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

No they are not healthier! They get fatigued easily, are not very strong at all and their endurance tends to lack. If you look at any athlete; see what their diet consists of... Seriously
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Talk to the vegan monks who practice martial arts about endurance and strength... see if you can out do them in anything physical... endurance and strength is as much about training as it is about eating a balanced diet. This balanced diet can be vegan.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

They are much healthier. You may wish to do a search on how many vegetarian/vegan athletes there really are.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Bull.http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/05/10-superstar-athletes-who-do-not-eat-meat.php
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

How many more are not vegetarians?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Who cares? The point is people have done it, therefore his claim that avoiding meat leads to a lack of strength or endurance is wrong.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Just because we can consume meat doesn't mean we must.The fact that we CAN consume meat is an evolved trait. It means we are more adaptable. But that's not the argument I'm making. There isn't a moral argument against eating meat which holds under rational scrutiny. You eat grains, fine, but you kill animals to produce those grains (pesticides kill all sorts of insects, some of them poison fish, rodents live in grain fields, and so on. These are all animals.). So at best a moral argument can serve to change the industry (because in this case the industry is only exacerbating this practice) but it is still not an argument to abstain from meat. It's just an argument to not use industrial ranching.Vegetarians are healthier than non-vegetarians. That fact is indisputable.You don't really understand the basis of your argument, is what you're telling me. Eating only vegetables doesn't make you healthier. The reason that vegetarians may as a demographic be considered healthier is due to diet planning. It isn't the vegetables, but when you practice a lifestyle that requires more effort and is consequently scrutinised more, your diet should be healthier because you're not eating useless calories and fats and sugars that accompany a typical modern diet.Most of the animals we kill are intelligent enough to experience pain and suffering, and that's the important thing.Do you realise that we are the only organisms even arguing this point? It's kind of funny when you think about it because life is a struggle. The bacteria in your colon would consume you right now if they could get past your defences. The insects around you would have no restraint from eating your flesh. That we have come to this apex where we can relax from hunting and reflect at last upon the cruelty of life that is in our survival, it is almost like eating our tails.A cow that is butchered humanely doesn't suffer. They are given open pastures, same as sheep, and horses. They aren't suffering. Chickens tend to suffer because there is less incentive in many farms to raise them in open land. Pigs may suffer most of all because they don't seem to be thought of as needing all the land that the others get. However, yours is an argument against crowded farming, and painful death. It isn't an argument against eating meat.As for conservation, ever heard of a zoo? Or a wildlife sanctuary? There are better ways to preserve species.I've heard it estimated that there are twenty billion chickens on Earth. We have over a billion cows. Tell me about a wildlife sanctuary, or zoo which has been able to proliferate a species so well. Farming gives us a use for these animals, and so we keep their numbers far from ever dwindling.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

You eat grains, fine, but you kill animals to produce those grainsAnd you kill many many more animals by eating meat because those animals are usually raised on years and years of feeding them grain. So when we apply that same examination to a meat eating diet, it shows it does even more harm and suffering comparatively. Organic food and better farming practices help cut down on that kind of suffering caused by farming. Also, ranching isn't an alternative as we have that to thank for the killing off or wholesale slaughter of wild species (typically wolves, coyotes and other preditors).but when you practice a lifestyle that requires more effort and is consequently scrutinised moreStudies have taken that into account. Their are probable just as many lazy vegetarians (drinking soda and eating Cheetos) as their are lazy meat eaters. Regardless of what you think, scientist (more specifically the American Dietetic Association) are in consensus that a vegetarian diet reduces the health risk of cancer, heart attack, and other nasty thinks likely to kill you.reflect at last upon the cruelty of life that is in our survival, it is almost like eating our tails.Hu wa? Having empathy and reflecting on the suffering of other intelligent life forums (or being vegetarian) doesn't cramp my lifestyle in the smallest bit. In fact it opened my mind to new food I had never tried before. It may have been true in the past but current modern day civilization owes little to nothing to the exploitation of animals. Just about every animal product, now a days, can be replaced with something else that usually does the job just as good if not better.A cow that is butchered humanely doesn't suffer.Evidence shows otherwise. 95% of meat comes from factory farms and in the bottom-line comes first, mostly unregulated, cut throat industry of butchering pounds per second.. abuses and mistakes happen all too often. Something uncovered on a regular interval by undercover investigations. I've heard it estimated that there are twenty billion chickens on Earth. We have over a billion cows.At the expense of billions of lives of suffering, wildlife, the rain-forest, our health, wasted resources, etc....That sounds like a very hollow victory.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

And you kill many many more animals by eating meat because those animals are usually raised on years and years of feeding them grain. So when we apply that same examination to a meat eating diet, it shows it does even more harm and suffering comparatively. Organic food and better farming practices help cut down on that kind of suffering caused by farming. Also, ranching isn't an alternative as we have that to thank for the killing off or wholesale slaughter of wild species (typically wolves, coyotes and other preditors).When you eat meat, you're not making an argument that killing animals is bad, nor are you making a lifestyle choice that necessarily concerns itself with minimising suffering. You simply accept it, or ignore it.Vegetarians on the other hand do care about suffering as their moral argument for their lifestyle choice. It doesn't matter whether you're eating organic foods or whatever, if you eat grains or vegetables which are field harvested, you're supporting the slaughter of millions of animals annually. This defeats the moral argument for vegetarianism.Studies have taken that into account. Their are probable just as many lazy vegetarians (drinking soda and eating Cheetos) as their are lazy meat eaters. Regardless of what you think, scientist (more specifically the American Dietetic Association) are in consensus that a vegetarian diet reduces the health risk of cancer, heart attack, and other nasty thinks likely to kill you.All I'm reading from you is "no chemical mechanism given for X disease, no major chemical difference between meats and vegetables when digested, no reason to suspect that meat causes X disease."The proteins, sugars, steroids and lipids in meat and vegetables are chemically similar. There are specialised lipids in certain cases (certain saturated fats for example), but without a mechanism given you're not writing a cogent argument. You're only inviting speculation.Evidence shows otherwise. 95% of meat comes from factory farms and in the bottom-line comes first, mostly unregulated, cut throat industry of butchering pounds per second.. abuses and mistakes happen all too often. Something uncovered on a regular interval by undercover investigations. English translation of a German study:http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm Experiments for the objectification of pain and consciousness during conventional (captive bolt stunning) and religiously mandated (“ritual cutting”) slaughter procedures for sheep and calves.This is about meat-eating not factory farming.At the expense of billions of lives of suffering, wildlife, the rain-forest, our health, wasted resources, etc....That sounds like a very hollow victory.It still works as a method of preserving a species. When a use is found for them, they will be preserved. I was stating facts.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

1. Well thank goodness it is us who decide why we are vegetarian as apposed to you and other meat eaters, otherwise we would not have made the progress we have. It's not about being perfect, it's about reducing harm, and going vegetarian is one of the best steps you can take (outside of going vegan).2. Its not speculation. Again Ill just refer you to the ADA.3. How is that study relevant? Factory farming is a direct result of eating meat.4. As I was stating a fact
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

1. Well thank goodness it is us who decide why we are vegetarian as apposed to you and other meat eaters, otherwise we would not have made the progress we have. It's not about being perfect, it's about reducing harm, and going vegetarian is one of the best steps you can take (outside of going vegan)."Reducing harm" is a selfish motive born out of the guilty conscience that comes from self-denial. Unless you are an autotroph or chemotroph you need to consume other life forms to survive.2. Its not speculation. Again Ill just refer you to the ADA.Read my statement more clearly: there is no causal mechanism elucidated yet for the role saturated fat plays in heart disease. Therefore it invites speculation to use only statistics.3. How is that study relevant? Factory farming is a direct result of eating meat.It demonstrates that killing animals need not be painful to the animal.Factory farming comes from industrialisation and mass production.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Vegetarianism is nothing more then a fad movement for self-righteous pricks who think that they are somehow in better standing because they choose to kill plants rather then animals.They claim to be all for the animals and yet their food they get comes from a farm that most likely used to be a habitat for animals.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

It's a fad movement for self righteous pricks?Including Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and other religions/groups which have been around for several centuries?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I'd call 'em pricks. Many bathe in the feces-filled Ganges.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I can understand what you are saying consider the fact that there are vegetarians that simply call us omnivours "Evil". Some are self-righteous prick but there are those that just simply do not want to eat meat.In order for life to continue, the life of another must be sacrificed. Perhaps the way the animals are kill and treated can be dabated but other than that, lets just leave it at that.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

It's a fad movement that grows and grows and doesn't seem to stop... what's a fad again?Vegetable farm vs Animal farmYou must always choose the lesser of two weavils ;)
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

What is the difference between killing plants and animals? Nothing. They are both living things. Different ways.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

The difference is one has a brain and one doesn't. And that's a large difference. It's the dividing line between dealing with something that can think and feel and perceive and something that can't.I am still however an omnivore and not planning on changing. The really critical ethical dividing line is the posession of sapience, not the possession of perception, and I'm evolved for meat in my diet. Vegetarianism does however have it's compelling arguments. Beyond the purely personal health issues, which are ambiguous despite what many people think, there's the question of large scale resource allocation. You can feed a lot of people on the land you use to graze a few cattle that will only feed a much smaller number of people. If I thought there was any reasonable chance of those resources actually being used to distibute food to where it was needed in the world I'd consider the switch to vegetarianism worth the sacrifice of, well, being vegetarian.Since that is not the current reality however and we're already producing a large amount of waste food that nobody will redistributre because the people who need it can't pay for it... I'm eating my burger for lunch.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Well, the conception that plants don't feel pain is simply false. Common sense says if something is living, then it probably feels pain."Each root apex harbors a unit of nervous system of plants. The number of root apices in the plant body is high and all brain-units are interconnected via vascular strands (plant nerves) with their polarly-transported auxin (plant neurotransmitter), to form a serial (parallel) nervous system of plants. The computational and informational capacity of this nervous system based on interconnected parallel units is predicted to be higher than that of the diffuse nervous system of lower animals, or the central nervous system of higher animals/humans." [1] A German StudyIt is expensive to feed livestock, and at times, there is a large misuse of resource allocation in the nation and the world, yet farmers who raise livestock and own property has the right to raise livestock, and in do so, they have the right to to sell it as a product as well as farmers who plant vegetables and fruits.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

First... please don't appeal to "common sense" when discussing complex technical scientific issues. Generally, relying on "common sense" when doing so is a bad idea. "Common sense" would never lead us to an understanding of wave/particle duality for example. Second, even if we did insist on appyling "common sense" to this particular question then it would most certainly not tell us that "living = feels pain". The possession of a nervous system doesn't mean that something feels, in the sense that it consciously perceives sensations. It might experience autonomic reactions to stimuli but that's not the same thing. And instead of just linking to the study that is at the bottom of the Wiki Answers entry you copied, did you consider reading it? You will not find the words "feel" or "pain" anywhere in it. Someone just saw the word "brain" and "plant" in the same article and decided that meant plants have brains and therefore feel pain and posted it as an answer on the Wiki. In reality, if you actually read the study, it says nothing of the kind. It's just drawing analogies to describe some nervous system structures they're studying by referring to some of their processes as "brain-like" functions.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

First, I don't copy anything from wiki answers. It was a study that I found searching.Second, I didn't say that they have a brain. Third, last study dealt with nervous system of the plant.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

First, if you want to maintain that you just happened to post the full word for word answer from wiki answers to the question "How can a plant feel pain without a nervous system?"... AND the link to the page that summarizes the study that was posted on Wiki answers... but NOT the link to the actual study (which the answer on Wikii answer also coincidentally neglected to include)... yeah, you go ahead and do that. Second, I didn't say you said they have a brain. I said the people who thought this study showed that plants feel pain thought it. Third, yes... I know the study dealt with nervous systems of plants. Which is probably why I said this: It's just drawing analogies to describe some nervous system structures they're studying by referring to some of their processes as "brain-like" functions.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Well, the conception that plants don't feel pain is simply false. Common sense says if something is living, then it probably feels pain.Plants have a simple ion transfer system resembling a basic nervous system, but they have no executive control. For plants the system works more like a telegraph line than a neural network. For one thing they have no analogue of neurons.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Yes, I can definitely agree with that. That is what I was trying to explain that plants have a simple nervous system.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Has anyone here even seen mythbusters they proved that plants have some sort feeling to being hit or burned or watered
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Now that you mention it, I did see it but forgot it mention it. My sentiments exactly.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I've yet to meet a vegetarian able to convince me not to eat meat. Their arguments are just stupid and horribly flawed, every time.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

The fact that you're inconvincible is testament to your own stubbornness. There's nothing wrong with most of the logics and reasonings provided here.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

For example?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

show me the arguments that you think are "stupid" and "flawed".
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

yeah... Ooooooorrrr I could save a couple hours, you can post an argument and I'll tell you why you're wrong. I'm NOT here to debate for you. Put up your own arguments, jeez XD
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

You haven't posted a single argument. Not one. Nada. Niente. I, on the other hand, have posted more than 20.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I also have no agenda. I didn't come to you, YOU came to ME. I couldn't care less if you never eat meat for the rest of your life, but clearly you think everyone should give it up. otherwise, why start talking to me in the first place? If you think I should be a vegetarian, tell me why. Otherwise you're just wasting your time talking to me as I'm not going to assume your arguments, only an idiot would agree to that and quite frankly you're not important enough to me for me to bother looking through things you've written in the past just to spend even more time explaining to you why there's no need to give up eating meat. ;)
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Meat is way better....................................................................
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I have a pet water bottle, it's the best ever.................................
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I'd sooner eat my cat that a carcinogenic water bottle.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

My pet water bottle not carcinogenic, it really good, it blue and green and has white cap and everything.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

People have eaten meat since the dawn of man at first just for food then because it tasted good and now we eat it for the health benifits and also why should we stray away from our original source of food and but we should also eat some vegetables and fruits to control our nutrition levels but no meat at all thats just not right
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

With the benefit of modern nutritional science, we've now discovered something we did not know thousands of years ago: We will be just as healthy (if not more) if we don't eat meats...
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I don't quite understand why people argue healthier or not. Humans and our ancestors have been eating meat for thousands of years. The argument of healthier or not does not play an important role of life or death. We found our own way to survive and adapt to our surrounds through the eating of plants and meats. If we can survive for our entire life through the consumption of plants and meats, we can suvive the rest of our lives in a happy and enjoyable way eating plants AND animals
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

This is basically the argument I was making in some of my other replies. We have the capacity to eat meat and enjoy it, and we know how to live healthily, so we should take advantage of that knowledge and our body's ability to process meat and vegetables, and enjoy both.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

wooooooooooot........................................... your so right
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I don't quite understand why people argue healthier or notWhere have you been the last 10 years?The argument of healthier or not does not play an important role of life or deathYou're right, it doesn't. But we're no longer the hunter gatherer tribesmen and tribeswomen thousands of years ago. Most of us are not in any danger of starvation any more. So the argument of healthier is about living longer and being able to function better..Bottom line, if we have evolved to be able to eat both, it means we can choose. Vegetarianism is better in so many ways as have already been mentioned.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Vegetarians fart more than non-vegetarians.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I wonder what vegetarian humans taste like...Valuing animal life above plant life does not make one morally superior, as morals are entirely subjective.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

It is expensive to feed livestock, and at times, there is a large misuse of resource allocation in the nation and the world, yet farmers who raise livestock and own property has the right to raise livestock, and in do so, they have the right to to sell it as a product as well as farmers who plant vegetables and fruits.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

what else would pigs be for ?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Why does an animal need to be 'for' anything? Does every species on earth need to be able to provide some kind of benefit to humans in order to live here?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

" Does every species on earth need to be able to provide some kind of benefit to humans in order to live here?" Yes, otherwise they would be extinct