azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

The meats we consume are the results of animal husbandry, which our bodies are not accustomed to. (speaking from an evolutionary perspective of human genetics)It doesn't work that way. Agriculture and animal husbandry have been under development for over ten thousand years. The changes have been gradual, and the relationship could be described as mutualistic. Even if we dropped modern cultivars and breeds upon humans from ten thousand years ago, the differences would lean towards protein and fat productivity, rather than completely new compounds which couldn't be metabolised.Plants, those that have not been genetically modified by humans from 1950-current, are better for our nutritional needs and have far greater health benefits. I'm going to assume that you never really studied genetics, and general biology at the college levels. I can't imagine why an educated person would make such a blanket statement which is so demonstrably untrue.Besides the obvious fact that organisms have been swapping genes between each other for millions of years (Horizontal gene transfer), and that agriculture is based on the selection of novel mutations and shaping of alleles, one only needs to look at inventions such as Golden Rice to see how easily genetic engineering can enhance the nutrition of foods. Even if present agricultural crops only share the same nutrition as non-GE heirloom varieties, one could still blame the widespread mistrust fostered by the green movement for discouraging novel GE foods.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice There is much evidence linking the eating of "greens" to providing 90%+ the nutrients we need to provide a healthy living structure. I would argue that meats that do not come from the result of animal husbandry, also known as wild, have far more benefit. Furthermore, if these meats come from an environment that has the least amount of contaminants it would be the most beneficial- as your body would not require the energy to detoxify as well as any possible genetic change that could result in later in disease.The last ten thousand years of human society suggests differently. In other words, agriculture, and animal husbandry have enabled us to leave hunter-gatherer lifestyles, and evolve into much healthier, longer-lived lives due to more plentiful food, better variety, and other factors.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Its not healthier. You usually lack alot of protein which is majorily contributed by meat. Protein is vital for cell production and if you dont have this, you can become quite week and you lack the formation of tissue cells which will eventually turn into muscle.As for the morals of eating animals I do have to agree with you on the attrocities commited by a few un-nameable abattoirs, however the whole concept of eating animals has been a foundation of human suplementation for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years!
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

There are other forms of protein besides that which comes from animal flesh.Sure, it's been around forever...but so has war.. does that mean war is better than peace... just because something is a tradition that doesn't mean it is good?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

"Sure, it's been around forever...but so has war"By that I would assume you would give me a plausible reason as to why eating meet is as bad a shooting someone on the battlefield. Care to elaborate? Also I don’t understand why your using a COMPLETLEY separate point to justify your statement. War and eating meat are to vividly separate things so don’t try and sensationalize your argument.Also other forms of protein from plant material are no way near as neutrituoius as meat. There are so many vegetarians I know who have iron deficiencies and as a result have to take capsules to keep up there fanatisized fad.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I just used war as an example of why traditions are not necessarily good. It's just an analogy...Protein from plants is the same as protein from meat... go figure... there aren't a lot of types of protein out there. Yeah...they just need to take Iron capsules... I don't see anything wrong with that.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Meat eaters don't take supplements? Like, I just, like, knocked out that argument with like... a simple question, like! hahahahahaha
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Yes meat does have protein but so do many other types of foods. And when i say mean, I mean MANY. Even some sodas have small amounts of protein. Plus, too much protein will turn to fat. Too much fat then equals obesity. And obesity as we all know often results in an early death.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

This is a no brainer. I'm just gonna dump a bunch of links from earlier debates...---Vegetarians are healthier than non-vegetarians.http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S#FN2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028Vegetarians don't "miss out" on any vitamins or minerals.http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6374http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/vegetariandiet.htmlIt's a myth that vegetarians don't get enough protein.http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/dietarytherapy/a/Vegetarian.htmhttp://www.veganbodybuilding.com/Most meat comes from the grotesquely unethical practice of factory farming.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farminghttp://farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/beef/http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Factory_farming_needs_to_be_reformed And yes, animals are capable of suffering.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition Being natural doesn't magically make something morally acceptable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature There are also environmental reasons for being vegetarian.http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Please! “This is a no brainer.”?All vegetarians who have not eaten for three weeks because their lands have been ravaged by fire, drought, or frost will soon eat the flesh of the herbivore or die. Albeit, the omnivores living among them will be the last to die because they are not fixated upon a false paradigm of eating PREFERENCES. Eating is about survival and living, it is not about orthodoxy and paradigms. And when men by choice prefer to eat “only certain foods to the exclusion of others” they have precluded their survival in many conditions. The omnivore though will always eat to survive and will always, in all conditions, out-live vegetarian ideologues. (Only vegetarians reduce eating to morals. Most people eat to live. Perhaps vegetarians are ignorant of the fact that their diet is possible because of their meat-eating brethren.)
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

If the choice is between starvation and the consumption of meat, then by all means, kill away. That is also a no brainer.But in the civilized world, being vegetarian is easy, healthy, and morally correct. Let's not cling to barbaric traditions for no good reason.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

If the choice is between starvation and the consumption of meat, then by all means, kill away. That is also a no brainer.So then you agree: Vegans are omnivores when they are hungry enough.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Yes. And I hope you agree too: One should not consume meat when it is not necessary for survival.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

But in the civilized world, being vegetarian is easy, healthy, and morally correct. Let's not cling to barbaric traditions for no good reason.Oh please, not the tired "moral argument" for veganism/vegetarianism. Forgetting the fact that many of the animals we eat aren't capable of suffering on the same level that we do (piscine animals are mostly instinctual, with not many exceptions, insects and molluscs are basically just ganglia attached to a body except for cephalopods), our domestication of animals for meat, eggs, and milk has kept them alive as a species (because as we all know, many ancestors of the modern domesticated animals are endangered or extinct now), and finally the harvesting of fields for grains, cereals and legumes kills all sorts of animals which live in those plants.There are actually good reasons to be vegetarian: it can be a healthier diet, it can be more affordable, and if you are only able to get your meat from a factory farm which treats its livestock poorly, it can be merciful to those cows, pigs and chickens but don't make the argument that killing animals is inherently immoral.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I actually agree that killing the dumbest of animals like fish and bugs is probably no big deal. I left that out to keep things simple.I think killing more intelligent animals like chickens is probably not ok. Cows and pigs are well across the line.I also agree that eating non-factory farmed meat is much less of an issue."our domestication of animals for meat, eggs, and milk has kept them alive as a species"This is a bogus argument. We could preserve species without slaughtering them. The suffering we inflict upon animals is the primary issue here. Ethics are based on the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering. Inflicting pain on a sentient being without adequate justification is wrong. End of story."the harvesting of fields for grains, cereals and legumes kills all sorts of animals"This is a legitimate point.This guy did some research on the issue and concluded that replacing chicken and pork with grass-fed beef would result in the least amount of harm:http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Apr02/davis.htm Of course, most beef isn't grass fed, but is instead fed with harvested grains, so we run into the same problem there. And also, agricultural practices could be improved significantly from a moral standpoint if they took minimization of harm into account.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

"Why do you condemn their killing?"Well, it's really a technical point. If we accept that the suffering of intelligent animals is bad, then we must conclude that any butchering method short of euthanasia is going to be at least slightly wrong from an ethical perspective."Then shouldn't you be framing this discussion as vegetarianism against factory farming?"I am to an extent. But there are reasons for avoiding meat that don't have to do with factory farming, such as the health benefits."Instead we tend to best preserve that which we find useful."Still a bogus argument. Why is preserving species inherently good?"This is also in line with evolution."Specious appeal to nature."At the moment we can afford to be generous to other species but remember that life itself is a struggle, and always will be, for resources."You're right! The bovine uprising could come at any moment! Killing may be justified when it's required for survival, but civilization has developed well beyond that point."this shouldn't be about minimising pain and suffering, because pain and suffering exist and always will"The fact that something will always exist does not imply it should not be minimized."They need supplements of alfalfa, and grains in order to build up weight."I see. Well, maybe grass-fed beef wouldn't be the best way to go. I don't know, figuring the technicalities behind the minimization of harm would take a lot of work. My central point is that we should use that principle in guiding our decisions.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Well, it's really a technical point. If we accept that the suffering of intelligent animals is bad, then we must conclude that any butchering method short of euthanasia is going to be at least slightly wrong from an ethical perspective.I have read about studies where kashrut and halal (ritual) killing methods afflict minimal pain to the animal.http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm The above is an English translation of a 1978 German study (Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift volume 85 (1978), pages 62-66).I am to an extent. But there are reasons for avoiding meat that don't have to do with factory farming, such as the health benefits.Avoiding meat doesn't have health benefits inherently, dietary planning does. You're eating a very carefully selected diet, while normal consumers do not. This is what cases the discrepancy.Still a bogus argument. Why is preserving species inherently good?I never said it was good. I implied it was desirable. The reasoning should be simple to infer: preserving genepools to work from and use is more desirable than losing them.Specious appeal to nature.I suggest that you deepen your knowledge. It's should be embarrassing when an argument you make is seen as paper thin by your rivals. For example, calling my use of evolution to provide insight into how the animal and plant kingdoms build relationships with each other is not an appeal to nature, but instead a call to recognise that we are not unique in farming, and that we should recognise that farming is an effective way to build dependency and thus a requirement to sustain more organisms than just ourselves in nature.An appeal to nature is if I said "animals farm, nature farms, that's why it is good." An appeal to nature is a plea that what is natural is inherently good. Learn the different between that and using nature to provide insight or context.The fact that something will always exist does not imply it should not be minimized.Pain and suffering are a part of life, just like death, and disease. In terms of a cost to benefit ratio in minimising them, you have a sort of graph where two asymptotes intersect but are in opposite directions. In other words, there will always be a point when the cost to minimise pain far outweighs the benefits achieved from it. Hitting a perfect equilibrium is also undesirable because in a business you need to have some sort of return on your investment.But what you should really be focusing your attention on is the fact that to live is to experience hardship. We shouldn't have the mindset where pain is bad, and an anaesthetised life is desirable. Pain and hardship punctuates our existence. Animals accept this too, probably better than us. Which still gets us back to what I said earlier: we should eliminate UNNECESSARY pain, like that caused by abusive owners.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

"minimal pain"Minimal pain is still pain, is it not? Also, I seriously doubt things go so smoothly every time. If animals are viewed as not deserving of ethical treatment, abuses are going to be common."Avoiding meat doesn't have health benefits inherently"It does, it makes you less likely to suffer from heart disease. I'll leave this to the other thread."preserving genepools to work from and use"I'm sure we have ample genetic stock of every farm animal in several databases. Therefore it is not necessary to continue breeding them for this highly dubious purpose."calling my use of evolution to provide insight into how the animal and plant kingdoms build relationships with each other"Ok, I didn't read your point carefully and assumed you were making the tired old argument that animals kill therefore people should kill. Upon rereading I see you were actually saying that we have a symbiotic relationship with the animals we slaughter. Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that inflicting pain is bad. Again, we could preserve genetic stock without breeding and killing."there will always be a point when the cost to minimise pain far outweighs the benefits achieved from it"I agree. However, society is far from the point of negative returns. As things are now, we could achieve much benefit at minimal expense."We shouldn't have the mindset where pain is bad, and an anaesthetised life is desirable."I think you're giving an absurdly simplistic answer to a very difficult philisophical question. Maybe people need a certain amount suffering to feel fufilled, maybe a pain-free life would be more satisfying. It's not at all clear. I for one think I would like to live a long happy life with as little suffering as possible. Of course you are free to punch yourself in the nuts repeatedly if you think that's what life is all about."we should eliminate UNNECESSARY pain, like that caused by abusive owners."I agree. I would argue that all the suffering we inflict on animals with regard to their use as food is unnecessary.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

"I'd suggest reading the link I provided to see why."Ok, it's hypothetically true that animals can be raised in good conditions and killed humanely. That would be ok. I doubt things work so picturesquely in the real world, but I will admit it's theoretically possible."Meat doesn't cause heart problems"What are you basing that on? You seem to be just throwing out guesses without any supporting evidence. It's well established that saturated fat and cholesteral cause heart problems, and meat has lots of both. Just put two and two together."it isn't so much a problem due to eating meat, but abstaining from foods like soy."This is like saying, "The problem isn't playing with knives, the problem is abstaining from band-aids." If you don't cut yourself in the first place, you won't need a band-aid. If you don't eat meat, you won't have a problem that needs to be fixed."Much pain actually serves a purpose."Something can serve a purpose while still being bad. A lesser evil may be necessary in some cases to prevent a greater evil. This does not change the fact that, overall, evil should be minimized."I can't comment upon this without you elaborating upon what you think needs to be done."Individuals choosing to abstain from factory farmed and high-fat meats would clearly be a good first step. Beyond that I would call for a tax on high-fat meats and animal welfare laws which prevent the abuses seen in factory farms. Beyond that, abstaining from all meat except fish seems to me like a good idea, although I will admit this question is considerably less clear."an indicator if something is wrong"Obviously pain is an important indicator. When I talk about eliminating pain, I'm talking about eliminating the things that cause pain, not suggesting we anesthetize ourselves."Living in a pain-free life is merely existing"Living a pain-full life is also "merely existing"."happiness is just existence unless you know sadness"Not true. You seem to be forgetting that most of the time people feel neutral. Both happiness and sadness have meaning relative to our neutral state.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

"It's not hypothetical."Yes it is. In the real world, you always run into problems now and then. What if the stunning fails for some reason? What if the bolt pistol fails to kill? Even if you have failure rates of just 1%, when you kill millions of animals a year, you're going to have a lot of pain being dealt out. What levels of distress does the animal feel as it is being herded and restrained for slaughter? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know that I can keep things simple and avoid a lot of tricky moral questions simply by avoiding meat."Saturated fat... choloesteral...""restrict the intake of saturated fatty acids to less than 10% of daily energy intake...If populations are consuming less than 10%, they should not increase that level of intake."http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/5_population_nutrient/en/index12.html That seems to me to say, "the less saturated fat, the better."We can get everything we need from foods low in saturated fat. So why bother monitoring our intake? Again, we can keep things simple by avoiding meat."your argument for not eating meat, due to heart disease, is comparable to advocating the avoidance of carbohydrates [due to diabetes]"Not quite, because a certain amount of carbohydrates are needed for a healthy diet, whereas zero meat is needed for a healthy diet.http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates/ "Laws don't exist to coerce people into choosing healthy food choices."Says who? Society decides what our laws are. Also I wouldn't call a tax "coercion", as people could still by meat relatively easily albeit at a slightly higher price. It would be more like nudging people in the right direction."imposing your values and tastes upon others"1) "Suffering is bad" is not a personal value, it's a universal truth. 2) Their hospital bills increase my healthcare costs.Now, as for pain...1) Negative feelings are inherently bad.2) Pain is a kind of negative feeling, therefore pain is bad.3) Pain let's us know when something is wrong.4) Knowing something is wrong allows us to avoid a greater amount of negative feelings.5) Therefore pain is less bad than not knowing something is wrong.Do you see? It is important that we know when something is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that pain should be minimized -- that the causes of pain should be eliminated as much as possible. In other words, the ability to experience pain is necessary, but pain itself is not. We need smoke alarms; we don't need fire."I think you mean we have periods of disinterest, ennui, boredom, and apathy."No, most of the time I don't feel those negative emotions. Most of the time I simply feel "content." When I think of happiness I think of brief spikes like that time a girl I liked smiled at me, or I heard a funny joke. When I think of unhappiness I think of lying in bed alone at night. The majority of my existence lies between these two extremes. I did not by any means need to spend many nights alone to be able to enjoy nights spent with another.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

You are eager to assign blame to me, but do not consider that you yourself might deserve some. Reading your writing is like staring into the sun -- painful -- I can only do it through squinted eyes. If you cut out the bile, and edit non-essential statements from your arguments, it would make it a lot easier for me to glean your key points.I see no point debating someone who doesn't have the attention span or dedication to read a full body of text.Ok, look. We agree that we should minimize unnecessary pain. Does vegetarianism do that? Maybe, maybe not. Tractors kill a lot of animals. Would humane butchering practices be the best way to reduce pain? Maybe. What if we attempted to minimize harm in our crop-growing practices? Could we avoid a greater amount of pain in that case? Maybe. I see no clear answers here. Arriving at a satisfactory answer would require careful study. This is what I was getting at when I dismissed your claim that butchering animals is ok because some people you have met try to minimize pain.I am satisfied that I made you admit that vegetarianism isn't as clear a decision as you seemed to think three weeks ago.This is a no brainer. I'm just gonna dump a bunch of links from earlier debates...I do feel the need to criticise the following however:I think you give too much respect to "common knowledge." Common knowledge is often flawed. Are people in China really more regulated than the United States? Are those regulations as well enforced? How does the people's income level factor into this? How about the culture? How do we even measure morality? No, these are all very difficult questions, requiring careful study. Your claims amount to argument by hand-waving.Please take some time to study the social systems, and basis of law in those three countries I mentioned so that you can see how absurd it is to ask a question like Are people in China really more regulated than the United States? otherwise I'll assume that your understanding of world politics is below even the cursory level that the average American has.