honey is morally wrong and everyone should stop. I am also against the hunting of animals for materials and experimenting on animals for science development but if I were to include these topics in this argument it would be extremely long. Also, my largest concern is currently for the eating of farm animals because there is such a large amount of people that ignore this topic. From recent discussions, I have found that the common problem with many meat-eaters today is that they are taking upon a blindness towards what they eat and ignoring the fact that the meat they eat was once a living animal, with interests and emotional value. Or, perhaps people feel that with such a large meat processing/selling industry existing, their forbearance of meat is not going to have an impact on the quantity of animals slaughtered and sold. However, many others have seemed to argue that the food chain provides us with justification for killing animals and that it is our natural instinct to do so. Moreover, cases have been argued that Genesis 1.26 states that we have 'dominion' over the animals, or that we could not provide the world with enough food for a healthy diet without the meat industry. I'm going to keep this fairly short as it is only the first argument. I will go in depth with the following if you have any objections. First of all, let's stick with the obvious principle that - although we are a very different species to farm animals, with a higher level of intelligence - these animals can feel pain and they can feel comfort (whether they can experience happiness, I am not YET debating) and in that respect they are equal to humans. I'm sure if we all reason with ourselves, everyone (other than the sadistic minority) can understand that an act that inflicts pain on a living being, whether human or inhuman, is less moral than an act that creates comfort for the being - and less moral than if you were not to act upon the being at all. Presuming that you agree, this proves that the act of having these animals slaughtered is intrinsically wrong. Maybe you still think that the consequence of this act is of such importance to human survival that it overrules the immorality of the act itself. If this is the case, I can tell you, as Peter Singer makes clear (I will explain in a later debate), that the human population can easily survive without the meat industry - in fact, it would even be more efficient and solve tragic issues such as starvation of the less fortunate. Moving on to those with the mindset that they are not going to make a difference to the meat industry themselves by becoming vegetarian/vegan. This has no relevance to my argument title because I state that 'Everyone' should become vege/vegan and this concerns only the individual. Anyhow, I thought I'd include it for the benefit of those reading. By eating the meat because you think that it is going to be produced continuously no matter what you do, you are buying in and supporting the cause for killing animals and you are, therefore, placing yourself in the wrong. However, on this subject I like to use the maxim of Immanuel Kant's 'Categorical Imperative' theory that states that in order to ensure that an act is morally right, we must first universalise the action. Imagine a world where everyone had this mindset; eating meat purely because they felt that, as an individual, they would not contribute to the prevention of animal slaughter. Now think of a world where everyone had the opposite mindset; believing that something different can happen: that, as an individual, they can make a difference. After looking back on my rather lengthy discussion already, I've decided to approach the last to arguments at the same time. Many Christians believe that animals have been put on Earth by God under our control; some even see the animals as a gift to feed us. The food chain is also used commonly in attempt to justify eating animals; other animals eat each other so why are we not entitled to? Well, no other species of animal are nearly as intelligent as humans; no other animals know to plant seeds in order to grow food, nor might they know that killing other animals is wrong. I have not yet thought researched deeply about a solution to the rest of the food chain, but this argument only concerns humans anyway. Peter Singer states: "If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?" This quote, alone, sums up my first point on the issue. We seem to feel that we own the right to use these animals as our resources just because we are more intelligent and more powerful, yet when it comes to the less intelligent and weaker people of the HUMAN RACE, the majority of our society will disagree that it is fair for someone more powerful to murder one of the weaker. In relation to this idea, the cruelty that we show to animals is influential towards how we treat other people and if you really are absolute that a human life is more valuable than an animal's in every manner then this is a point to consider. St. Francis of Assisi says that "If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men." The way we treat animals is very likely to have an impact on the way we treat man. Stats show a sharp correlation between animal abuse & other crimes, including rape, robbery, murder, sexual homicide, domestic abuse and more. Studies show 100% of sexual homicide perpetrators (like Jeffrey Dahmer) started by abusing animals and, although his sort of abuse differs slightly to the slaughter of farm animals, it all still reflects the same principles of animal cruelty. EGGS/HONEY: My objection to eating honey is simple. Bees work throughout the hot weathered seasons, storing this honey so that the colony can feed from it during winter when they can no longer collect pollen from plants. Then the humans come along and steal it from them, just to provide a luxury item for us to eat - which is not necessary. The wrongdoing in the theft of this honey, the selfishness and greed, as well as the inconsideration for the bees' survival through the colder seasons should be clear to you. By eating eggs, we are supporting the poor conditions that chickens live through when producing the eggs. A large majority of eggs (apologies for not having stats, I have to finish up soon) come from conventional, caged hens. Up to 10 hens are crammed into 18 by 20 inch cages. These conditions barely allow the chickens to move around or spread their wings; they are trapped, deprived from their interests, free will and veterinary attention. As for the males, they are either thrown away in dumpsters left to die or ground up alive in meat grinders as chicks; having their will to live snatched away in order for us to feast greedily on the unneeded luxury of eggs. Now, linking back to the earlier argument that the infliction of pain promotes less good than leaving the animals alone entirely, the process of obtaining eggs is morally wrong. Although Uncaged eggs and free-range eggs seem like a more humane alternative, the chickens still go through deprived lives, as I will discuss in the next round if you choose to argue against this subject. Overall, in purchasing eggs to eat, you are in effect paying for the murder of hundreds of millions of baby animals.

Topic:A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet. I'll take on the Pro position of the debate, meaning I'll argue for vegetarianism.Definitions:A vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat or fish, but does not necessarily abstain from eating animal derivatives like eggs and milk.By "ethical" I mean morally right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. This includes examining the issue from both ecological and animal rights standpoints, as well as the implications to us as humans.By a "meat-eating" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person). Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Don't just say "you can't survive without meat" unless you back it up with a reliable link. Also, it is best if you tell us why this source is credible.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)

A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet

Look, by being "against" vegetarianism, I only mean that I am not one. I am also "against" the Patriots, but I would never argue that people don't have the right to root for them. I am against Vegetarianism because I do not think it is a moral imperative to be a vegetarian, reducing vegetarianism to the personal decision to eat bad food. Here's the point, I have defended a consistent CON vegetarianism stance. If this position was not acceptable, why not try having a thesis statement longer than one word or an opening argument longer than 2 sentences? Also, why not try actually making arguments? I'll debate something real when you do.

Vegetarianism

I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian!Debate Rules:1) Accept the debate first2) Then watch the video (hint: You do not need to watch the whole video)3) If you forfeit or become overly abrasive - you shall lose the debate4) List further opinions-arguments in the comments**Voters Must Read Comments Before Voting**http://www.youtube.com...

I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian

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

We should be vegetarian

If you are irreligious does not mean that you think life has no meaning. How prejudice. My point still stands. Would you eat a dog? What about a cat? Also people have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to be a vegetarian or not. Being a vegetarian is a choice.

Vegetarianism

As I thought. Pro has changed their tack. And now adopted the word "should" and ditched the word "is". A seemingly innocuous change, but a change that actually alters the context of this debate completely. A vegetarian diet is to be preferred is a completely different proposition to, a vegetarian diet should be preferred. Under these circumstances I do not feel obliged to respond to Pro's third round evidence. My second round assertion that approximately 78% of the Worlds population ate a meat inclusive diet was derived from the Wikipedia article, vegetarianism by country. This evidence alone is enough to negate Pro's opening proposition. As it clearly indicates that approximately three quarters of the world's population prefer a meat inclusive diet. (Presumably no one is forcing these people to eat meat) Whether or not three quarters of the world's population should prefer a meat inclusive diet is another issue altogether. The same studies also stated that approximately 1.75 billion people were vegetarian out of necessity, rather than by choice. It is highly likely that given the chance, some of these people would also prefer to be omnivorous. But should they? Well, who has the authority to make this sort of judgement?...... And of course, that wasn't what we were discussing.

A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet

We kill plants but we know it's wrong. Plants are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those plants are in need of help. We need to stop eating plants so we can save more plants in the near future. See, it works this way too.

Why People Should Be Vegetarian

I must disagree. We have discovered the nuke, yes, but that is only cause for us to get smarter and find a way to basically un-invent the bomb. We've grown to an age were we use the smarts from being a predator and are applying it to new ways, specifically invention. But it is not always positive. In some ways we have hurt ourselves more. This is what I mean by taking away peoples stupid choices. People now are making very dumb choices. The reason seems to be general laziness. Our society has developed to a point were we are competent in our survival skills. We sit around, we eat constantly, we pollute the Earth. There are some cases were it may be better that the peoples choices be limited for their own good. Lowering the availability of meat to be thrown around willy nilly may benefit the people, even if they don't like it so much. We need brains more now than ever, meat will help that, with a balance of plants, but never the less. That is just my opinion however, not in regards to whether people have the right to eat meat or not. I still say we are given a right by our nature to eat meat. We are omnivores, able to eat meat and vegetables. We can survive on a vegetable only diet, but it will have negative intelligence effects. I have shown that we as a species have benefited from meat, and it is very probable we will continue from its consumption. My opinions on meat limitation and animal rights are my own and given out only to quench the curiosity of panthercub21, and should have no effect on the peoples vote. Darth_Grievous_42 out.

Vegetarianism

I accept your challenge. Good luck to my opponent. First of all, please choose your exact definition. It's either vegetarian or vegan; there's a difference. But for this purpose, because it was indicated in the title of the debate itself, I choose vegetarian. Yes, there are certain vegetables that are rich in calcium and proteins. But there have been surveys, one of which I will give you a link to, that clearly show that vegetarians lack in zinc, a mineral that helps in cell production, protect the liver from chemical damage, formation of bones, etc. Also, red meat, specifically beef, provides your body and mind with Vitamin B12, which the blood uses to create erythrocytes (red blood cells) and more or less maintain the nervous system. One effect is that without this, it can cause memory loss as well. Science also shows us that heart disease is caused by unsaturated fats, specifically polyunsaturated, which is found mainly in vegetable oil. Pretty ironic, huh? And don't tell me that you can substitute meat and dairy with merely soy. Only fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tampari are actually qualified as healthy. The other soy foods that you vegetarians consume are predominantly tofu, in which is actually ingrained an anti-nutrient, which carries out the nutrients out of your system. Now, to your point about killing innocent animals. Personally, I like to think of myself as an animal-lover and environmentalist. But if we all become vegetarian, we'd also be killing those animals. If a great portion of the U.S. became vegetarian, then, of course, we'd consume way more plants than we usually would in this present day. We would deprive those animals of food, given that most of the food that we non-vegetarians eat are grass-fed. Plus, if we consume more enormous quantities of plants as a result of becoming vegetarian, then we'd dispossess herbivorous animals of their main source of food as well, now would we? And I don't think that would be very beneficial to the environment, either. Unfortunately, life for multiple species cannot go on without consuming life of other species as well. http://www.mnwelldir.org... May God bless you as well. (Are you Catholic? If so, hi five!)

I am trying to say in this that if you don't eat animals because you are allergic, t makes you feel physically sick, you don't like the taste etc. that doen't matter. I would even go as far as to say If you really want to be a vegetarian I would be happy just contentiously disagreeing with you but I find this debate worthy because I disagree with the people who think that I should be a vegetarian because of the moral issue of eating meat and that I am wrong to enjoy and eat a lot of meat with no guilt. Please if you have those views that I should be a vegetarian then please accept this debate. I am a first time debator in this website and would like to add that I would love to have someone accept this request soon and I may not write much, personally I don't have much experience but I doubt I will run out of space. Soo.... what do you think. Oh, and please try to remove as much biases when voting. Oh, and finally, I wrote vegetarianism is wrong as the subject because I do think it's wrong and it is about it. I just hope I didn't confuse anyone into thinking differently from what's written above.

Vegetariaism is Wrong

Pro Statement : 1. "Eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. " a) First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. b) Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. Rebuttal : 1) I state in the case that eating meat is not a huge problem now. It's just a small case. Pro is like to excess the problem like it's a doomsday or what. ( no offense ja, Hehehe. .) a) I think that there are a distinction between a land of nature for planting trees (forest area) and a land of nature for grow animals (savannah or steppe (lots of grass and water)). If there are forest that have been cut down, it mostly used to build a resident for people to live. The area of forest is not good to grow livestock animals. If you think that being vegetarian would save nature, it would be a wrong way of thinking. You still need to do both of your solution, maybe either do the reforestation, planting trees or be a vegan. b) Overweight already have a source of problems. The main problems is a no good lifestyle. In detail is like Eat a high Calories food, like meat, fried food and No body training. To prevent overweight, they need to change their lifestyle into a good one, like more body training and eat a healthy foods like vegetables. But Vegetarian is not really the urgent decision to do in this 21st Century. Disastrous can be happened if your lifestyle is no good. Arguments : 1) Freedom of Choice i can said that you have choose to be a vegetarian. It's your choice, no one can blame you to have this choice. I think it's a good choice for someone who wants to let go desire of killing or hurt animals. But, it still not a good choice if the goal is to prevent land expanding or overcome overweight. 2) Comparing method i can show another method that maybe in compare with this vegetarian thing, because of so many method, vegetarian become a no more or less effective choice than the other method. a) doing a "fast" (no eating in full a day or half a day) b) Meditate c) Yoga d) body exercise, workout e) etc. .. all of this method is in term to do a good lifestyle 3) Pro's Burden a) show that vegetarian is good in ethical way b) show that why vegetarian is the only choice c) show that 21st Centuries is differ than the previous or the next term to do or not doing vegetarian as lifestyle Thank You :D

Humans with vegetarian diets are more likely to suffer from fatigue, apathetic behavior, and a lack of concentration. These could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at the site of someone's profession. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.

A strictly vegetarian diet can promote health problems.

Are you for or against a vegetarian lifestyle? Pro means that you are for it while con means that you disapprove. Note that in the first argument, I would prefer if you simply stated your side as I am doing now. I am pro vegetarianism and believe that it is a very positive lifestyle.

Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle.

The type of vegetarian that we are debating about is someone who is lacto-vegetarian that means they eat dairy products; but no eggs or meat. There are many reasons for being vegetarian and not only because you feel that have had the animals deserved a better life. There are health benefits from being vegetarian as well as solving many world food shortages. Also becoming vegetarian would help the world as well as you, like global warming could e reduced (assuming this is an accepted theory), and if everyone became vegetarian there would be better water supplies throughout the world, being vegetarian can also save you money. Being vegetarian is healthy, Vegetarians are usually lean and strong, because knowing that they cannot eat some things, the watch their diet more than the average person does. Vegetarians rarely have vitamin deficiencies because the foods that they are leaving out don't have many vitamins to start with. Also within meat there are bad things such as fat and drugs that the animal has taken in. I an average stake contains 9.5 grams of fat [1], that is over half of your daily guidance, which clearly is a good reason for not eating too much meat to start with. On top of this the animals that you are eating as a non vegetarian are being filled with drugs and chemicals to make them grow faster, these when consumed in large amounts can make you feel ill and drowsy. There are many other illnesses that you can get from meat, like Osteoporosis, Kidney Stones and Gallstones, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Arthritis, Gum disease, and acne can be caused. This is all because of poor animal fodder. If you were under the impression that meat is good for you there is another problem that faces you which is an excess in protein. The average American eats 400% of the RDA for protein which can cause excess nitrogen in the blood that causes host of long-term health problems [2]. If you are a vegetarian and you don't eat meat, then you also save money, meat is more expensive than vegetables and other vegetarian foods. Also because you are healthy, for the reasons of being healthy see above, you don't have to spend as much money on healthcare as you otherwise would have had to. Reasons to become a vegetarian based on environmental factors is that the production of meat costs more fossil fuel emissions and other bad gasses then producing vegetables. We can also conserve water by eating more vegetables and less meat. "It takes 3-15 times more water to produce animal protein as it does plant protein. " [2]. To help human food resources we can eat more grains. This is because for 100 acres of land we will produce enough beef for 20 people the same amount of land and we can feed 240 people. With the excess food we can feed a lot of starving people. [3] [1] . http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk... [2] . http://www.britishmeat.com... [3] . http://www.flex.com...

I accept.

Vegetarianism

If humans are animals, why defy our animalistic instincts?

Vegetarianism

I partially watched the video as asked, but found that it had little impact on my feelings towards meat. I was already well aware of the bitter things that occur in slaughterhouses to put food on our plates; I find it is a necessary evil to maintain a healthy lifestyle with all the nutrients you need to survive. Vegetarians must take extra precautions to gain every nutrient the human body requires. [1] The resolution was that Pro would turn me vegetarian. This has not happened; I will continue to eat meat. Thank you for the quick debate. [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...

I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian

Vegetarians are generally more health-conscious. This is the primary reason why they are healthy; it is less a cause of vegetarians avoiding meat. Similarly, obese people are obese because they are not health-conscious, more than because they are meat-eaters.

Vegetarians are healthy due to their health-consciousness not vegetarianism.

Life- the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Plants are in fact alive. So are bacteria, fungi, protists, and of course, animals. It's not really set in stone whether plants feel pain or not, as there have been a few studies showing both. Alright, let's go back to 7th grade science. Animals must eat other animals to keep the populations in check. If there are too many predators and not enough prey they die of starvation. If there are too many prey, the predators reproduce fast, growing their population, and then eat most of the prey. It's an endless cycle. So, it's natural for us to eat animals. It's not wrong. Thank you.

Why People Should Be Vegetarian

Since when is meat "needed" to function in society? There are a lot of very famous vegetarians, like Paul McCartney, that prosper in society. I don't think that vegetarianism has absolutely anything to do with functionality in society. Also, I find it very interesting that you chose to debate this with a 13 year old. Thank you for this debate; I thought it was very engaging.

Vegetarianism is better than omnivores

Humans are omnivores, we are designed (naturally or by God your choice) to consume meat. It would be Natural if we didn't treat our animals like how we do today. It is 100% natural to hunt and eat it raw like what lions do, but it is also good if you want to eat meat to go to farms who use animals that died of natural causesYou state that we are natural omviores but this is really not natural,http://www.rabbitfur.org...http://2.bp.blogspot.com...Meat is not the cause or even a leading cause of obesity in the United States, What do Most fast food resterants sell? Meat! You cant go to Mcdonald's and get a veggie burger. Yes The Fast Food Industry is the leading cause of obiesty but they all serve meat and fries!

Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat

Animals are independent creatures that don't exist to serve humans

Vegetarianism

I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got " Too " big for the current food market. We would do what humans do whenever they can't make enough of a product for the demand. Improve the different aspects in that products life cycle so it meets the demand. A total meat industry reform is much more sensible than changing not only the way the whole world eats but our culture. I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities. If somehow the world did change over to vegetarianism it would lead to an over dependence on nutritional supplements. Iron and protein tablets would become like oil. Pharmaceutical companies would become large empires who charge people ridiculous amounts of money for something they need to survive. Does that seem like a better world to you?

I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I believe that the killing of animals for meat is wrong. This debate is about whether it is right for human beings to eat other animals.

Vegetarianism

First, thanks for accepting my challenge. Thanks also for putting a lot of information on the table. I suspect you realize that I won't be able to respond to every single "fact" point for point, but I don't think this is necessary - I think what is necessary is to show why, given the facts, vegetarianism is not required to lead an ethical life. Therefore, the first step is to decide what the relevant facts are. This is where the information you copied and pasted from the cited website comes in handy sometimes, but I'm afraid it has to be left at "sometimes." There are many inaccuracies. I'll start off by pointing out that the very absolute statement #1 is wrong. Collagen is a protein naturally found only in animals, and it is the most abundant protein in those animals. Ingesting this is nutritional, especially for the joints. Many people with arthritis and other joint diseases take collagen and powderized shark cartilage capsules as supplements. It seems self-evident to me that there are many differences between plants and animal, and there are many similarities between animals and humans, that make eating animals (at least occasionally) very sensible. I don't think that following this sense can be unethical. I will admit that the most compelling case against eating animals to me is the supposed environmental effect and contribution to global warming. However, the greenhouse gas statistics that are often cited as gospel is very questionable and has been challenged. Here is a press release in the telegraph on this challenge coming from an academic at UCD. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I guess an underlying point I'm trying to make is that, the vast majority of your "argument" is not even complete sentences, and therefore doesn't necessarily help in coming to a conclusion on the issue. Usually it helps if an argument is sentences, (yes based in information and fact), and linked by logic, into paragraphs with a conclusion. I therefore assumed that you were trying to first put a lot of relevant facts out there, but I was discouraged to see that you simply copied and pasted information from a Hindu believers' website with dubious information. Therefore, I continue to fail to see how eating meat is NECESSARILY unethical when it is a good (and perhaps the only nutrient-based) first-line of defense against joint disease. And the key word here is necessarily: I was wondering, when I created the debate, whether vegetarianism is a NECESSARY choice to be ethical. It seems to me that this positive effect I mentioned (among others), combined with the fact that animal slaughtering is NOT necessarily brutal to the animal, suggests that vegetarianism is not necessarily the only way to adhere to a certain set of sufficiently ethical guidelines.

Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life

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

Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation.

Nice reasoning. But plants aren't that special. It's bad to eat plants but it ain't a living creature is it. When you kill it does it make sounds of pain. No plants don't because plants don't feel pain. Animals do. There living things and plants are too but there not that important. We could just plant more and more plants and they will just keep producing. Animals though they do make more of there kind but if we keep the rate of killing animals there will be no more meat on this planet.

Why People Should Be Vegetarian

Ok so if we all go vegetarian then how are people like Justin Rivera sitting right next to you supposed to gain weight with out using the pills and shakes. huh? Also why don't we just get rid of all the unhealthy meats. All of them are not harmful to us so why go vegetarian because some meats are harmful to us? Then about people dieing from animals, if people weren't stupid and didn't swim with the sharks or try to pet bears then less people would die from animal attacks so therefore unlike what you think there are more benefits and animals then there are disadvantages.

Animals need to be abolished.