azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

So we are now intelligent enough to understand the suffering of others, and to lessen our impact on their pain. And I don't think lions would factory farm zebras- it would cause them to die of boredom, maybe the weak or old ones would, though... so they'd de-evolve, like us, into weak lemons, playing 'catch the zebra' computer games and painting their claws.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Referring to animals as others is really the delusional state that you really possess.Why would factory farm zebras bore them to death? They would have more time to go travel and enjoy life.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

You're the delusional one. You're saying that they're non sentient, and that they're not even 'others' are they just items to you? Things to be used and abused?Lions enjoy the kill. It's their fun- the chase, the excitement, et.c. I don't pretend to understand, but those lions in zoos really sulk.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Correct, animals have no sentient. Lions don't kill because it is fun, it is instinct into survival.Animals like cows and pigs are communities given the state of their existence. This is no different than lions and zebras.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

They communicate, they have emotions, they care.Humans are animals, you're not religious- so why do you think we're so much better than they are?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Of course, animals communicate, but only on primitive levels such as mating, hunting or directional. As for emotions, whether animals have emotions is debatable because for certain chemical responses to be called feelings, that the being in question needs to have a conscious awareness of their state. With this definition, it becomes much harder to say whether animals experience feelings in the same conscious manner even though the neurochemical signatures are similar.Of course, humans are animals, it is not that we're so much better than they are, we stepped up the food chain with our brains; otherwise before, humans were on the bottom.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I'm guessing you don't see many animals, or have ever even tried to communicate. They speak in their own ways- pets regard humans as subservient, the wild regard humans as dislocated freaks. Only those halfway inbetween make any attempts at communication to humans, other than warnings or orders. You don't understand them, and probably never will. I've seen their conciousness. Don't tell me that they have none.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

God put animals on this earth for us to eat. We just have to do it humanely and make sure the animals feels no suffering. I mean, really. what sounds better... a juicy cheezeburger or some dried up mushroom on a bun?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I LOVE mushrooms, with herbs, or in a risotto... There are so many alternatives to meatQuinoa burgersSoya mince burgersSoya mince in soupAnd they are all delicious
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

I have had all of those. They are nasty. Also, they are not as healthy.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Killing an animal for no reason what so ever is murder but if there is a reason like to survive as in eat then that's not murder. We eat meat to survive and yes we do have the capability to eat vegatables and plants but either way its the same bc if yuh think about it vegatables and plants are also living things. they grow and they live and then we kut them from their roots and they die. So is that murder? Bc thats pretty much the same thing if you think about it.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

you just said humans are superior, but you advocate an animals life now? get your story straight.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Technically no. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. If we define murder as the act of killing than this would include veganism. Humans are omnivores by nature, we have teeth specially adapted to eat both animal and plant material, and are healthier if we eat both. Of course you can survive just fine on plant material alone, that is your decision to do so.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

If only cannialism; otherwise, meat is food. Simple as that.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

No... It can't be and never will. You are referring to those certain other genetically modified food items that may replace the natural order of food? I doubt. We have screwed with the nature. We did a million things. Created machines that are helpful and yet leading us to a state that deteriorates our immunity power. We built tall buildings and underground wells that is increasing the chances of Earthquakes and do we still have to decide if eating flesh is going to disorder the environment? After all those disasters that we have created, it gives us no right to question a natural diet. Man... It is natural. How can you just someday sit and decide that your a vegetarian and your doing good! No your not...
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

were naturally omnivorous and hey survival of the fittest....technologically fittest.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Physically weakest. Look up de-evolution
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

we are still the fittest. fittest doesn't mean physically fit, like a jogger say. Survival of the fittest mean "most fit to live" examples being rates of reproduction and reliable food sources. thats why some seemingly unfit creatures like bacterium or cockroaches are actually some of the most successful species alive.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Animals have so many techniques to survive that we couldn't even dream about. Humans are just slowly destroying the world.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Think about it if we didn't kill animals for meat, or anything for that matter, the whole world would be overpopulated with animals. Plus a lot of people wouldn't have jobs... so yeah... :D
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Not true, we breed the animals we kill. Only fish are killed wild.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

If meat is murder, then murder is delicious.(I love the Colbert Report.)
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

How is meat the unlawful killing of another person?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Humans are built to process meat. Eating meat is needed for brain growth and development. There are no vegans that are healthy without taking supplements. There are even some enzymes that the human body needs that you can only get from meat or milk. A good example is tryptophan. If you don't get it you will die and you can only get it from meat or milk.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Then how do we survive plants have meat too do your research you bum
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

What u need to do is simmer down, take a breather, go to your nearest steak house, order the biggest bestes steak on the menu, grab a fork and knife, and take a bite. If that delicious piece of cow doesnt make your teeth chatter.....blasphemy I say. But if it doesnt, pull yo skirt down and realize that they are animals. And they are not to be compared to humans. Besides, If a hungery lion saw you walking around in his hood, he would go to town on yo ass, literally. He'd grab his lion fork and lion knife, tell his wives and kids to go stand in the corner until he got done, and chew you until you stopped screaming. Then his family would hav a go. They would have a family picnic feeding on your entrails. So humans have to be stuck eating plants while all the other animals get to eat meat. Even some plants eat meat for goodness sake. Now hunting for sport, I dont really get.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

meat is in no way murder. Are animals murderers? Is killing something you wish to eat unlawful?If eating meat is amoral why is eating a plant any better?
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Murder is strictly defined as a human illegally and intentionally taking the life of another human. Even a human taking the life of another human is not always murder; we have terms like manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) and other terms that we use when killing the victim was not the intent, and we also differentiate between premeditated murder and crimes of passion as well. It's also not murder when a soldier kills an enemy soldier in wartime.But ultimately, it comes down to the first line- murder is strictly defined as a human illegally and intentionally taking the life of another human. As noted, not all cases of humans killing humans are murder. Exactly zero cases of humans taking the lives of non-humans are murder, by the very definition of the word.I understand the emotional zeal that is felt by those who consider killing animals to be abhorrent- I really do. But making claims like 'meat is murder' doesn't help your case at all- if you're hoping to sway meateaters, painting a portrait of them alongside some of the worst criminals of mankind doesn't help anybody- it's abusive and puts them on the defensive.Less offensive terminology used against minorities have been considered hate crimes. Think on that before you start throwing labels around. If you're really hoping for change, being militant about it is only going to enforce the 'crazy vegan' stereotype that is already out there. Better to attempt to garner compassion than try the route of personal attacks.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Hey Vegans,My food eats your food!Hey Vegans,My food eats your food!
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

It can't be murder since its legal to kill animals for food and Murder is illegal so....
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Not if we modify the definition of murder to state "the killing of an innocent being."
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Yeah but that's not the true definition he never said that when he wrote murder you could modify it and I'm pretty sure he meant the " illegal killing" type of murder anyway
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

arrrrgghh!!! I've just been murdered! But only if we change the definition to 'the slight annoyance of a human being.'
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Meat is the best place to get all 9 essential amino acids to make a complete protein. We can get this from other food sources yes but they arent easy to cultivate nor do we have the means to cultivate them to provide 7 billion people with all of the incomplete proteins to make a balanced diet. Meat is easy to produce, wholesome, and natural. So long as the animal is not unnecessarily injured in the butchering process i have no qualms with eating meat.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

The legal definition of murder is, "killing another human being with malice aforethought."Killing animals for meat is not murder
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Accidental copy - please ignore (I hate this character minimum... People who want to ignore it just spam characters, what's the point?)
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

To what moral basis are you referring? According to Darwinism (this isn't a slam, just a literal truth), animals are no more than organic machines. Under Monotheistic ideology, consuming meat (at least, certain types of it) is perfectly fine.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

It's natural for one animal to eat another. It's only fitting that we stuff animals by the millions into slather houses!
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

Evil bastard.And that's the first time I've ever swore at someone online- thus demonstrating my opinions of your stupid ignorant viewpoint.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Bastard isn't swearing cunt,fuck,bitch,shit is not bastard also you could be lying that's it's your first time swearing also it isn't a swear word so...
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

? He submitted a factual, logical viewpoint. All of the things he said were true. He did not insult anyone, he was not disrespectful, he simply voiced his opinion. Yep. That totally means he is an "Evil bastard" Brilliant.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

U wanna starve and under perform, go ahead.But if you are saying the certain treatment of animals is cruel, then I am fine with that
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

You need to work on what you say. The debate is actually a very interesting one and you just ruined the quality and purpose of this debate.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

You ruined a perfectly good debate by bothering to respond to someone who as you claim is ruining the quality of the debate. So work on what you say before you say it or don't bother to say it at all. Do you get what I say? I don't think so, but I say it anyway.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

Yes, you speak the truth. Couldn't say it better myself. But that will not stop me. High protein, as is found in meat, is essential for good nutrition.Of course some animal farms are treating the animals not so great, but most people who criticize this are just hypocrites who go to Micky-D's and order super sized double cheeseburger and chicken nuggets. Or just order off the dollar menu. You know what I'm talking about.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

A vegetarian diet in no way leads to starvation or under-performance.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

While he may have overstated in an extremely idiotic way, most animal protein is complete, meaning it has adequately proportioned amounts of all the amino acids, while many vegetable proteins do not.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

You are correct that animal protein is nutritionally complete, and protein from an individual vegetable is not. However, you can ingest the same proteins present in animal by eating a variety of vegetables, since not all vegetables contain the same proteins. Thus, the under-performance argument I believe you were attempting to support is again invalid.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

1) Combining multiple plant foods gives you the full range of amino acids. You should be eating a variety of plant foods anyway.2) Dairy products contain complete proteins.3) Protein powder works too.There are no negative consequences at all to excluding meat from your diet. In fact, studies have shown forgoing meat makes you less likely to die from a heart attack:http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/ 3/516S#FN2 "We... compare the death rates from common diseases of vegetarians with those of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles... In conclusion, vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established."http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

"1) Combining multiple plant foods gives you the full range of amino acids. You should be eating a variety of plant foods anyway."If we had to produce enough vegan protein alternatives for all people to be able to combine sources in order to get the full range of amino acids every day, the environment would come to a stand still. How environmentally friendly do you think it will be if we had to produce entire crops of beans, and entire crops of nuts, transport all these things with trucks that produce CO2, process them in bigger factories that would yield higher pollution levels, use stronger pesticides to ensure the success of the crop, which in turn will damage the environment and other animals heavily. The mistake you are making is that you are assuming that producing these vegan alternatives (to multiple quantities in order to make up the full amino acids) is less harmful than having a bunch of cows in a farm. 100 grams of lean beef or chicken gives me approximately 30 grams of protein and all the amino acids I need. In order to get that from beans (5g per 100g), I would have to eat 600 grams of beans. On top of that, I would need to eat another complimentary protein to make up for the amino acids. So in terms of quantity, we would need to produce 6 times (in this example) the amount of beans. That is 6 times the size of the land used. 6 times the amount of pesticides. 6 times the amount of petrol needed for transport. 6 times the amount of tins needed to package the beans. 6 times the amount of rubbish in my bin going to wastelands. 6 times the amount of pollution and toxics in the rivers. And that's just for the beans! Think about the multiples of the other protein source as well..."2) Dairy products contain complete proteins."Sure they do. But with our large populations you would still need animal factories that produce milk. The quantities we need make it almost impossible to be entirely "free range". You would still have animals trapped in a box and made to produce more milk than they normally would.Either way, you cannot avoid using animals. Because going all vegan and combining protein sources would be financially impossible and environmentally disastrous.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

You do realize that animals use up more resources than plants, right? Your first two paragraphs make an excellent argument against eating meat because "having a bunch of cows on a farm" is much less resource efficient than growing soy or what have you on that same farm. Cows don't live on air, you know.As for getting milk from cows on a farm, I disagree with you that they would need to be "trapped in a box." Providing humane conditions may raise the price of milk a bit, but not prohibitively so. Also, because they aren't "cycled" nearly as quickly as animals which are bred to be used as meat, much less suffering occurs, and it is thus a big step up from killing them for meat.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

That's not true. You can feed a bunch of cows with grass alone. You don't need to give them the same wide range of foods that humans require. Some farmers have fields with trees on them and grass underneath. The cows can live on the grass, which is essentially free to the farmer who is more interested in what the trees produce. If you piled up the grass the cows need to live on, it wouldn't be any near the size of the field we would need for the amount of beans that would equal the amount of protein the cow would give us. So there you have it.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

I would like to see a citation to verify that. How much grass does a cow require? How much free grass do we currently have? Are grass fed cows as economically viable as grain fed cows? Are they as nutritionally adequate?Here's the most comprehensive report on the issue of livestock that I know of:http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM There is way more information in there than I'm capable of digesting in one sitting, probably even in ten sittings, but I did find this snippet:"In fact, livestock consume 77 million tonnes of protein contained in feedstuff that could potentially be used for human nutrition, whereas only 58 million tonnes of proten are contained in food products that livestock supply. This is a result of the recent trend towards more concentrate-based diets for pigs and poultry, with nutritional requirements more similar to humans than ruminants."
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

I read that document with a lot of interest :o)The quote that you provided here, actually continues to say the following:"This simple comparison obscures the fact that proteins contained in animal products have higher nutritive values than those in the feed provided to animals. Moreover, it does not capture the fact that livestock and their feed also make a contribution to food security objectives by providing a buffer in national and international food supplies that can be drawn upon in case of food shortages."So there you have it. The amount of protein we feed them might be 77 million tonnes, but that 77 million is only complementary protein. In other words you have to combine it with other proteins to make up the full amino acids. Whereas the 58 million tonnes of protein that those animals produce, is full of amino acids and does not require further proteins to complement...You've just proved my point, thank you :o)
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: Yes, I agree

/facepalmNo, it's not remotely that simple.If you look at the full report there is a clusterfuck of pluses and minuses relating to the raising and consumption of meat. It's not at all clear what the best answer is.Among the issues: ruminants like cows are less widely used than chickens because chickens are much more economically efficient.Also, land used for feed could be used for crops better suited to humans. The protein yield would be higher and amino acids more diverse.I'm still waiting for that citation about grass and cows, btw.
Debate: Meat is Murder!
Side: No, I disagree

No it's not clear what the best answer is which is why the report does not call for and end to meat consumption, it actually does not make any recommendations. You said it yourself, there are pluses and minuses. Which basically indicates that the answer is somewhere in the middle. But in this one issue we have been debating, the report makes it very clear that although the tonnes of protein the animals consumed was 77 million, the 58 million tonnes of proteins contained in the animal products had higher nutritive values than those in the feed provided to animals.Now let's do some maths...If the 77 million tonnes consumed by the animals were of the same food group (i.e. corn) and that group contained half the amino acids needed for humans, then you would need another 77 million tonnes of a different feed that would make up for the other half of amino acids needed. That is 154 tonnes of various feed in total, in order to produce 77 million tones of full-amino protein for humans. That's double the feed, for effectively only 32% more complete protein than what the animals produced on half the amount of vegan protein. But if you gave that 154 tonnes of feed to the animals, you would have 116 tonnes of fully nutritional protein instead of just 77 tonnes. And that's being generous, cause if the second food group does not make up for the entire second half of amino acids needed, then you would need a third...But let's look at the other option.If the 77 million tonnes of protein given to the animals were a composition of, lets say, soya and corn, then by the fact that one has to be complemented by the other, humans would only make up 38.5 tonnes of full-amino protein out of it. Which is 20 tonnes less than what the animals produced. And the number gets a lot lower if the feed was made up of three different vegan proteins. Cause we would have to consume from all three in order to make up for all the amino acids. So, effectively, if we all turned vegan, because of the fact that vegan protein has to be combined in different sources to make up for the full amino acids, we would need far larger quantities of vegan alternatives to be produced and transported etc etc. According to the maths, in the best case scenario, we would need double the amount of the feed we give to animals in order to get the high quality protein we are currently getting from them. And that's only if corn and soya can provide us with all the amino acids, which I doubt they do...There is your answer.