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

Are you suggesting banning non-vegetarianism in favor of vegetarianism because of health reasons? There are a myriad of reasons to ban something due to health reasons, but it doesn't mean that you actually do it.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Wtf? No, I wasn't suggesting banning the consumption of meat. I was just establishing the fact that vegetarianism is clearly the better choice.Although now that you mention it, banning meat might not be such a bad idea... :)
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Banning meat would be a bad thing. What will happen to all those workers that get paid to do what they do. Considering how big the Meat industries and franchises are, banning meat would worsen the debt America already has.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

This argument is as stupid as saying banning war will put all those people in the weapons industry out of a job! They can find other things to do, surely... .Btw, no body is arguing that meat eating should be banned. We're simply saying Vegetarianism is better.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Those people would just get other jobs. If we want to create jobs we can just tax people the money they would've spent on meat and use it to stimulate the economy.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Are you kidding me? Do you know how many people don't have jobs right now? That's 9.7% of the population which is around 29,971,448 people. If meat was banned, the job market will be flooded with more people that need a job. The unemployment rate is constantly rising, slowly but surely. America cannot afford to ban meat.And that tax idea, you do know that the money that would be spent on meat would then be spent on more vegetables so more taxes would mean pissing off A LOT of people.Plus, do you know how many people love meat? Do you also know how many people love and exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Banning meat is like banning alcohol. Prohibition failed so banning meat will also fail. MISERABLY.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Why don't we pay people to dig holes and fill them in again?Because that's not useful work. But let's say there was a whole industry dedicated to digging holes and filling them in. And then somebody comes along and says, "This is bullshit, why are people getting payed to do this?" And then all the hole diggers say, "STFU! There ain't no jobs!"That's the same situation here. Don't you see? Paying people to do unproductive or harmful work is just a twisted form of welfare. If people need welfare, then we should just give them welfare. If we want to create more jobs then the economy can support, the way to do that is to tax and spend. Any economist will tell you that."Prohibition failed so banning meat will also fail."Banning it outright may not work, but there are other ways to discourage consumption. Taxing it, for example; or raising awareness about the consequences of consumption. Like we do with cigarettes now. We could create a bunch of jobs by legalizing cigarettes. Does that mean we should do so?I don't see why you're getting your panties in a wad over this, though. All I was doing in my initial argument was laying down the evidence that vegetarianism is a good idea. Then some jackass randomly decides I must be calling for a government ban on meat and suddenly I'm debating some rabid idiot on some irrelevant tangent. Bah. Thanks for the downvotes though! Good to know the one argument here that actually cites some sources is buried where no one will see it.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Digging holes and filling them up isn't useless. That's called construction. If a house with a basement is going to be built, a hole has to be dug. If some property is too uneven with holes, you fill them and level it for use. You ask one of those hole diggers and hole fillers that their job is stupid, they probably would say, "Yeah but I'm being paid and that's all that matters." They are working for a living and isn't that productive?Taxing and spending? If the government tries to tax too much, people tend to think, "Will I be able to pay them?" That is the fear that grips America. Will I have enough money for the taxes, the loans for the car, the house. Taxing and spending would put America in between a rock and a hard place. Theories are only theories. They don't always work the way they are written.I agree that America has to raise awareness that eating too much meat is unhealthy considering how being fat raises a lot of medical dangers. And that means more has to be spent for something that could be avoided. But overall, meat has been with Humanity for a long time and always will be. It just tastes too good to resist.I also don't understand why you have to call me a jackass. So I emphasized on some parts of my argument and you though that I was being offensive. This website was made for debate. Not name calling.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Being a vegan is the better choice, as far as health goes. As meat can come packed with disease and is packed with lots of fats. You can get everything your body needs from plants, even though us as humans are omnivores the better path to take is vegetarianism. But I don't have the heart to give up steak.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

"Being a vegan is the better choice"If the vegan choice is viable; for there are circumstances when the vegan choice is not possible and thus not viable.Starvation trumps a dietary preference.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I can't say I disagree with you, but your point seems off topic. What I can see from the statements is purely an argument in semantics. :)
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Agreed!If I wasn’t so lazy, it should have read: "Being a vegan is the better choice,if the vegan choice is viable.”I failed to indicate by punctuation I was appending Wolfman’s assertion. It was a lazy attempt to establish premises of an argument that the vegan position is both conditional and temporary. And thusly there are conditions when it is the viable choice and there are times when it is not. Therefore let us not ignore the conditions that effect our choices of food in order to survive because of an ideology; for living and surviving are not ideals, but men have reduced the fundamental of eating, to survive, to a mere ideal. (Sorry if you read that last sentence more than once.)You might enjoy the following evidences in support of our view.1) If a person is toothless, a Vegan diet is the better choice for the same.2) If a person cannot properly cook meat, the Vegan choice is better for the same.3) If a person cannot properly digest meat, the…4) If a person lives in Arctic regions, animals and fish are the only viable food sources for most of the year. (This is an abbreviated assertion.)5) If a man or woman cares to feed and nourish a family from one growing season to the next, the same will include meat as a part of a successful strategy to that end. Furthermore, neither will starve their family because of idealism.Lastly, I’m a vegan for one meal, and omnivore for the next. LOL, how many veggie only meals must one eat in order to call oneself a Vegan, and how many violations of that ideology are allowable before one can no longer refer to oneself as a vegan?Either they are a Vegan or they or not. And if a Vegan, as a matter of survival, eats meat, the same has evidenced that Veganism is purely conditional ideology. And consequently there is no universal truth to the claim of Vegan superiority.Explanation:No Vegan will choose to die by starvation because of the Vegan ideology. And like as I am a Vegan for one meal and an omnivore for the next, the only difference in comparison betwixt me and them is only a matter of how many Vegan meals we eat before we eat meat. So yes, vegans are omnivores. It’s a quantitative ideology not an objective quality.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Which is why being vegan is the better choice, but much harder choice to follow through with.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Why is it better? What types of diseases come from consuming meats? And what types of meats? What types of fats are these meats packed with? How are these meats bad for our health?What makes Vegan the best choice? What makes Vegetarianism the best choice? Did you know there is a difference? It's not necessarily that consuming animals is unhealthy. It is the amount you eat and the origin of the meat. How was this meat prepared? Was the animal wild or husbanded by humans? What types of foods did this animal consume during its lifetime? What environmental toxins were in its habitat? What effects do the hormones and medicines introduced have on the animal itself and in turn how does that affect those that consume it? I could go on and on. My point is you don't have to give up your steak, but you should know where it comes from and balance how much you eat. This will help you take stress off your bodies functions to maintain homeostasis and will result in a long and healthy life.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

This will help you take stress off your bodies functions to maintain homeostasis and will result in a long and healthy lifeHow will this take stress off you when you're worried about a million and 1 things that could make your meat consumption a bad experience (chemicals, toxins, habitat, method of butchery, method of cooking, preservatives, hormones...).Methinks vegetarianism is a lot less stressful...
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Health - All necessary nutrients are available in plant matter so meat is not necessary.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Health - All necessary nutrients are available in plant matter so meat is not necessary.Our bodies are not evolved for a purely herbaceous diet and consequently a vegan diet is very difficult to balance properly so that you don't suffer from diseases brought on my malnourishment.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Ok, why don't you tell that to the vegan Chinese Shaolin monks when their weak & diseased bodies reduce your healthy meat-eating ass to a pulp :) I'd actually like to see that more than anything. Would probably pay to see it too :).More people are suffering from diseases born of eating meat than those born of a vegan diet.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Not really, meat is clearly the better choice when it comes to getting proteins.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

How much protein do you need each day? What do you mean by "better"? .A male of about 6ft 6in tall:His ideal body weight is 214 pounds, or 97.3 kilograms.His daily protein intake requirement is 43.8 grams to 77.8 grams.At the max level of 77.8g he can achieve it by eating about 300 grams of meat or the same amount of pumpkin seeds, peanut butter or most dairy products like cheese... Eating a variety is not only much better for you, it's less boring as well!
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Environment - Animal farms harm the environment more because they require more resources.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Environment - Animal farms harm the environment more because they require more resources.Depends on the farm.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

No - it is pure fact. Animal farms require far more resources.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

No - it is pure fact. Animal farms require far more resources.Which doesn't necessarily harm the environment, it depends upon the farm's practices.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Why bother with sorting out the good from the bad farms. Just ban them all, isn't that how you'd deal with problems? ;)
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

i would strongly say that... u have to be not to much to the +possitive & -negative side! just be inde middle! thats the best! live life till u can.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Hello,I am Mercy,I visited your page today and i really want to have some personal words with you. We may be friends because it will help us to know ourself better.Send me a mail on([email protected]) and i will send you my photo.Mercy.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

FACTORY FARMING NEEDS TO BE REGULATED!To help with this project please take this survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XFQ6RSR It takes less than a minute and is only 4 short multiple choice questions. Also, if you're on facebook, join "I don't want to eat fake breasts!"http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114389285249957&ref=ts
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I could go on and on. My point is you don't have to give up your steak, but you should know where it comes from and balance how much you eat. This will help you take stress off your bodies functions to maintain homeostasis and will result in a long and healthy life.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Being a vegetarian doesn't get you anything except that u miss the vital proteins that you otherwise get from meat.Vegetarian food is equally fattier like a non-veg food if not eaten properly.Add regular fried potatoes,cheese ,butter and other milk products to your diet and you are screwed equally like a big meat eater.On the other hand,Non-Veg diet is bad too if you don't know what you are eating.Sticking to just White Meat (Chicken & Sea food) is the safest bet and you get only the good things from them and not the excess cholesterol which you otherwise get from Red Meat.I eat only white meat and I feel very lite after my meal with out a heavy digestion course that includes items rich in saturated fat like cheese and red meat.Go white meat and you get the best nutrients on earth.Go veggie and you miss a lot of nutrients.This is very much true.There is a survey that says 80% of those who have aided eye vision are vegetarians.This is because of deficiency of good quality Vitamin A.Though carrots have Vitamin A ,not many vegetarians care to eat them.Fishes are a very good source of Vitamin A.They are also good for your heart (Omega 3 Fatty Acids).Fact : Japanese live for almost 95 years -> They are non-veggies by a higher degree.Reason : They eat lots of white meat ,mostly sea food.Their staple dish Sushi (raw meat and rice) is supposed to increase the life span for some weird reason.Who cares for the poor animals if you get something good out of them for you and your family ? I would actually be happy to kill a few fishes to save the eyes of me and my family.That is nature.Why God kept those rare nutrients in animals which you don't get from plants ? Think abt it and u ll realize that u r fighting for nothing...Go n have meat.Enjoy the short life...
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

we, by the intestinal structure, are designed to be herbivores. we have a intestinal structure which is large. where as carnivores have a small intestinal structure. when meat, in the human digestive system, undergoes repetitive digestion with the acids of digestion, it releases malignant toxins which are harmful for our body and which causes cancers and liver malfunctioning.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I am not sure what side to enter this comment on really. I am not a vegetarian and, worse still, I am a hunter. Every year I kill a deer, at least, and often a deer and a moose. I feel terrible about the pain and death but I do have a big and happy family and I like the idea that they are being sustained with antibiotic-free meat. And, I confess, that I like to think of myself as a provider in these shaky times.I have lived in the north long enough to realize that nothing in the woods - no deer, no moose, no wolf, no muskrat - lives to a happy old age or dies a pleasant death. When creatures age, they are tormented and die terrible deaths - natural predators do not share our sensibilities. My bullets are true - I have, after years of hunting, never killed anything gratuitiously or irresponsibly. Still, I do feel that, somehow, we should be evolving away from administering death this way. But, there is no easy answer for this - we are six and a half billion strong now - there is no room for everything to survive anymore.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

All animals have feelings, emotions and etc., so I am sure that humanity should NOT use animals for food, clothes and other needs. Animals are not meant to be our food, they must be equal in rights. I said humanity because some people are too hard-nosed to say that meat do not give us happiness or good health. I am vegetarian and I am happy. I am happy to save lives of innocent animals which are more humane that people are.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Moral - It's sadistic to kill and eat an animal when you don't need to. Being an omnivore is the same as being able to do both good and bad. Just because you can also do bad, doesn't mean you should do bad.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

So killing plants is any better? You still end up killing life regardless. You also end up taking space whether it be by cattle farming or crop farming that would otherwise be an ecosystem for those animals that you claim to cherish, so either way they die despite your "moral" choice. And did it ever occur to you that some cultures cannot afford to grow healthy food or do not live in a place that is too hot or cold to produce crops and therefor must turn to meat?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

You still end up killing life regardless.It's not animal life, so it makes me feel better!You also end up taking space whether it be by cattle farming or crop farmingTrue, but it'll be less destructive no? A plantation is almost natural to the space it occupies, whereas a pig farm would be lotsa pigs in a space with lotsa infrastructure to support it...some cultures cannot afford to grow healthy food or do not live in a place that is too hot or cold to produce crops and therefor must turn to meat?We should give those poor souls our vegetables in exchange for their nice smiles :)If it's not a choice, then fine. But if vegetarianism is a choice, shouldn't it be taken if it's better?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Moral - It's sadistic to kill and eat an animal when you don't need to. Being an omnivore is the same as being able to do both good and bad. Just because you can also do bad, doesn't mean you should do bad.False analogy. Being an omnivore means that our bodies depend on certain proteins to be healthy, and these proteins come from meat and plant life.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

So our protein requirements presents us with the choice of killing animals or consuming plants... Why kill animals when you don't have to? Why do bad when you don't have to?What's wrong with my analogy?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Fun argument: Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. I guess sadists can be vegetarians too.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I wonder what Hitler tastes like... put him on a spit, or may be in a stew... hmmmm... vegetarians are suppose to taste sweeter than meat eaters...
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Actually, he wasn't a vegetarian, he just reduced his meat consumption.But your point is well taken. By the way, he also had a moustache and wore a hat quite often. So people who have those traits are also evil, just like Hitler!Iron-clad argument, my friend.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Diseases - Animal farms and eating animals is kinda how we get pig flu, bird flu and all the viral diseases that were once confined to animals only...
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Disease is a part of nature. These diseases would always pose a risk to us, we simply exacerbate it by keeping animals in high densities.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Ok, let's not "exacerbate it" then! I'd love animals so much better when they're not trying to give me exotic diseases.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

We all know it's the right choice to make.It may have been a harder choice if we lived in a society where food isn't abundant or garaunteed.But we're not.The only reason people now decide not to eat meat is for their self-indulgence.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Preservation - It's the farming of animals for meat that harms other species in the wild. The farms take over their natural habitats, they are culled to protect the farm animals. The bottom line: we're losing more species then we can preserve through farming.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Preservation - It's the farming of animals for meat that harms other species in the wild. The farms take over their natural habitats, they are culled to protect the farm animals. The bottom line: we're losing more species then we can preserve through farming.This is an argument for improving efficiency, not vegetarianism.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Don't presume to tell me what my argument is for.Make an argument instead of trying to change my argument.It's for less animal farms. Less habitat destruction. More species preserved.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Wrong again.You cannot improve efficiency with animal farming over crop farming. Unless you can get animals to photosynthesize.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Wrong again.You cannot improve efficiency with animal farming over crop farming. Unless you can get animals to photosynthesize.It helps if you follow the chain of arguments to get a proper context. I never once said that farming animals was more efficient than farming crops. You can however improve efficiency of animal farming so that it isn't as wasteful, for example by having your crops located closer to the animals, using the animals to fertilise the drops, and if you choose a land that isn't developed from forests that threaten indigenous life.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

From a biological standpoint we are not herbivores, meat is an evolved part of our diet. From a moral standpoint, many of the organisms we eat are probably not intelligent enough to realise that they are in a farm. From a conservation standpoint, most meat animals are domesticated for this purpose, meaning that if we stopped eating meat, or using animal products, those animal species would become endangered or even extinct, and some of them like the cow have outlived their ancestors so it would mean losing an important piece of genetic stock. In this respect farms are actually keeping the species alive at the organism's cost. From an ecological standpoint, hands down meat is less efficient to produce than grain (and thus harder on the environment).
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Just because we can consume meat doesn't mean we must. Vegetarians are healthier than non-vegetarians. That fact is indisputable.Most of the animals we kill are intelligent enough to experience pain and suffering, and that's the important thing.As for conservation, ever heard of a zoo? Or a wildlife sanctuary? There are better ways to preserve species.