Question: Should people become vegetarian?

Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: sure thing

Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: ok

Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: Yep.

Title: All people should become vegetarian Content: And so forth..

Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: Just need help with the possible arguments

Title: All people should become vegetarian Content: Ho Hum..

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

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

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

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

Title: Why People Should Be Vegetarian Content: Thanks for the debate!

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

Title: Vegetarianism is a good idea. Content: However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - "All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy." I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.

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

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

Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: Ben should become a vegetarian for three primary reasons: A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact than one which includes meat. A vegetarian diet will help him achieve his health goals. A vegetarian diet will decrease strain on our relationship. A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact.It's quite simple: eating 2000 calories from plants uses far fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, who had to in turn eat way more than 2000 calories of plants to create 2000 calories of meat. The reason is that not all of the food animals eat is converted to body mass, as much goes into heating the body and fueling its processes.The waste of water by animals is even greater: "The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef."Even if that calculation is on the high end, there is no way possible that the water ratio from plant to human is equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Physics denies such a conversion.Not only are land and water resources wasted, greenhouse gases are emitted into the air. "Shifting less than 1 day per week’s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers."I mean, check out this awesome chart: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier."The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes."Unlike the first point which is a moral obligation to promote public health, this one rests upon a personal commitment to oneself.http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...A vegetarian diet will make our relationship smoother.In a practical sense, this will benefit you more than me, because when I go shopping, I already purchase only vegetarian foods. Changing your diet to become more similar to mine will make it easier for you to shop for foods we can both consume, instead of focusing on "hirs and his". This benefit will be strongest when we eat out. As it stands, restaurants which cater to your tastes rarely do to mine, but vegetarian-friendly restaurants typically have meat options as well (which comes in handy when dining with friends).Also, there will be reduced moral strain. I'd know that we're trying to help make the world a better place together, as opposed to me bearing the load of not only my own choices but also trying to undo yours (which I can't avoid, as we live in the same house and our choices are tied to each other in many other ways as well).Ultimately, once we're on the same team diet-wise, then we can be That Couple who are so Totally Vegetarian, and further our goal of making our friends gag at how cute we are together. Aww!

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

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

Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. Focusing on only the CO2 aspect and ignoring the land/water resource aspects is misrepresenting my position. Even still, the supposed gaps in the UN report are about CO2 usage, which is completely addressed in the study you so casually toss aside because you already "don't consume much red meat" (an admission which would perhaps imply that making a move toward complete vegetarianism would be simpler for you than you would have the audience believe). You say "there will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques ... than to change our meat eating habits". And yet, you have yourself to partially blame for that, as you are part of the market demand for meat. "U.S. vegetarian food sales have doubled since 1998, reaching $1.6 billion in 2003. The vegetarian and vegan population is expected to continue its increase steadily". As people drop away from meat consumption, the market adjusts accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org... Allowing that not all animals have the same environmental impact, they all still necessarily have a greater environmental impact than eating plants only. Even "smarter farming" can't change the food chain, which shows that plants take energy directly from the sun, and animals (unless we've yet to discover some photosynthesizing cows) don't.http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, I thought this looked cool: http://ftp.jrc.es... 2. I'm sweetening the deal by pointing out that a vegetarian diet won't stand in the way of your personal health goals, and may possibly even provide added benefits. Obviously this isn't something I can predict with 100% certainty, because the only way to be sure of how your particular body will respond to a diet is to try it out for real. But your body is also not entirely alien from other human bodies, so there is validity to pointing out that if you want to feel healthier, a vegetarian diet can be positive step toward that goal. 3a. I was more pointing out that the "practical strain" was more on that you tend to forget that I eat differently than you do. Not to insult you and say you always forget or that you don't care about me, but you do have a self-centered approach toward food acquisition source selection. 3b. Actually, as the CO2 study pointed out, "In general, much of this research has concluded that food, home energy, and transportation together form a large share of most consumers' personal impacts. Of these three, food represents a unique opportunity for consumers to lower their personal impacts due to its high impact, high degree of personal choice, and a lack of long-term 'lock-in' effects which limit consumers' day-to-day choices." Thus it makes more sense, from a moral strain perspective, to adjust personal eating habits before abandoning such changes in favor of activism. Also incorporating activism in the form of education and strategic voting would be the "above and beyond". http://pubs.acs.org... 3c. Think about it: we could eat vegetarian spaghetti from the same dish, nibbling on one strand of pasta as it brings our noses closer together in a marinara-flavored kiss. http://houston.culturemap.com...

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

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

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

Title: People should not eat animals. Content: Mathnerd: Of your three reasons to be a vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is beneficial to both the vegetarian and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is more healthful. All 13 amino acids and other required nutrients may be obtained easily with very much attention. A vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholesterol and very little saturated fat). Actually, some veggies contain huge amounts of saturated fats - coconuts for example. So we are in close agreement on point one. 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contributes to the extinction of many species from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. To say nothing about the higher costs of vegetables because of the reduction of quality arable land. I'm not terribly concerned about green house gases, as I am not a subscriber of human caused Global Warming Theory, but I generally agree with point two. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. My divergence from you position is in the inconsistencies of accepting the consumption of milk and eggs and the fact that your profile shows that you are pro-abortion. Chickens that are used for egg production are kept in tight environments, Additionally their beaks are cut back to prevent damage to their crowded-in neighbors. After a very miserable life they are slaughtered for soup, when they are no longer productive. Presumably, they would still be slaughtered for pet food, even if all persons became vegetarians of the egg and milk variety. In the case of milk cows, heifers are welcomed but (male) calves are eschewed as a liability. Right now they are immediately slaughtered for (monkey) veal. Their venerated sisters will calve and produce milk and calve, again until they no longer produce. They then become food for pets. Not a great life either. Lastly, you favor abortion. Forgive me if I presume that your sympathies are reserved for animals. Even though I am not a vegetarian, I try to limit my intake of animal flesh. I disagree with PETA in their ‘Animal Rights' position. There is certainly, an ethical requirement that we the limit pain and discomfort that farm animals must endure, but animals have no rights. In the other hand . I admire your compassion for animals. Your arguments are well reasoned and strongly stated.

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

Title: Vegetarianism Content: Many farms are raising animals in inhumane conditions by feeding the animals antibiotics and giving the animals extremely limited space. In such conditions a dangerous bacterial called ecoli is created, ecoli can make a someone seriously ill and even lead to death; harmful bacteria such a ecoli can show up in any animal derived ingredient making a becoming a vegan not only a healthier but a safer choice as well. Many people think that becoming a vegan involves giving up protein however you can get protein from foods like almonds and tofu. A varied vegan diet reduces the risk of heart disease, heart attack or stroke, protects against cancers, prevents loss of vision, osteoporosis and assists lowered blood pressure. Plant based diets help to reduce cholesterol and saturated fat, and to increase carotenoids, healthy fiber, vitamin C and folate. Independent scientific studies state that a diet based on the principles of veganism is perfectly adequate for good health throughout one's life.

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

Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. It is granted that meat products will continue to mean more resources are expended, but I'm not sure that has been shown to matter. My "admission" about not consuming much red meat doesn't mean I need to change, since it implies I don't really need to go anywhere if there isn't a problem. When you say I'm partly to blame for the incentive-scape, I agree. However I'm standing in a 90% majority even by that wiki's own numbers, by the most conservative estimate. That's excluding even the "vegetarian curious" numbers. Changing people's desires for meat is hard. Other options will be easier. Even if I were to go fully vegan, I'd be forced to be equally realistic. I'd still probably have to conclude the efforts of myself and those like me would not add up to a significant solution. 2. I agree I probably need to eat more vegetables as an omnivore simply because I don't have much of a balanced diet as it is. I really hate vegetables. The veggies I like are either the least like most veggies (corn and carrots) or have to be so chopped up as to be indiscernible from the food I do like that it is mixed in (like salsa). But eating more veggies wouldn't necessarily mean I'd be eating less meat per se. It would probably just mean I'd eat more veggies. I've not seen anything that has come out against a well balanced omnivore diet as far as health goes. All food pyramids still include meat as far as I know. So that's probably a losing argument for your side. 3A. I would say I have a very pragmatic, stripped down, independent approach to diet since I don't like wasting my time on unnecessary efforts. I expect by default everyone to feed themselves as competent and capable adults. Incidentally you happen to have a "let's cook an elaborate meal and all eat together" approach which is fine. I suppose I could refuse to cook with you and eat with you in order to maintain the symmetry of my approach and have considered that often. I'm allowing you to make your choices and splitting the difference by accommodating you to an extent. Even if that means waiting to eat, preparing food I don't necessarily like that much, having tons more dishes on a regular basis, and having you complain that I don't do the dishes I didn't want to create, because I know I don't like doing the dishes. And you don't like doing the dishes either in principle, and yet most of the dishes are generated from your approach to meals. So...in terms of practical strain...we'd have to adopt my policies instead of yours. But I don't expect you to change here. 3B. That study also says, "Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food." This seems to imply much more to large families who are cooking elaborate meals on a daily basis. This goes back to point 1 where I don't eat much red meat anyway and most of it is consumed one day a week on my "free day." I also don't consume much in the way of dairy throughout the week and most of it is again consumed on Saturday. So this debate is a huge red herring as though everyone has to change when some of us just aren't ranking high on the scale to begin with. Most of my elaborate meals are meal options you have chosen and you are a vegetarian. So again, I'm already just by occupying social space and time "doing my part" by going with the flow. Dieting is already hard and I often fail on my own terms. I'm not going to make it harder for the sake of nearly hopeless global problems I'm not going to solve. 3C. Like we couldn't do that anyway!

Title: Veganism is better than eating animal products Content: There was a time when veganism was only known to a select few but now it is becoming a more widespread way of living vs. the SAD ( Standard American Diet) which consists of meats, fish, crustaceans, and animal products such as eggs and milk. People should be vegan because animal flesh and products causes many health problems, modern farms are tearing down the environment, animal flesh and products contain unhealthy properties, the government manipulates people and tricks them, vegans are healthier in general, and veganism reverses diseases as well as preventing them.

Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: When robots take over they may kill us as a result of not being vegan. Come on people, do the right thing.

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

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

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

Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: I will be making the argument that we has humans should not ender to become a vegetarian species, that we should remain omnivores. Just like eating too much meat eating only vegetables is unhealthy. You need meat for the following: B12 Calcium Iron Zinc EPA & DHA http://chriskresser.com... While it is true that you can find vegetables with these items the human body does not take them in properly from vegetables, this is why most vegetarian animals spend most of their day eating. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. This disregards that the rainforest is being clear cut in part to make farm land. What about all the living plant creatures? How is this not harming them? This argument to me sounds like, “We should care about all forms of life. Well, other than them plants. Who cares about them?” http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... All of my opponents other arguments disregard that there are other options to carnivorous eating than live stock. It is less wasteful if you raise insects on the waste from farms. This turns that waste into soil. Then we could eat the insects.

Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: My opponent's failure to understand how an AI would consume energy is at the point of sillyness now. Either he is trolling or just fails to use any effort to understand my argument. My opponent fails to really even address my Wylted's wager argument and I should win on this point alone. He fails to discredit the expert opinions I've brought forth and he's failed to provide any expert opinion of his own, and it's too late to do so because any new arguments in the final round would be unfair."He must show what causes will lead a super AI into becoming human-hungry, and further that by explaining how it will decide that based off dietary habits."I've answered this same exact rebuttal several times and in different ways. My opponent hasn't shown any flaws in my logic in regards to how I have previously answered it and has pretty much ignored my counter rebuttals. I'll repeat what I said again in a different way.My sources have shown there is a huge effort to create a friendly AI and that AI would have some sort of moral compass. The AI might not care where it gets energy from, it just wants energy. It could potentially create a technology that consumes all matter on the planet just to feed it and make it grow even stronger and smarter. With that being said, it could justify eating all human omnivores, but would have a hard time justifying consuming a vegan. Remember it needs justification to overcome the friendly AI program written in it.". It is not explained what gaining all means or what one gains. "Yes it was and the explanation was ignored. I explained it in round 2 and it was ignored. I'll explain it again. Gaining everything means gaining immortality and I cited the expert opinion of people like Ray Kurzweil to prove my point. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com... My opponent's arguments this far have misunderstood my points (probably intentionally), has not challenged the scientific and expert opinions I've given, and has failed to really address Wylted's wager. As silly as my conclusion may seem. My logic is both valid and sound. It has remained virtually unchallenged and as a result I should win argument and source points.

Title: The whole world should be vegan Content: Everyone being vegan is not going to create a better society, it would just exacarbate a food shortage that is killing people around the world. 7 billion people need to be fed, and more are being created every day. Being vegan is a luxury and wouldn't solve any problems at all. I don't understand why you say that "the world would a much more loving place" when, really, being vegan is not going to make people more loving. In my opinion, you aren't thinking about experiences beyond your own, where eating meat is how people survive.

Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. I don't consume much red meat to begin with and that is creating the largest issue on your first graph. You still consume dairy products and that creates a much larger issue (if I'm understanding the chart correctly) than how much chicken I eat (which would be more than my consumption of red meat by far). You link to an article about the UN conducting a study on the environmental impacts of meat consumption, yet that is dated. The UN admitted to important flaws in the report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) and concludes instead: "efforts should be focused on "smarter farming, not less farming". There will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques and invent new geo-engineering technologies than to change our meat eating habits and so as a culture pursuing the former rather than the latter is a better use of time and effort. 2. That study is commenting on the question of whether vegetarian diets are feasible and noting those health benefits. That doesn't invalidate every other kind of diet. 3A. This is just as much an argument for you to become an omnivore again, as it is for me to convert to your diet. Our culture simply has more meat options and the practical strain argument would seem to lean in my favor. 3B. There is reduced moral strain when we recognize the realistic limits of what we can do. We are not in a particularly potent position of pushing forward for new geo-engineering technologies or farming techniques that will have the most impact on issues like climate change and resource management. We can promote education as local activists instead and when politicians are running on the right issues we can vote them in as well as collectively pressure for those policies. 3C. This is your most tempting proposal, but I'm afraid there are still plenty of ways to make our friends suffer under the tyranny of our joint cuteness. ;)

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

Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: With AI All Things Are Possible I know my opponent doesn't like me using the word possible, but when it comes to predicting the future it is reasonable. We don't know what tomorrow brings, but with the help of experts in philosophy and AI such as Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom we can make some intelligent and highly probable guesses. I've used citations from some of the world's leading experts on AI, and yet my opponent refuses to refute them. If experts working in these fields believe a super AI is inevitable in our lifetime, why does my opponent disagree? What's the worst likely thing that can happen if you become vegan. If an unfriendly super AI never develops, the worst thing that happens is that you have transitioned to a healthier diet http://www.nursingdegree.net... A diet that is better for the environment. http://ezinearticles.com... It's beyond common sense that veganism is more humane. So the worst thing that happens if my scenario is false is still a bunch of good stuff, but if I'm right and an unfriendly super AI develops, what you'll experience after this "singularity" is immortality. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com... This is the expert opinion of Aubrey De Grey, Ray Kurzweil and many other experts mentioned in the article. this is basically a reworking of Pascal's wager. I call it............ Wylted's Wager An unfriendly super AI that wants to consume us for energy either will deveop or won't A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. You must wager (it is not optional). Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that the unfriendly super AI will develop. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that an unfriendly super AI will develop. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233, which has had a few words swapped out) Human It's What's For Dinner A super AI is most likely to come from a human level AI, contnually upgrading it's self until a singularity is reached. The more memory the computer needs the more energy it will need. The super AI may just eat everything in its path without concern for what it is. However it may have a moral code, since a huge effort is being made to insure a friendly AI is developed. If we can live with high morals it may avoid consuming us for energy either indefinitely or very last.

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

Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: Thanks for your last round. I will say my argumentsone last time then I wil say why I won and finish the debate. 1. You’ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop the progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it entirely. Cardiovascular disease kills 1 million Americans annually and is the leading cause of death in the United States. But the mortality rate for cardiovascular disease is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, says Joel Fuhrman, MD, author of Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. A vegetarian diet is inherently healthful because vegetarians consume less animal fat and cholesterol (vegans consume no animal fat or cholesterol) and instead consume more fiber and more antioxidant-rich produce——another great reason to listen to Mom and eat your veggies! 2. You’ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet—high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates——is making us fat and killing us slowly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry. 3. You’ll live longer. If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. ”People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.” 4.You’ll build strong bones. When there isn’’t enough calcium in the bloodstream, our bodies will leach it from existing bone. The metabolic result is that our skeletons will become porous and lose strength over time. Most health care practitioners recommend that we increase our intake of calcium the way nature intended——through foods. Foods also supply other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium and vitamin D that are necessary for the body to absorb and use calcium. People who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk. But if you avoid dairy altogether, you can still get a healthful dose of calcium from dry beans, tofu, soymilk and dark green vegetables such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens. 5. You’ll ease the symptoms of menopause. Many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women. Certain foods are rich in phytoestrogens, the plant-based chemical compounds that mimic the behavior of estrogen. Since phytoestrogens can increase and decrease estrogen and progesterone levels, maintaining a balance of them in your diet helps ensure a more comfortable passage through menopause. Soy is by far the most abundant natural source of phytoestrogens, but these compounds also can be found in hundreds of other foods such as apples, beets, cherries, dates, garlic, olives, plums, raspberries, squash and yams. Because menopause is also associated with weight gain and a slowed metabolism, a low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can help ward off extra pounds. 6. You’ll have more energy. Good nutrition generates more usable energy——energy to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex more often, Michael F. Roizen, MD, says in The RealAge Diet. Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won’’t open properly and that your muscles won’’t get enough oxygen. The result? You feel zapped. Balanced vegetarian diets are naturally free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slow us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning. And because whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are so high in complex carbohydrates, they supply the body with plenty of energizing fuel. 7. You’ll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting. 8. You’ll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. “If all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year. 9. You’ll spare animals. Many vegetarians give up meat because of their concern for animals. Ten billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in crates or stalls so small that they can’’t even turn around. Farmed animals are not protected from cruelty under the law——in fact, the majority of state anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection. 10. You’ll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans’’ food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.11. Save the planet: Meat is not green. Consuming meat is actually one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth. It is wasteful and causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is also one of the biggest causes of climate change. Adopting a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a “greener” car in the fight against climate change. I should win this debate because I made strong arguments saying that it is good for you and also it is healty. I rebutted all of Con's Points saying that you can still have protein without eating meat.Therefore, I hope everyone votes for Pro!!!

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

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

Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: 1. What other options? If they're so awesome, why aren't they accessible to people like ourselves?Your last bit seems to rely upon "but it's still not a big enough impact to help, so why bother?" By eating meat, you're actively doing something; by not, you're passively not doing something. Say a house in Joplin was severely damaged in the tornado. You not doing something isn't really going to help, it seems, so why bother? But does that mean you're okay to throw a rock through one of the windows and smash it up more? Or what about a store that lost most of its inventory - do you steal an item because they won't notice the difference anyway? There'd be one way those actions are acceptable: if you have rock-solid proof that the house is a lost cause and will be demolished anyway, or the store owner said he's cutting his losses and to just take what you like. ("Oh crap, I didn't think you were using that house anymore" doesn't cut it, in other words.) As you don't seem to have a strong evidence-based platform upon which to stand free of guilt (that is, nobody's given us the "all clear" to go ahead and eat meat without remorse), I'd conclude that you must be compartmentalizing your ethical knowledge from your emotional decision-making process.2. All those food pyramids? Um... no. http://www.mypyramid.gov... The current official food pyramid itself says "choose more fish, beans, peas, nuts, and seeds". That's quite clearly a non-meat majority. Also, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org...3a. Either you don't know what "food acquisition source selection" means, or you're deliberately changing the subject. I'm saying it sucks when you really want to eat out, and then I have to choose between putting my foot down and demanding you choose a more accommodating restaurant to desire, or else suck it up and "enjoy" yet another supper of french fries and a cheap-o salad (or if I'm really lucky, onion rings and baked beans). If you were vegetarian too, those other options wouldn't even be on your radar, and so we could both be enthusiastic about a food source which actually caters to both our diet. Or else you could develop far more empathy for the vegetarian lifestyle. Though I have a feeling if you did that, you'd simply find conversion to vegetarianism to be the natural course of action.3b. Again with the changing the subject. I wasn't talking about red meat, I was talking about which aspects of people's lifestyles have been proved to be the easiest to customize. You seem to think that it's actually easier to go out of your way to be a political activist than it is to simply buy different food at the store (and that somehow the prier affects more change than the latter). Last I checked, the grocery store is FULL of foods containing no meat. Walls and walls of foods. If only political activism were as easy as buying the ingredients for a bean burrito with fresh salsa. But it's not. If I'm going to buy the "vegetarianism is the harder path to take toward change", I'd better see a viable and convincing easier path laid out before me, and so far I haven't seen anything but a dream and a prayer.3c. So get on it! I haven't been woo'd with romantic noms in years.

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

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

Title: Vegetarianism is good for your health Content: Sorry I thought "vegan" was short form of "vegetarian". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. "Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with." Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. "Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans." Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too.

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

Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: My responses will be short for now, and much more in depth next round. It is currently 3 in the morning and I will post what I have, and post the next later C1) "You"ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer." I would like to ask my opponent How it is more healthful when they are eliminating the most important source for them to actually live. They also state how vegetarians consume less oils and fat. However, without meat we have an insufficient level of omega-3 fatty acids. A paper published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition claims that vegetarians have lower levels long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, particularly EPA and DHA and with insufficient amounts, it can actually harm the cardiovascular health. They say vegetarian diets have lowered this, but we see in common knowledge that is is actually making them higher. My opponents assume that heavy meat eaters would have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer but a review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition of the aforementioned Oxford study reveals, "Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters." This proves that being vegetarian does not help any health factors throughout this whole debate and should be dropped. C2) "You"ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet"high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates""is making us fat and killing us slowly." Let me remind the viewers again that my opponents seem to be missing the point. Vegetarians stop eating protein. With the lack of protein, they compensate and try to fill up all that protein with carbs. With this, there are much more chances of vegetarians actually gaining weight rather than loosing. They say that not being vegetarians will make us overweight. However this is not merely important. With this there is a solution to both Omnivores and vegetarians: exercising. This argument is completely irrelevant to the whole vegetarian topic. They are proving us the harms of not being vegetarian. However, this argument is showing us that because we are not vegetarian, we are now obese. This is not true. There are so many reasons to why people are actually obese, which is fast food restaurants, ads, etc. but our debate is not talking about any of those factors. For this, their obesity argument falls. C3) You"ll live longer Let me again remind the viewers that with these harms, it may cause death within these unbeneficial factors of vegetarian diets. With that, chances of living longer are slim, if we take in the factors lost from not eating meat. C4) You"ll build strong bones While it"s possible for vegetarians to consume adequate amounts of protein, calcium, iron and vitamin D to ensure proper muscle and bone development, one study concluded that vegetarians had approximately 5 percent lower bone-mineral density (BMD) than non-vegetarians. The results of the study, the authors conclude, suggest that vegetarian diets " especially vegan diets " are associated with lower BMD. From this, the "stronger bones" argument falls There are even chances that without being vegan, you can still build strong bones. It would rather be better to not be vegan and have stronger bones, with the contribution of protein and much more variety of selections. I will have to stop it here, for my eyes are weary and my mind is hazy I look forward to the refutations. More rebuttals to be posted next round!!

Title: We should all be vegans Content: I never denied that humans are herbivores. That's correct. But we can handle cooked meat so there shouldn't be any problem with eating it. It all comes down to what we choose and wish to eat. We don't NEED to eat meat, but we do because we enjoy it. Bringing up the topic of lifespan isn't really necessary; people who eat candy and chips all day likely know it's unhealthy and that it will affect them negatively in the future but they do it anyways. "Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish." How so? Please give examples if you can. Overall, people should have the choice to be vegan or not rather than forced to do so. Encouraged, yes. Forced, no. You see, barely anyone except who agrees with you cares about your opinion. Unfortunately, that's how life works. So go ahead and wish all you like that people would change their diets, but a large majority of people won't care about what YOU want THEM to eat.

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

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

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

Title: go vegetarian Content: There are problems with being vegetarian

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

Title: To Be or Not to Be... Vegetarian? I say veggo is the way to go! Content: The first set of reasons listed deal with the amount of food that can be produced by eliminating the meat industry. These arguments are intended to show that a vegetarian lifestyle adopted by everyone would save a large number of people. The last reason listed is "1,000,000,000 people in the west gorging on meat & dairy leave 1,000,000,000 to waste away & 3,500,000,000 teeter on the brink." But now it is time to escape this tunnel vision and look at other aspects. First and foremost, there are already over 6.7 billion people on this planet. If the human population on the planet is out of whack, then it is clearly the result of TOO MANY people. Now you want everyone to take up a vegetarian diet to add MORE people to this planet? If those one billion people didn't waste away, we would have close to eight billion people on the planet. Perhaps you are under the impression that saving everyone is a good thing, but nothing could be further from the truth. People need to die. If we use flex.com's suggestions, humans would soon become overpopulated. In biology, every population has a limit known as the carrying capacity (symbolized by the letter k). Once this limit is reached, a rapid decline in the population occurs (i.e. mass death). So in the end, flex.com's method would kill many more people than the ones that currently starve. Moving on to the section on land, it is true that a lot of land is cleared for farming. But the world in which we live is very opportunistic when it comes to land. Eliminating meat industries will not give that land back to nature. It would simply be used for a factory, real estate, or some other business venture. In the section on air, there is much talk of the methane produced by cattle. I still have yet to hear why the methane from cattle is different from that of other animals. Furthermore, methane has always been around, long before global warming. If global warming is in fact true, I doubt that the key culprit will turn out to be cow farts. And reasons such as "Fertilizer, weedkiller & pesticides sprayed on crops enter the atmosphere creating a noxious carcinogenic cocktail" have nothing to do with the meat industry. The section on water seems to talk a great deal about wasting water. But in reality, water constantly cycles and is usually redistributed properly through nature (droughts and dry spells are not a constant occurrence). There is also mention of the waste that ends up in rivers and such through the meat industry. But such things occur in nature constantly, and singling out the waste in rivers from meat industries makes no sense. Furthermore, are sentences such as "The water used to produce a 1000 lb beef steer is enough to float a Destroyer battleship" really supporting vegetarianism? It seems more like a fun fact to me. The section on efficiency speaks of wasting energy for meat production (which cannot actually occur due to the law of conservation of energy). It also mentions crops that are wasted by feeding them to animals. But if this were actually the case, if the crops fed to animals really wasted too much, then why oh why does the government still pay farmers to burn excess crops? If the crops are still produced with so much surplus that farmers must burn them in order to maintain supply and demand, then feeding crops to the animals cannot be anywhere near as wasteful as you or the website claim. Moving on to the section on animals, I will not deny that there are many cruel practices listed here. But why these practices lead to the conclusion that one must become a vegetarian is beyond me. It would seem to make just as much sense to by organic meats that do not use such practices, or to eat meat without an industry such as venison. The section on health starts off with a correlation, which does not show any type of causation. Vegetarians may be shown to live longer, but there is no evidence that this is caused by their diet. There are many correlations that can be found where one factor is not dependent on the other. For example, there is a real correlation between the amount of babies crying and the amount of ice cream consumed by people on any given day. Does the sound of babies crying make people want to eat ice cream? Does the act of eating ice cream cause babies to cry? The answer to both of these questions is obviously no. There is an external factor (in this case, heat) and that doesn't make the correlation less real. So a vegetarian living longer shows nothing. And the addendum "and they don't get sick as often" is something for which I would like to see evidence. I have never known a vegetarian that was healthy or less sick than others. If anything, the case was the opposite. Other things mentioned in the health section once again do not account for organic meat. The antibiotics, hormones, toxins, and pesticides would not be present in organic meat. Many of the other reasons are also correlational. Other reasons listed deal with nutrition. But nutritionists are not scientists. They use correlations to show causation, they do not use the same terms as everyone else in the science world, and most importantly their claims are non-falsifiable. I have already shown that correlations do not show causation. Let's now look at the calorie (something nutritionists speak of often). A calorie is a unit of heat energy equivalent to 4.184 joules. One thousand such units, or 4,184 joules is known to the rest of the scientific community as a kilocalorie. But not the nutritionists. They have decided to call the kilocalorie a calorie, and therefore cannot communicate with other sciences in scientific jargon since they have assigned their own meanings to terms. The next point is key: if something cannot be falsified it is not science. A nutritionist may claim that some type of diet will cause people to live longer while another causes early death. Yet when they are shown a person that lived to 95 on a diet that supposedly causes early death, they do not admit defeat. Rather, they make some stupid claim such as "Well, if he was on a healthy diet he probably would've lived to 110" or some other such nonsense. So I cannot take nutritionists seriously, and that is the majority of the health section. Nevertheless, even using nutrition as an argument fails when one studies physiology. In truth, a vegetarian or vegan diet is not healthy. The amount of iron that vegetarians receive is much lower than that of meat-eaters. Iron is needed to bind to hemoglobin and carry oxygen throughout the body. In fact, there have been cases where a vegetarian diet has led to anemia because of the lack of iron. The site seems to come down on dairy as well, so I assume that it is promoting a vegan diet. With this comes a further problem. Vitamin B12 (aka cobalamin) can only be found in animal products. It is necessary for two reasons: it works in conjunction with folic acid to create red blood cells and it is essential to the production of myelin which coats the axons of neurons. So health is not achieved by vegetarians or vegans. It is achieved with a well-balanced diet. There is nothing wrong with following one's nature. Humans are natural omnivores. Eating that which we are meant to eat by nature is the way to go.

Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: Thank you for posting your argument.I have many reasons that can support by why vegetables are good. 1. You’ll ward off disease. Vegetarian diets are more healthful than the average American diet, particularly in preventing, treating or reversing heart disease and reducing the risk of cancer. A low-fat vegetarian diet is the single most effective way to stop the progression of coronary artery disease or prevent it entirely. Cardiovascular disease kills 1 million Americans annually and is the leading cause of death in the United States. But the mortality rate for cardiovascular disease is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, says Joel Fuhrman, MD, author of Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss. A vegetarian diet is inherently healthful because vegetarians consume less animal fat and cholesterol (vegans consume no animal fat or cholesterol) and instead consume more fiber and more antioxidant-rich produce——another great reason to listen to Mom and eat your veggies! 2. You’ll keep your weight down. The standard American diet—high in saturated fats and processed foods and low in plant-based foods and complex carbohydrates——is making us fat and killing us slowly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry. 3. You’ll live longer. If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. ”People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.” 4.You’ll build strong bones. When there isn’’t enough calcium in the bloodstream, our bodies will leach it from existing bone. The metabolic result is that our skeletons will become porous and lose strength over time. Most health care practitioners recommend that we increase our intake of calcium the way nature intended——through foods. Foods also supply other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium and vitamin D that are necessary for the body to absorb and use calcium. People who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk. But if you avoid dairy altogether, you can still get a healthful dose of calcium from dry beans, tofu, soymilk and dark green vegetables such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens. 5. You’ll ease the symptoms of menopause. Many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women. Certain foods are rich in phytoestrogens, the plant-based chemical compounds that mimic the behavior of estrogen. Since phytoestrogens can increase and decrease estrogen and progesterone levels, maintaining a balance of them in your diet helps ensure a more comfortable passage through menopause. Soy is by far the most abundant natural source of phytoestrogens, but these compounds also can be found in hundreds of other foods such as apples, beets, cherries, dates, garlic, olives, plums, raspberries, squash and yams. Because menopause is also associated with weight gain and a slowed metabolism, a low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian diet can help ward off extra pounds. 6. You’ll have more energy. Good nutrition generates more usable energy——energy to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex more often, Michael F. Roizen, MD, says in The RealAge Diet. Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won’’t open properly and that your muscles won’’t get enough oxygen. The result? You feel zapped. Balanced vegetarian diets are naturally free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slow us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning. And because whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables are so high in complex carbohydrates, they supply the body with plenty of energizing fuel. 7. You’ll help reduce pollution. Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chemical and animal waste runoff from factory farms is responsible for more than 173,000 miles of polluted rivers and streams. Runoff from farmlands is one of the greatest threats to water quality today. Agricultural activities that cause pollution include confined animal facilities, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting. 8. You’ll help reduce famine. About 70 percent of all grain produced in the United States is fed to animals raised for slaughter. The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the American population. “If all the grain currently fed to livestock were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University. If the grain were exported, it would boost the US trade balance by $80 billion a year. 9. You’ll spare animals. Many vegetarians give up meat because of their concern for animals. Ten billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in crates or stalls so small that they can’’t even turn around. Farmed animals are not protected from cruelty under the law——in fact, the majority of state anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection. 10. You’ll save money. Meat accounts for 10 percent of Americans’’ food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of beef, chicken and fish each nonvegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an average of $4,000 a year.11. Save the planet: Meat is not green. Consuming meat is actually one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth. It is wasteful and causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is also one of the biggest causes of climate change. Adopting a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a “greener” car in the fight against climate change. My rebuttal will be in the next round.Sources:http://kidshealth.org...http://www.peta.org...http://www.happycow.net...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.brown.edu...http://www.vegetariantimes.com...http://www.britishmeat.com...;

Title: Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life Content: 1) There is no nutrient in meat that cannot be found in a vegetarian diet. No one can deny this. 2) There is no disease where eating meat is required for the treatment or cure of the disease. 3) Therefore, eating meat is absolutely unnecessary. 4) Eating meat causes death to other animals, obviously. And, despite attempts to make slaughter "humane", whether it be "kosher", "halal" or otherwise, it quite probably, or even certainly, causes stress and pain as well. 5) Therefore, eating meat is immoral and unethical. And abhorrently selfish, since the person who eats meat does so only for the hedonistic and temporary satisfaction of his taste buds. Especially when there are so many vegetarian and tasteful alternatives (from meatless and healthful soy products to traditional Indian dishes). 6) There is more than enough cruelty in the world as it is; there is no need to add to it, unnecessarily. The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20,000,000 Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100,000,000 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20% Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80% Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95% Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90% How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000 Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16 he Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75% Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85% Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260,000,000 Amount of meat imported to U.S. annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75% Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times. The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50% Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15% Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4% Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9% Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45% Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90% Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50% The Natural Resources Argument Uses of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production Amount of water used in production of the average cow: sufficient to float a U.S. Navy Destroyer Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000 Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78 To get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2 Percentage of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by U.S. that is devoted to the production of livestock: 33% Percentage of all raw materials consumed by the U.S. needed to produce a complete vegetarian diet: 2% The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55% Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13% Percentage resistant in 1988: 91% Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Common misconception: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues Percentage of U.S. mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99% Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8% Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher Amount of Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant: 9 times the permissible level The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job-injury in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choice of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater that ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex (Where is he today?) Sources... http://www.ethicalvegetarian.com...

Title: Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Content: Rebuttal for argument #1: Firstly, vegetarianism only encompasses the eating of meat, seafood, insects, and flesh of any other animal. Dairy, and eggs are only blocked out through what is known as a vegan diet, where any animal product is essentially avoided. As for the case of discrimination, the majority of restaurants out there now offer vegetarian options, and if you have friends out there who chose to discriminate against you for the choices you make in your diet, then they simply aren't your real friends. Moreover, we should not teach people to give up on their convictions because they are afraid of being made fun of and/or discriminated against . Any great person in history had someone over their shoulder telling them that they couldn't achieve what they wanted; Shakespeare, Jesus, Nelson Mandela, etc. We should be teaching people to push through with what they believe, and therefore the idea of not pursuing a vegetarian diet out of fear of discrimination is harmful to the way society is structured. In summary, if a person is being discriminated against, then we as a society have failed to implement proper moral values into the individuals discriminating. Besides, people can get discriminated against for anything; however, the idea of being made fun of for having different moral beliefs and/or health concerns is slightly ridiculous, and the individual that is causing said discrimination, is nothing more than a bully that should be stopped. In summary, discrimination should never be an issue when defining ones own lifestyle, and if it is, then the person being discriminated against should be supported, not told to abandon their beliefs. Rebuttal for argument #2: Malnutrition is technically caused by not eating enough food. Starvation is a form of malnutrition. In the United states alone, %67 of soy and %40 of corn produced goes towards raising animals for meat. In a ratio, that essentially means that 13 pounds of grains go into one pound EDIBLE meat. The reason that "edible" was capitalized is because not all meat produced in first world countries is edible. Think of it this way, millions of animals die before they reach slaughterhouses, and even if they are killed for their meat, there are constantly meat recalls occurring all over North America. So in those cases, grain is essentially being thrown away. And even when meat is produced, 12 pounds of grain is being lost, as again, the ratio is 13:1. PETA actually calculated last year that if the grain is diverted, we could end world hunger, and so, malnutrition wouldn't be an issue, if the meat trade was closed down. Furthermore, there are many studies that show that vegetarianism is very healthy. Not only are vegetarians less likely to contract certain kinds of cancer, but also have a decreased risk of being obese, becoming diabetic, and dying of heart diseases. Moreover, when it comes to children, teenagers, and the elderly, yes it is more difficult; however, it can still be done. Take Jim Morris as an example. Jim is a 78 year old vegan body-builder. Personally, I'm 16 years old, and have been vegetarian for nearly a year now. I'm very athletic, as shown by my black-belt, competitive swimming history, and finished multi-kilometer races. So although being a vegetarian and a teenager, elderly person, or child is more difficult, it certainly is not impossible. Rebuttal for argument #3: People who eat fish are not vegetarian, they are known as pescetarians. Also, the majority of vegetarians do not eat insects. Although it is a questionable debate among vegetarians, people who eat insects are a whole other category, and do not come under the banner of, "vegetarian." Furthermore, whether eggs can be considered meat is another debate; however, the eggs that are sold as a source of food are unfertilized. An unfertilized egg is essentially a chicken's period or menstruation, meaning that it isn't alive, part of anything that is alive, or have the potential to grow into life, nor does it have any flesh, and therefore, it cannot be considered meat. Thus, vegetarians are not hypocrites, as fish and insects are prohibited in the diet, and eggs are not biologically considered meat to begin with. Rebuttal for argument #4: Yes, food companies that raise and sell meat will crash; however, what people tend not to realize is that vegetarians need to consume more food than non-vegetarians. Where does said food come from? Well the fruit, vegetable and grain industry essentially. That means that although the meat industry will fall, the industries listed above will rise dramatically. This has the potential to open up huge amounts of jobs. Furthermore, people who work directly with animals are often exposed to a large amount of feces, bacteria, and methane, three things that can be extremely hazardous to a person's health. Thus, not only would there be other jobs opening if the meat industry closed, but these jobs would also be a lot safer for the workers. Thus, vegetarianism is an extremely positive lifestyle that can improve the world in many ways.

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

Title: Vegan diet is by whole a healthier way of life than any other diet Content: I concede that a super well-educated, highly intelligent nutritionist could make veganism a healthier way of life than other diet choices. However we must face the sad fact that this group of people is a tiny majority. Most people struggle with the idea of where their food comes from, let alone protein, vitamin and mineral content. So for the average person, being vegan poses a serious risk. Whereas when you eat a wide range of foods (as is inevitable if you have no dietary preferences), it's actually quite difficult to avoid a nutrient entirely, if you are a vegan, it is simply much easier. If you exclude fish from your diet, you exclude omega 3s and 6s, when you exclude meat, you exclude primary sources of protein, when you exclude milk, you exclude a crucial source of calcium... So the list goes on. If you make sufficient compensation for these issues, it is not a problem. However the majority of people don't appreciate the wide range of nutrients you end up omitting from your diet when you become vegan. Even for those who do, sometimes alternative foods have to be taken in such enormous quantities that its just impractical. Daily buckets of chickpeas simply aren't always the most efficient to ingest sufficient protein. So while, in theory, being vegan avoids health problems like cardiovascular disease (often caused by too much animal fats) it is not a healthier way of life. Suggesting that it is a healthier way of life entirely fails to address the fact that cardiovascular disease and problems with over consumption are often replaced with the equally dangerous problems that come with under consumption. Nutrient deficiency, protein deficiency and even starvation are just a few of the problems that omitting so many food groups can inadvertently cause. Another flaw in your argument is the fact that you seem to think becoming vegan will magically make your entire lifestyle healthier, not just your diet. This is quite simply not true. Taking all animal products out of your diet will not do one iota to change how much time you spend on the couch, how many times you go running a week or whether you walk or take the car. A healthy lifestyle is so much more than diet and therefore it is impossible to say that changing one aspect of your diet will have a magical knock on effect on the rest of your life choices.

Title: Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan Content: I cannot argue further for this round as you have made no attempt to extend my arguments.

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

Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: I must say, this argument made be chuckle a bit. Wylted seems to have brought upon a battle with his Elo being his only weapon.It was a good effort, however no amount of Elo will make a false statement any more true.I. Cross-Examination Right off the bat there is a major issue with Pro's Contentions. In nearly every statement there is a word like 'possibility' or 'potentially' and even 'predict'.Generally in an argument, you need to support it with empirical evidence, not with highly suggestive statements. Granted, the resolution does state that this event is a 'possibility' it also implies that this possibility is big enough that humans 'should' become vegans. For example, it is highly unlikely, though possible, that plants will spontaneously evolve into an intelligent entity and will kill all of those who ate their ancestors. So why don't we prepare for that too? For that matter why not just prepare for every possible life-threatening event? Build our houses out of solid steel, completely switch to clean power, imprison everybody to prevent rape and murder. You see, there is a plethora of possible and sometimes likely bad events that us humans refuse to prepare for. We like our wood houses, easy energy, and freedom. We are not ready to throw this all away for a mere possibility. Much less an unlikely one like AI domination.Now on to the clean-up."A computer with a super AI could potentially see us as energy and consume us so they can grow more powerful and stronger."Wouldn't an easier solution just be to not give these robots a mouth or human-based energy tanks? We made the robots, there is no need to give them things they don't absolutely require. Also why would a robot give itself a mouth when it is being given plenty of food already. If it was given a mouth why would humans be a source of energy and not the trillions of plants on this world? "Who are very inferior in intelligence. The best way to convince a machine not to use you as a food source is if you're a vegan."Think about what humans mostly eat. We eat cow, pig, chicken, lamb, clams, and sometimes deer. Notice something about all of these animals? They are all herbivores. We could simply tell the robots that we only eat mostly herbivores, with a few exceptions. So you should only eat herbivores too. Also, how is a cow being a herbivore convincing us not to eat it? That lacks logical sense. "A vegan can argue that it's wrong without being hypocritical."There is little difference between eating plants and animals. Both are life forms and both are being consumed by eating. A robot would not discriminate life forms. Vegans are also guilty of eating life and cannot say that robots shouldn't do the same.Due to the absurdly low word count, I have to close up here. However Pro's second contention can be simply argued that us being in a simulated environment is unlikely at best and is unsupported in any way by my opponent.II. Closing remarks Pro uses possibility too much. Out of words. Good luck.

Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: I sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.

Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: Thankfully, my opponent kept this last argument short. I shall follow suit. "FOOD FOR THOUGHT" Again, my opponent resorts to mere assumption. He cannot show that any of this consumption will happen or is likely to happen.Say I agree, AI will require energy to survive. Pro still has to show a few things.1. This energy will likely come from humans2. This AI will discriminate it's energy source by using the " You eat life so I will to." logic.3. This AI will even be capable of consuming humans. (Who's to say that this Super AI will not simply be a computer?)4. Of all matter in the world, this AI would likely choose humans as a good energy source. Even though we will resist and are in fewer quantities than say plants.Basically, Pro has completely failed to support his claim. He speculates. More about what could happen and less about what is likely to happen."THE EMPIRICAL HAS NO CLOTHES"Also a fairly naked argument (get it?). We live in a world of cause and effect. A cause leads to an effect which is then a cause for another effect. Therefore, in order to know the effect, you must know the cause.Everything is predictable, granted every possible cause is known. Since is is fairly impossible to know every factor causing an effect, we must take the causes we know and estimate the outcome.My opponent tries to shed his need to provide observable evidence (causes) to prove his claim (the effect). He does this by assuming uncertainty and piping that as a substitute for observable evidence. My opponent is not relieved of his BoP simply because of uncertainty. He must show what causes will lead a super AI into becoming human-hungry, and further that by explaining how it will decide that based off dietary habits.All of his attempts to do so (demonstrating morality, showing the possibility of rogue robots, and even suggesting we are being simulated) have been either refuted, unlikely, or irrelevant. Again, Pro needed to show the observable causes to support this AI. His sources have shown likely causes of revolting AI or computer simulation, but have shown nothing about veganism or human consumption. Wylted's Wager I didn't initially address this for a couple of reasons. For one, I ran out of character room. Secondly, it seems pretty silly and unreasonable.Forgive for being so simple minded but I fail to see how this Wager applies to this debate.First off, we are assuming that a super AI will/will not develop based off of a 50% chance. Heads or tails.Secondly we're assuming I can defend neither proposition, obviously false but I'll play along.Thirdly we're assuming the I must wager. Again, obviously not required but I'll humor poor old Wylted here. Finally we're assuming that either possibility will be either a gain or a loss. Here's where the problem emerges. It is not explained what gaining all means or what one gains. There also lacks an explanation of how one is to gain or lose. Which scenario is which? Not explained. Infinite happiness? Infinite gain?Not explained.

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

Title: Vegetarianism is good for your health Content: "Also being a vegan will cause you to naturally eat more carbohydrates which will cause you to become overweight as well" This is about vegetarianism not veganism. Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans. "Beans and nuts DO have protein but a person can't live with dairy foods, beans and nuts." That is their form of protein but with that and fruits and vegetables they can get a complete diet with everything they need in it. Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with. So why not prevent the problem to not need a solution (omega 3 fatty acids as the solution) to begin with? You seem to argue that vegetarians can not be healthy due to a lack of meat protein and other nutrients found only in meat. However the existence of healthy vegetarians suggests that to be incorrect. Here is a list of famous vegetarians. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a rather long list that includes people from all walks of life. Some are even professional athletes like Herschel Walker, obviously a healthy man. As with an omnivore diet, vegetarians must watch what they eat and have a well balanced diet. They can be healthy and are many times less likely to suffer from the many ailments associated with meat consumption.

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

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

Title: Going Vegan Content: Vegans don't eat, use, wear, purchase or otherwise consume anything of animal origin whatsoever . Like vegetarians, vegans don't eat meat or slaughter by products, but they also don't eat dairy products, eggs or honey. They don't wear leather, suede, wool, silk, fur, down, feathers or pearls. They source cosmetics, toiletries and other consumer goods that are made without animal ingredients and without animal testing, and they don't support industries that exploit animals for entertainment, like circuses or rodeos. People should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle and that way we don't harm or kill animals.

Title: Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Content: As you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming "picky-eaters". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the "meat" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic "epidemics", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.

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

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

Title: Animals should no longer be killed Content: Animals are being abused all over the world. A few days ago, a gorilla got shot for "attacking" a child. But when we eat a cow, you don't see anyone killing us. We have an unfair advantage. If one person becomes vegetarian, that wont help. Many people should become vegetarian. There is an animal called the amur leopard. It is the most endangered animal ever with less than 60 individuals left. This problem conspicuous yet noone does something about it.

Title: Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals. Content: I would like to address the counter point that you have brought up. Being vegetarian, to be precise a lacto vegetarian, means that the only things you are giving up is meat and eggs. This means that you still are eating all dairy products and other animal products. This is a key fact in this debate because being this type of vegetarian makes it that much easier for the individual to get the nutrients that he or she needs. Because the individual is missing out on only meat and eggs, as a researcher you must find what nutrients are prominent in each product. Meat contains mainly fats, proteins and iron. Each of these can be replaced in other food sources. The same goes for eggs, they contain mainly proteins fat and sodium. All of which can also be replaced by your diet. Although some people feel that not eating meat is a waste of a life because they would become weak, this is a complete myth. The reason that vegetarians are perceived as weak and feeble is because they are no fat because of all the meat they are eating. Therefore in comparison to the meat eater they may be weak and feeble, but they usually lead the healthier lifestyle.

Title: Vegetarianism is a good idea. Content: I'm very happy to hear you think my arguments are good. Thank you. To address your arguments, you quote from the article, 'Limit the animal-fare and you'll be reducing your likelihood for heart disease.' The key word here is 'limit.' The meat itself doesn't cause these diseases - rather a large quantity of meat is the source of the problem. "Studies... Have shown that eating high quantities of these meats (e.g. a small steak every day) also increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease." Once again, it's the high quantities of meat that cause the problem. "I wanted to say that people can reduce risk." Yes, people can reduce the risk by becoming vegetarians, but then they also open themselves up to a host of problems. In order to be a vegetarian, people must be very conscious about what they're eating in order to make sure they are getting a wide range of nutrients and often still needing to take additional supplements. For example, vitamin B12, which can only be found naturally in animal products, can lead to anemia and depression even with just a slight deficiency. People can also reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (and others) simply by eating in moderation. It is not necessary to fully remove meat from your diet. Meat is high in iron, protein and vitamin D, all nutrients that are more difficult to come by in a vegetarian diet. You also address environmental issues, which I would like to thank you for because it was not something I had previously thought about. After some time researching farming effects on the environment, here's what I found. First of all, the 'cutting down trees', is done not just for animal pastures but also for farming. So the same land that has its trees cut down to produce beef, might also be there to produce carrots. But in a study by the World Agroforestry Centre (WAC), scientists have recently found that many farms are planting and protecting trees spontaneously. To quote from the article, "Based on data from satellite images, the report is the first global study of tree cover on farms. It found tree canopies made-up more than ten percent of farmland spread across ten million square kilometres. The researchers' calculations indicate this quantity represents 46 per cent of all agricultural land - an area the size of China." Dennis Garrity, the director of WAC, says that it is a realistic fallback. I don't speak Russian, so I'll take your word for it, but it's important to note that *farming* uses 70% of water, not specifically farming animals. So to do away with eating meat would not help the problem very much - we do need food. In such a case, we need to use better irrigation systems to make sure that all the water consumed is not being wasted and that the water can be reused. Also, thank you for this debate. I'm learning a lot. Resources: http://content.time.com... http://www.healthaliciousness.com... http://www.coolearth.org...

Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: My opponent cannot seem to find fault in my argument. Well, thanks anyway for debating me.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning Content: Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home”[1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables.[2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them.[3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.

Title: Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead Content: The basic assumption made in this debate is that practitioners of either diet do so on a moral basis. Therefore health is not an issue of discussion. It is also not the intention of this debate to imagine a world where all people are either Freegan or Vegan. Our debate operates in a world where the number of Vegans and Freegans remains a constant. So neither my opponent nor I are claiming that everyone should switch to the respective diet we're arguing in favor of. It would be morally superior for practicing Vegans to become Freegan because it would reduce waste and preserve resources. Freeganism works to reduce the waste created in a traditional consumer economy. Freegans only eat food they are able to find for free that would otherwise go to waste. In 2008, food lost in retail totaled up to 43 billion pounds[3]. That is equivalent to 10% of all food sold at retail. But it's not just that this food is destroyed or wasted, most of this food is just thrown out after passing it's expiration date. And while it's true that you probably don't want to eat a piece of meat that's been in the open air for a few days, there's no reason meat that's slightly past it's expiration date and well packaged can't be eaten. Freeganism reduces this waste by consuming goods which would otherwise perish. Vegans do not reduce waste but instead consume goods they find less objectionable. Demand for vegan alternatives actually increase waste by adding potential goods to consume. [3] . http://www.nrdc.org... Sometimes, it's not even that the food has gone bad. Many companies won't sell food that doesn't meet a certain standard. I work at a bookstore / coffee shop. At the end of the night, any unsold coffee is poured down the drain; staff members aren't allowed to take the coffee instead of disposing it even if they want to. And because believe me, I want to. Further, we have to change the coffee we keep in the cylinders every 3 hours to ensure freshness as the coffee tastes burnt if it's in there for too long. Coffee can be stored in this format for up to two weeks before it goes bad[4], but because we don't want the coffee to taste burnt we waste it. Demand for vegan alternatives actually makes this waste worse. We can't just brew anything, we have to brew organic coffee also. This too is wasted every three hours and at the end of the night. [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Organic produce is expensive and unsustainable. The refusal to use fertilizer in organic farming strips land of it's fertility[5]. Instead of being good for the environment, vegan food wastes resources. Any argument on meat consumption doesn't hold water either. If one becomes a vegan, they may not directly contribute to waste of meat from over production, but they don't reduce it either. Eating meat that has been thrown away doesn't increase demand or contribute to the deaths of more animals. If an animal has already been slaughtered, refusing to eat it's meat won't bring the animal back to life. Not eating meat that would otherwise go to waste in preference of other goods is not a moral high ground, but a waste by means of omission. [5] . http://www.spiked-online.com... If meat is thrown into the trash, Vegan practices don't redeem the animal's death by not consuming it. Freegan practices do. Freegans don't opt to consume goods they find less objectionable, they eat whatever would otherwise go to waste. Their consumption doesn't even promote the slaughtering of animals if they happen to eat meat, as it doesn't correspond to any kind of market demand. They do however keep the animal from dying for no reason. They put the animal's resources to use. In conclusion Veganism is wasteful while Freeganism actually makes up for the waste of others. If existing Vegans became Freegan, we would greatly reduce waste without promoting the slaughtering of animals or unsustainable food production methods.

Title: A vegetarian diet is good for your health Content: "Most adult men should eat between 5.5 and 6.5 oz. of meat daily, while adult women require slightly less, between 5 and 5.5 oz. daily. Adolescents and children require less meat, but it is still recommended they eat some meat every day." (1) It is recommended that everybody eat at least some meat in their diet. Now the amounts may vary as it states but they still say you should eat some meat. Despite what my opponent has stated you can not get all things you need from just veggies. There are vitamins and minerals that are only found in meat. The healthy proteins found in meats act as building blocks for your body. Vitamin B12 which is found in abundance in meat is needed for healthy blood in your system. While the amounts of meat needed may be small it is the fact that they are needed to have a balanced diet as well as a healthy body that proves being a vegetarian is not a healthy diet. (1) http://www.livestrong.com...

Title: Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Content: Most vegetarians fall into the lacto-ovo category: They eat only non-animal products (fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, soy, etc.), but do eat animal byproducts, such as yogurt and eggs. In terms of nutritional requirements, being a lacto-ovo vegetarian isn"t all that different from being a meat-eater. But it provides all the nutrients without killing animals. That said, following a vegetarian diet "can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating. It can be one of the healthiest ways to eat, because we know plant foods are loaded with nutrients to protect our health According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than meat eaters. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index, lower overall cancer rates and lower risk of chronic disease.

Title: Vegan Diets are Healthier Content: This debate is about a vegan diet. Vegans are distinct from vegetarians in not eating any fish, dairy, eggs, or animal byproducts, whereas various types of vegetarianism permit some of these things. The resolution is that a vegan diets well-planned by a lay person are healthier than the corresponding non-vegan well-planned diets. A lay person is a person without specialized training or fanatical zeal. There are No Examples of Vegan Populations with Better Health If a vegan diet is healthier than surely Pro would lead off by pointing to some group of vegans somewhere who have better health than the average non-planning meat eater who survives on the typical dietary disasters overloaded with fat, cholesterol, and surplus calories. However, Pro did lead with such data, no where in the debate did he ever point to a single group of vegans with better health than people who eat meat promiscuously. I fully expected that there would be some vegan monks who live forever on soybeans. But no, Pro presented no data on vegans than put them ahead of hamburger gobblers, let alone careful balanced eaters. Broad studies show that the best health is enjoyed by people who have low-meat diets or fish diets. Vegans and those undisciplined meat eaters have the worse health. Vegetarians consuming dairy are somewhere in between in health. Pro made a small error in the saying that vegan data was skewed by having lots on non-smokers in the study group; actually it was the vegetarians who benefited from being non-smokers. Small groups of people adopt particular diets based upon tradition or religious beliefs. With these groups we expect to get closer to "well-planned" goals. Again, the big winners were groups having low-meat diets. Okinawans have the longest life expectancy in the world; there diet has fish and small amounts of meat. Vegetarians of the lax varieties do well; vegans are no to be seen in the most healthy populations. Theoretical Nutrition Because Pro has no data showing vegan populations having health better than meat-eaters, he must construct a theoretical argument based upon nutrients that would be in the hypothetical well-planned vegan. Pro points to all vitamins, fiber, and unsaturated fats available to vegans. He shows that there are vegan foods with enough protein and iron to avoid deficiencies. I agree. there are many healthful nutrients in vegetables. Pro points out that supplements are available to augment the Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D shortfalls characteristics of vegan diets. I again agree. It is possible to obtain a healthy diet within the bounds of vegan eating. But being theoretically able to have good health on a vegan diet does not suggest that a vegan diet is healthier than a non-vegan All the vegetables are available to those who also consume meat. At best the vegan diet can be equally healthy. The resolution requires Pro to prove that a vegan diet is not just equal, but superior. In fact, a diet containing almost entirely meat and fish can provide required nutrients. “What the diet of the Far North illustrates, says Harold Draper, a biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition, is that there are no essential foods—only essential nutrients. And humans can get those nutrients from diverse and eye-opening sources.” Health Hazards Pro correctly points out that unplanned meat diets tend to have too many calories an too much saturated fat. Well-planned diets with meat do not have too much. Vegan diets tend to have too little protein, vitamin B12, iron, omega-3s, Vitamin D, calcium, and iodine. Careful planning can avoid those shortfalls, but vegans typically do not do the needed planning, so vegan health is typically no better than unplanned meat eating. Since a balanced diet of meat and vegetables has all of the vegetable nutrients, the only way a meat diet can be less healthy is if there is something inherently bad in meat. Cholesterol, saturated fat, and calories are not inherently bad. Planning solves the potential hazards of getting too much. Vegans can get too much saturated fats from oils (coconut, palm, cottonseed), Saturated fats induce the liver to make cholesterol, so there is a cholesterol hazard. Vegans can certainly get too many calories (sugar, french fries, donuts, etc.). That too can be avoided by planning. The only potential inherent harms in meat are cancer risk from processed meats (like ham) or from more than 18 ounces of red meat per week. That's avoided by not eating processed meats, and eating less than 18 ounces of red meat. There is no identified risk from white meat, fish, dairy, or eggs. Hence there is no unavoidable risk in a diet that includes meat. A study by the WCRF claimed a correlation between red meat and cancer above the 18 ounce point. The study was examined by a scientific consulting company, Exponent, and found to be flawed. Pro claimed that Exponent could not be trusted for the sole reason that their results defended the meat industry. If that logic were true, then we should discount forensic evidence for the defense in a criminal trial on the sole grounds the expert is for the defendant. Pro claimed that I had presented nothing that indicated that it was a scientific controversy. What I presented were the very specific scientific objections raised by Exponent. Moreover, WCRF revised their report by publishing an errata in response to the objections. Clearly the objections were scientific. While admitting scientific errors, WCRF refused to modify their conclusions. In the process, they betrayed an anti-meat-industry bias. The burden of proof is upon Pro, and Pro did not respond to the specific scientific objections made. Vegan Diet Planning Making a well-planned balanced diet is not altogether trivial. Meat eaters must avoid too much red meat, too much saturated fat, and must avoid process meats. they must not consume too many calories. Vegans have a much more difficult task. They must make sure they do not consume too many calories or too much saturated-fat vegetable oil. The must also be sure they get enough protein, vitamin B12, iron, omega-3s, Vitamin D, calcium, and iodine. A profession nutritionist recommended that vegetarians track nutrients daily. The planning is greatly complicated by the vegan ground rule of no meat by-products. Pro said that all vegans need do is read the labels on food packages. That is insufficient because labels do not say what is animal based and what is plant based. The reference I gave tells that lecithin and gelatin are animal products. That's not common knowledge. Some vitamin supplements are animal-derived, others are plant-derived and that information is not disclosed. Minor or trace ingredients, like animal-based clarifiers in beer, are not disclosed. Restaurants do not have ingredient labeling. Even with labeled foods, reading every label and researching what is animal-derived is not an everyday task. We know that vegans don't do the needed planning because their health is no better than unplanned meat-eaters. Low-meat balanced diets have little or no problem with planning. A balanced diet is healthiest The American Heart Association, American Institute for Cancer Research, the American Institute for Health, and the World Cancer Research Fund all recommend a low-meat balanced diet for the best health. None recommend a vegan diet and Pro presented no authoritative recommendation for a vegan diet. Pro ignored many of my arguments. He never disputed that the source of nutrients doesn't matter. He didn't dispute that only calories cause obesity. Vegan diet is in practice less healthy, and at best it can only equal a low-meat balanced diet. The resolution is negated. ----- Thanks to Pro for a good topic and a fine debate. I learned much from researching this debate. For one thing, be sure to eat seal brains along with the blubber for good health.

Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: the act of eating other animals and their by-products for our sustenance is a behaviour that we inherited from our ancestors who were living in a different world to our world today ultimately as a species, we have highly adaptable digestive systems and our bodies have the mechanisms to extract the nutrients they need from both animal and plant foods. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. the change will have to be a gradual one, but at least we will be able to stop rationalising this carnivorous behaviour by basing it on adulterated scientific and philosophical reasonings, and we will be able to transcend to a level beyond the bounds of the burdened state of instinctual carnivorism like the rest of the animal kingdom. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. i will emphasise that this includes the end to dairy and egg produce also which are a huge part of our mistreatment of animals. also we should strive to end all aspects of our cruelty which includes animal driven transport and unnecessary animal skinned clothing.

Title: A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters. Content: A vegetarian diet is better than one of a meat eater's for various reasons, but in this argument I will stress on two.Animal Suffrage: Having a vegetarian lifestyle helps not only you as an individual, but also helps save millions of animals that get harmed and slaughtered yearly.It"s cruel and unethical to kill animals when vegetarian options are available.- Animals have emotions and social connections.- Scientific study shows cattle pigs and chickens and all warm-blooded experience stress, fear and pain- 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds killed for food each year.-; These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.-; Raising animals in confinement is cruel. -; 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. -; In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers. - Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are. - Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). Animals raised for food in US not slaughtered humanely.-HMSA (Humane methods of slaughter act) necessitates that cows be unconscious before slaughter to readuce suffering - Birds and pigs have no rules of such- And slaughter houses still mostly ignore HMSAHealth and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet gives one a complete nutrition with additional health benefits that meat cannot provide.- According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat eating diet because- Vegetarian diets meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids), and improve health. - It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one"s health. - According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. - Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. - Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. -Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.- There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.- According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters. -A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.- A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women - 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.- A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. Vegetarians live longer. - A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease. - A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years. - A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women. - On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortalityA vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. - According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians.- Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.-Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. [124] Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. - According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer. - The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further. - A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. World Hunger: Eating Meat uses up many of the plant resources and causes most third world countries to not be able to grow enough food. A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. - Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.- If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide. Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people.

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

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

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

Title: Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial Content: Once again, yes you can get nutrition but you do not get the extra two years of life, according to the German Cancer Research Center, Loma Linda University, and many other studies. The oldest woman ever was a vegetarian, and even if people smoke and are vegetarians they generally have a longer life expectancy. They are also less likely to have cancer and osteoporosis. Unless you have an IQ so low that you need a tape to tell you to breath, having these reduced risks and longevity of life would be seen as healthy due to the fact that you restrict your meat intake. Why is it so hard to comprehend? I would like to remind voters that even though these benefits are achieved through other forms of vegetarianism, pesci-vegetarianism is still beneficial. I would also like to remind you that there would not be billions of people jobless. We created diversified economies for this very reason. The fish industry would need more workers, as would the soy industry. Yes, jobs in the meat industry will disappear, but with new demands comes new jobs. And please remember, I never said that everyone should go vegetarian and not everyone will, but the people who do it (the number of vegetarians have increased to 10 times the number that they used to be), will benefit the environment, and if it keeps on growing at this rate, the economy will be able to go into a smooth transition. About elitism once more, people could make the same argument about gyms and other health centers. So maybe it is a type of elitism. Does it have a negative impact? Some people could say that because people are getting healthy that TV industries are at steak, which they are. But we do not see this as something that it necessarily harmful. That will not cause a WWIII, and neither will pesci-vegetarianism, as my opponent points out, so why won't people at least have respect for the idea. Besides, once again going back to the environment, will the environment wait for the economy to be perfect? No, which is why sometimes we have to realize that the earth itself is more important than money. My opponent claims that economic impacts outweigh environmental impacts. Which is more important I ask you? The air you breath or the green in your wallet? The earth you live on or your job that depends on the earth give us a healthy environment. Well, with methane and nitrus oxide emitted from the animals that you eat every day make the economy worsen because the earth worsens. When the health of the earth is at steak, we simply cannot continue to ignore it and let it get worse as we become selfish and decide to not help. CON says that this way of eating is horrible overall, but really it is part of a solution to our problems, because we live longer, we help the earth, we take away jobs but give new ones. It helps the air in your lungs and the earth that you see every day.

Title: Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat Content: A few reasons why vegetarianism is not just a "bad excuse to not eat meat".ReligionSome religions such as many Hindu sects, and Jainism require vegetarianism. Religion is a matter of personal belief. Some people derive great meaning and purpose from religion. A person who is a vegetarian because of their religion does not just have a "bad excuse to not eat meat".Personal Feelings/PsychologyEverybody has their personal feelings about things. A person might think eating intestines or liver or dog is disgusting. Why? It just really comes down to how the person feels. Some people might see meat and think of the animal getting slaughtered while eating it. I don't, but some people might and if I did I probably would be a vegetarian. Some people's personal feelings might be such that they have a psychological need to be a vegetarian and trying not to be would hurt their psychological health.Taste BudsEverybody has different taste buds. Some people might just find that they don't like the taste of meat.Dietary NeedsA planned vegetarian diet can have some health benefits. There is less risk of problems associated with the consumption of meat. Protein can be substituted with soy, beans, and nuts. Many vegetarians also drink milk and eat eggs. It is not necessary to be a vegan in order to be a vegetarian. Some people might even adopt a vegetarian diet to help them in achieving something, such as athletics.http://www.nomeatathlete.com...In some cases vegetarianism is recommended for medical treatment, such as with some cases of rheumatoid arthritis.http://www.pcrm.org...Food SafetySome underdeveloped countries have poor sanitation and the people are too poor to affoard modern appliances to keep food clean. Keeping meat sanitary and free of infection may be difficult and there may be many diseases such as E. Coli that a person could catch. In fact that's still an occassional problem in developed countries, although it is easier for us to take measures to make sure it is ok if we cook it. If a person is legitimately concerned about getting infected that's a good reason to be a vegetarian.Political ConcernsPeople have their own political beliefs that may play into the decision. A person might not even think meat should be illegal, but consider the way the meat industry is run today to be a travesty based on how livestock is treated while alive or based on where the meat might be coming from, such as countries with exploitative labor practices. Whether or not they are right people are entitled to their own opinions.

Title: A vegetarian diet is good for your health Content: First of all: Thank you for accepting. Now on to the debate: In my opinion a vegetarian diet has a lot of benefits. Among those are a better health and an overall more conscious and balanced diet. It furthermore helps to avoid or at least lower the risks of getting certain diseases. Eating meat is bad for your heart: Studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine show that especially red meats, such as the meat of cows and ducks and many processed meats contain a lot of saturated fat, which increases the amount of cholesterol in your blood and thereby increases the risk of a coronary heart or cardiovascular disease. Eating meat increases the risk of cancer: Another study published in the British Journal of Cancer has shown that there is a connection between the consumption of meat is connected to the development of cancer. One theory is that the fat in those types of meat boosts the hormones promoting cancer. Processed and red meat are again the most risky, as those who eat them have the highest risk for breast cancer. Vegetarians are thinner: A study from the Imperial College London showed that those eating meat gained weight faster and it is a widely known fact that your weight has an immediate impact on your health. Many nutritionists also support the theory that vegetarianism supports a healthy weight. A plant-based diet lowers your blood pressure: American and Japanese researchers (both from universities and medical facilities) have found out that a plant-based diet is rich in both potassium and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Both of those substances have been linked to a lower blood pressure. Additionally to all those health benefits of a vegetarian diet, a plant-based diet also forces the vegetarian to eat more consciously. He or she has to watch out for slaughter by-products and meat in all their food and thereby also learns of all the other ingredients of it. Sources:1. http://www.brown.edu...; _eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php#4 2. http://www.womenshealthmag.com...

Title: People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence. Content: The chuckle continues as I see a man so haughty as Wylted deliver such a poor argument. Relying on me to not catch obvious flaws and trying to force a ridiculous idea into his rebuttal. Allow me to explain. I. Cross-Examination " I've used citations from some of the world's leading experts on AI, and yet my opponent refuses to refute them. If experts working in these fields believe a super AI is inevitable in our lifetime, why does my opponent disagree?" My apologies, I must've just failed to see how these sources supplement Pro's position. Let's start with the first one. http://www.smithsonianmag.com...... Here, Pro tries to support his case by showing that 'Super AI' has the potential to go rogue. However, I see no connection. Pro is trying to show that this intelligence will one day desire human meals, and will base said desire off of whether the entre'e is vegan or not. Here's the problem, a robot going off it's chain and revolting would in no way entail it being hungry for human nor care for the dietary habits of a human. I'm not denying we will ever see Super AI or that said AI will become a problem, I'm merely questioning how this happening would cause carnivorous robots. Onto the another source he uses, http://www.simulation-argument.com...This source suffers from the same problem as the rest of Wylted's argument. It is highly suggestive, not empirical.Merely explaining the possibility of a situation, is not proving said situation.Again, even if we are in a simulated environment, there is absolutely nothing showing that we are being observed/tested for moral capabilities. There lacks observable evidence showing this happening and therefore lacks a reason for fear not being vegan."What's the worst likely thing that can happen if you become vegan.(?) If an unfriendly super AI never develops, the worst thing that happens is that you have transitioned to a healthier diet " #1. Is that a question? #2. There are many cons to becoming vegan. Such as: -Buying more expensive food - Lacking large amounts of complete protein (especially a problem for muscle builders who require substantial amounts) -Resisting the natural urge to eat meat -No longer being able to enjoy animal-based meals -Forced into Eating food that is unpalatable (Up to individual opinion) #3. This is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution suggests the reason for going vegan is the benefit of not being the dinner of 'super AI' not for health reasons"It's beyond common sense that veganism is more humane. So the worst thing that happens if my scenario is false is still a bunch of good stuff, but if I'm right and an unfriendly super AI develops, what you'll experience after this "singularity" is immortality. http://www.thatsreallypossible.com...;Again, completely irrelevant. My opponent being wrong and "good" stuff happening doesn't explain why Veganism should be put to practice as a result of Super AI.His source is once again speculation.Out of words again. Dammit Wylted.Good luck Pro

Title: Vegetarianism is good for your health Content: Although I am far from a vegetarian I do see the health benefits in that lifestyle. However one can not just go and eat just anything vegetarian and think that is good for them. http://www.livestrong.com... "According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians are also at lower risk for becoming obese, due to diets with significantly lower levels of saturated fat and cholesterol. It is important, however, to plan your vegetarian diet so that you are consuming sufficient levels of all necessary nutrients." Too much meats in our diets are the cause of many health problems. However if a vegetarian lives off junk food like soda and potato chips of course he is not going to be healthy. Most vegetarians, especially those who actually studied nutrition, are much healthier than the average omnivore. As for the proteins found in meats, foods such as beans and nuts have protein as well. I am not denying the benefits of meat protein but I am saying it can easily be substituted in a vegetarian diet. That way they get the benefits of the proteins without the health risks associated with meats. America has a high meat diet and a high obesity rate. All medical evidence in the field of nutrition would suggest that that is not a coincidence.

Title: Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan Content: Again, I cannot argue further as you forfeited the round.

Title: A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet Content: 1st no need to opologise we share some of the same beliefs like evolution in creation. I believe based on proof that micro evolution is an important part of what goes on in the earth. That is the only proven part of evolution. But that's for another debate. Many more people in foreign third world country's would go hungry with out the ability to eat meat. How bout the Eskimos or Inuits meat is a vital food source in a place that's unforgiving, what about tribes in Africa even more of there kids would be go hungry without meat, especially in the small untouched tribes. We still need to test a balanced diet of meat and vegetables against a all veggie diet to conclude that no meat is healthier. If we should not kill a living thing because it is 85 percent human then why should we be able to kill one that is only 15 that's a little bit discriminating if we are going to go to the point of 85 percent human DNA means a animal is a sentient bien. Yes we should rule over them with care not slaughtering them, but why would God require living animals as sacrifices if they were sentient. And Isaiah 65:25 is a prophesy of the 1000 year reign when animals will live together in peace and there will be no wars. But that again is another debate I will save escatology for later. :) I never said evolution was a guidelines of life but why would anyone who believes in it want to mess with the natural cycle of the earth. Yes we do breed lots more cows now but they would eventually get way larger in population then now and consume just as much water just like our population continues to increase. And you didn't really rebute my plant oxygen argument. My apologies for the hasty sound of this round this is a last minute debate on the last hour off the top of my head. Bed times in 10 minutes. School sucks. Will bring a more sourceful argument next round.

Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: I accept.